NBA Realignment Favors the Wolves

shrink · Post #1 » by **shrink** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 5:54 pm

OK, before I start, if there was ever any doubt I was a numbers nerd, this should dispel it.

I was curious if the Northwest Conference, specifically the Wolves, had to travel farther than other teams to play teams within its conference. The answer is a flat out "yes." Moving in with MIL etc would be far better to reduce travel and create regional rivalries.

I looked at the league as it stands right now, and using longtitude and latitude, I determined the geographic midpoint of each conference. They were, as follows:

Atlantic - Newark NJ: (Boston, Toronto, New Jersey, New York, Philadelphia)
Central - Toledo Ohio: (Detroit, Cleveland, Indiana, Chicago, Milwaukee)
Southeast - Savannah, GA: (Orlando, Washington, Atlanta, Charlotte, Miami)

Southwest - Houston, TX: (New Orleans, San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, Memphis)
Northwest - Jackson Hole, WY: (Utah, Denver, Portland, Minnesota, Seattle)
Pacific - Las Vegas, NV: (L.A. Lakers, L.A. Clippers, Phoenix, Golden State, Sacramento)

If SEA moves to OKC, assuming they stay in the Northwest

New Northwest - Denver, CO: (Oklahoma City, Utah, Denver, Portland, Minnesota)

Here are the average distances traveled to the center of their division:

142 miles Atlantic - Newark NJ
197 miles Central - Toledo Ohio
371 miles Southeast - Savannah GA
272 miles Southwest - Houston, TX
728 miles Northwest - Jackson Hole, WY
393 miles Pacific - Las Vegas, NV

677 miles New Northwest - Denver CO (if SEA goes to OKC)

Right now, the travel distances are highly unequal. Why should Portland and Minnesota, two teams 1700 miles apart, develop a rivalry when we have a great one in football, between MIN and Green Bay? While its true that teams on the coast travel farther for non-conference games, if the NBA wants to develop true rivalries to boost sales, realignment is in order.

This might be a good time to remove a division, and instead of having 6 divisions with 5 teams, have 5 divisions with 6. With the frustration of seeing ATL go to the play-offs over a far better GSW, I think it could be a good time for a change. In the new version, the top two teams of the each conference go to the play-offs, plus the next six teams with the best records. Winning your division gets you a top 5 seed, and the other 11 teams are seeded by record. This seeding also corrects a flaw in the current system, where two dominant teams play in, say, the West Coast Finals, and the championship series ends up being an anticlimatic 4-0 sweep by the dominant conference.

Atlantic - Trenton NJ: (Boston, Toronto, New Jersey, New York, Philadelphia, Washington)
Central - South Bend, IN: (Detroit, Cleveland, Indiana, Chicago, Milwaukee, Minnesota)
Southeast - Tallahassee FLA: (Miami, Orlando, Atlanta, Charlotte, Memphis, New Orleans)
West - Lubbock, TX: (San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, Oklahoma City, Utah, Denver)
Pacific - Las Vegas, NV: (L.A. Lakers, L.A. Clippers, Phoenix, Golden State, Sacramento, Portland)

Here are the average distances traveled to the center of their division:

172 miles Atlantic - Trenton NJ
233 miles Central - Toledo Ohio
414 miles Southeast - Talahassee, FLA
532 miles West - Lubbick, TX
498 miles Pacific - Las Vegas, NV

As you can imagine, reducing the number of centers from six to five in the US is sure to increase the distances, as a new city tugs the center closer to itself, and away from the other cities. However, the increase is very small. In the current system, with SEA nearing as OKC, the average distance is 342. Under the new system, the average is 369.

The new system also reduces the need to play conference games two time zones away. For those interested, here's MIN's numbers:

MIN in Northwest with SEA: 1160 miles to geographic center of conference (Jackson Hole)
MIN in Northwest with OKC: 915 miles to geographic center of conference (Denver)
MIN in Central: 502 miles to geographic center of conference (South Bend)

Post #2 » by **revprodeji** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 5:59 pm

I love you....

but seriously, I know the cost of travel is a big deal, but also if we were able to play Milwaukee and Chicago we could possibly have a real rival like in football. Where as right now we hate portland, but we do not have a natural rival. I have always advocated that the wolves should be in the same division as our local teams.

