Estimated read time: 7-8 minutes
This archived news story is available only for your personal, non-commercial use. Information in the story may be outdated or superseded by additional information. Reading or replaying the story in its archived form does not constitute a republication of the story.
SALT LAKE CITY — Look around the NBA and you'll see that it seems true: the bigger the market, the bigger the problems.
New York City has two teams with the New York Knicks and the Brooklyn Nets. The Knicks have a 20-27 record, one does-he-want-to-stay-or-not superstar (Carmelo Anthony); one former star who has a tendency of either disappearing for a game or taking way too many shots when he does play (Derrick Rose); and one 32-year-old center slated to make $72 million over the next four years to average 5.3 points per game (Joakim Noah).
They have a team president (Phil Jackson) who wants to play a style that doesn't match his personnel, and an embattled coach (Jeff Hornacek) who is being undermined by the fact that he has one of the worst coaches in league history (Kurt Rambis) assigned as his defensive coordinator.
The other New York team, the Nets, is much less dramatic. They just have far and away the worst record in the league at 9-36. Unfortunately, they won't see the best of the fruits of this record because they traded away their first-round pick this year to the Boston Celtics for Kevin Garnett and Paul Pierce back in the day. Yikes.
While the Nets are the league's worst team, the second-worst team is the Los Angeles Lakers. They're not especially dramatic at the moment, now that Kobe's retired, but they are sure are lacking in talent. They might be good long term, except for they too gave up their first-round pick this year to another team. So long as the lottery balls don't have the Lakers selecting top three (a likely scenario), their pick will head to Philadelphia.
And then Chicago, the league's third-biggest market, has the Chicago Bulls. They're 23-24, pretty good to be mentioned here, except that their team is imploding thanks to issues up and down the roster. In particular, Rajon Rondo put his team's veterans Jimmy Butler and Dwyane Wade on blast on Instagram Thursday, after Butler and Wade called out the youngsters for a lack of heart and desire.
Now, there are good big-market teams. The LA Clippers are one, and of course, the Golden State Warriors play in the league's fifth-biggest market. And there are bad small-market teams too (hello, Pelicans). But overall, there does seem to be a small negative correlation between market size and winning.
To find out with real data, not just anecdotal evidence, I compared teams' records to the Combined Statistical Area population totals of their markets. Combined Statistical Area is a tool created by the United States Office of Management and Budget to reflect not only the metropolitan areas that surround a city, but also the larger areas that fall within that market's purview. So, for example, someone from Connecticut is pretty likely to be a Boston Celtics fan, buying jerseys and watching that team's games on TV. So the Celtics get credit for Connecticutians.
Three NBA cities aren't parts of the 166 CSAs, Phoenix, San Antonio, and Toronto. In those cases, their metropolitan populations are used.
| Market | CSA Rank | CSA Pop (2015 Est) | Winning % |
|---|---|---|---|
| NYC | 1 | 23,723,696 | 43% |
| BRK | 1 | 23,723,696 | 20% |
| LAL | 2 | 18,679,763 | 32% |
| LAC | 2 | 18,679,763 | 64% |
| CHI | 3 | 9,923,358 | 49% |
| WAS | 4 | 9,625,360 | 56% |
| GS | 5 | 8,713,914 | 85% |
| BOS | 6 | 8,152,573 | 60% |
| DAL | 7 | 7,504,362 | 35% |
| PHI | 8 | 7,183,479 | 39% |
| HOU | 9 | 6,855,069 | 69% |
| MIA | 10 | 6,654,565 | 35% |
| ATL | 11 | 6,365,108 | 59% |
| TOR\* | XX | 6,054,191 | 61% |
| DET | 12 | 5,319,913 | 46% |
| PHX\* | XX | 4,574,531 | 33% |
| MIN | 14 | 3,866,768 | 37% |
| CLE | 15 | 3,493,596 | 68% |
| DEN | 16 | 3,418,876 | 44% |
| ORL | 17 | 3,129,308 | 38% |
| POR | 18 | 3,110,906 | 43% |
| CHA | 21 | 2,583,956 | 50% |
| SAC | 22 | 2,544,026 | 40% |
| UTA | 23 | 2,467,709 | 63% |
| SA\* | XX | 2,384,075 | 80% |
| IND | 26 | 2,372,530 | 51% |
| MIL | 30 | 2,046,092 | 47% |
| NOP | 36 | 1,493,205 | 39% |
| OKC | 39 | 1,430,327 | 60% |
| MEM | 42 | 1,370,716 | 57% |
There's a -0.24 correlation here, not strong enough to conclude that market size is by any means the biggest factor in team success. But I also think it's enough to conclude that the old chestnut that "small market teams are less likely to succeed in the NBA" is definitely false.
In fact, I wonder if sometimes having the big market hurts teams, increasing the pressure to win now via not-so-smart big-picture moves. The Knicks, obviously, are an example of this. Sure, Phil Jackson had a great coaching resume, but what about that resume showed he'd be highly qualified at personnel decisions? Why did a middling team with a budding superstar (Kristaps Porzingis) choose to pay an aging center (Noah) to play said superstar's position? For the Nets and Lakers, the pressure to win now caused them to give up the assets they need most: a high first-round pick in the best NBA draft in years. And for the Bulls, a lack of direction caused them to acquire both young talent finding their way and old vets who wouldn't be satisfied with the mediocre results that would come along with that youth.
Meanwhile, smaller market teams like the Spurs or Jazz kept trucking along, making good but less splashy personnel moves whenever possible. Pick a Rudy Gobert or a Kawhi Leonard outside of the lottery and develop them until they become great. Sign a Jonathon Simmons or Joe Ingles-type off the minimum salary player pool. Keep players that will fit your system, and jettison the ones who won't work long term (Enes Kanter, Boban Marjanovic).
Look, there are real advantages to being a big-market team: you might be able to afford to spend into the luxury tax. You can get meetings with available free agents, and you get to sell more jerseys and sponsorships and tickets at a higher rate. But from what we're seeing in the NBA this year, let's not forget: There are big advantages to being small, too.