Sad enough, this might just be too much paperwork for the league to do.

prefuse73 · Post #3 » by **prefuse73** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 6:02 pm

So we do away with the east and west confrences correct? Since there is 5 divisions, you obviously can not have teams equally distributed among 2 confrences.

I like the idea and I am all for making the playoffs a seeded 1 to 16 rather than 2 1 to 8 brackets. I know its not a big deal, but the all-star game would have to change dramatically.

Post #4 » by **C.lupus** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 6:17 pm

Good work shrink. I was going to volunteer to figure out the distances in GIS software but I'm too busy right now. Anyway, I've been wanting a central division (Great Lakes division?) rivalry for the Wolves for a long time. I'm all for this. Who do we call?

funkatron101 · Post #5 » by **funkatron101** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:13 pm

I would love this.

deeney0 · Post #6 » by **deeney0** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:19 pm

shrink, you're amazing.

I don't quite understand the logistics of an odd number of divisions though, especially as it pertains to conferences. What are your conferences now?

Post #7 » by **Basti** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:30 pm

shrink you should ask glen taylor if you could make money with the way you're spending so much time for the wolves

great job!

shrink · Post #8 » by **shrink** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:51 pm

C.lupus wrote:Good work shrink. I was going to volunteer to figure out the distances in GIS software but I'm too busy right now.

Man, I'd love that. I tried to cobble this together with a spreadsheet and (lol) Mapquest. Would it matter if I sent you the coordinates? Does the GIS softward allow you to do linear programming, locating the sites that would minimize distances?

the_incredible_basti wrote:shrink you should ask glen taylor if you could make money with the way you're spending so much time for the wolves

Think he'd fly me out to lobby Stern? I think the numbers work, and the chance he'd get a rivalry with Wisconsin would probably make it worth the gamble financially. However, there are probably backroom deals between the league and the billionaires that help get teams where the owners want them, that supercedes the math. :/

funkatron101 · Post #9 » by **funkatron101** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:59 pm

Unfortunately I think it is going to be a long time before another realignment happens.

Post #10 » by **C.lupus** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:01 pm

shrink wrote:Man, I'd love that. I tried to cobble this together with a spreadsheet and (lol) Mapquest. Would it matter if I sent you the coordinates? Does the GIS softward allow you to do linear programming, locating the sites that would minimize distances?

GIS is magic. It can do anything. :wink:

If you post the coordinates, I'll see what I can do. As I said, I'm pretty busy right now (trying to hire 5 people at the moment) but it would be fun to work on.

shrink · Post #11 » by **shrink** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:02 pm

prefuse73 wrote:So we do away with the east and west confrences correct? Since there is 5 divisions, you obviously can not have teams equally distributed among 2 confrences.

I like the idea and I am all for making the playoffs a seeded 1 to 16 rather than 2 1 to 8 brackets. I know its not a big deal, but the all-star game would have to change dramatically.

Right -- conferences I think are messing things up right now, if they are keeping better teams out of the play-offs. Five divisions and six at-large bids would make sure the best teams make the play-offs.

Good point about the All Star Game. I hadn't really considered it, but if we're thinking outside the box, how about making the exhibition game US vs the World? I think that'd draw good ratings, and it'd be fun to see a couple teammates have to play against each other. Who would the line-ups be?

Yao
Duncan
Dirk
Ginobili
Nash, Parker

Dwight Howard
Garnett, Bosh
LeBron
Kobe
Wade, Chris Paul

I'm sure I'm missing many great players, but let me ask .. is the international team deep enough?

shrink · Post #12 » by **shrink** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:04 pm

Atlantic
Boston 42 21 71 5
Toronto 43 40 79 24
New Jersey 40 51 74 7
New York 40 47 73 58
Philadelphia 39 57 75 10
40.8 43.2 74.4 20.8 Newark
Central
Detroit 42 20 83 3
Cleveland 41 28 81 37
Indiana 39 46 86 10
Chicago 41 50 87 37
Milwaukee 43 2 87 55
41.2 29.2 84.8 28.4 Toledo
Southeast
Orlando 28 30 81 22
Washington 38 53 77 2
Atlanta 33 45 84 23
Charlotte 35 14 80 50
Miami 25 46 80 12
31.8 37.6 80.4 21.8 Savannah
Northwest
Utah 40 46 111 54
Denver 39 45 105 0
Portland 45 31 122 41
Minnesota 44 59 93 14
Seattle 47 37 122 90
43 43.6 110.6 39.8 Jackson Wyoming
Pacific
L.A. Lakers 34 3 118 15
Phoenix 33 29 112 4
Golden State (oak) 37 48 97 28
Sacramento 38 35 121 30
L.A. Clippers 34 3 118 15
35.2 23.6 113.2 18.4 Las Vegas
Southwest
New Orleans 29 57 90 4
San Antonio 29 23 98 33
Houston 29 45 95 21
Dallas 32 46 96 46
Memphis 35 9 90 3
30.8 36 93.8 21.4 Houston

OK City 35 26 97 28
Utah 40 46 111 54
Denver 39 45 105 0
Portland 45 31 122 41
Minnesota 44 59 93 14
40.6 41.4 105.6 27.4 Denver

Longtitude (Third column) is negative of course

Post #13 » by **Klomp** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:30 pm

shrink wrote:I'm sure I'm missing many great players, but let me ask .. is the international team deep enough?

Gasol, Turkoglu, Okur, Barbosa, Calderon, Biedrins are on the next level.

Rocky5000 · Post #14 » by **Rocky5000** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 5:44 pm

It'd be a better way to break up games between divisions too. Right now we play each time in the division 4 times, and everyone else in the same conference about 4 times, but some teams you only see 3 times. Say you keep the divisions at 4 games 82-20 = 72 among 24 teams, and you'd play them each 3 times. So each team in a division would face the same exact competition an equal number of times.

shrink · Post #15 » by **shrink** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 8:33 pm

Good thinking, but 82-20 = 62.

I played with the basic concept a bit, and I couldn't get it to work out with an 82 game schedule to play 29 other teams. At a minimum there should be a home and away games with everyone in the league, and I think two home-and-aways seems like a minimum for your division rivals too. that works out to be

20 = 4 games x 5 teams in your division
48 = 2 games x 24 teams outside your division
-------------------------------------------------------
68 games played

But how to divide up the last 14 games fairly?

Since I'm way out in imaginary land already, how about this:

Since we're trying to develop regional, divisional rivalries, each team plays a 3 home and 3 away games within the division, so division games would be 30.

The remaining four games would be in a regional division tournament at the end of the season, like many colleges have for their conference. Each of the six teams plays three games, and the top two face each other for a conference championship, while the other four play a consolation game. Winning the tournament gets you an automatic entry into the NBA play-offs, so young teams that develop through the season, or a team that's hot at the end can still get in. If the team with the best division record is also the team that whens its division tournament, simply add another at-large bid for the 16-team play-offs.

This might help provide a little more incentive to combat another problem .. tanking. Fans may not give up on a horrible team 2/3rds through the season, because if they improve, they may still have a chance at the tournament. Young players have a bigger goal in front of them. Teams also have some extra incentive because the final games of the season are against teams in your division, so even bad teams will try to play well to beat their rivals in the tournament.

The NBA can also use thedivisional tournaments to expand it into other cities, much like having NOH in OKC helped them show they could handle logistical problems and generate fan interest.

30 Division
48 Non-Division
4 Division Tournament

deeney0 · Post #16 » by **deeney0** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 5:00 pm

Alright, bear with me.

I think no matter how the divisions and conferences are aligned, Wolves would get screwed, along with the other teams in the middle of the country. Teams in the middle of the country have the "luxury" (at least thats how its commonly viewed) of shorter distances to the coasts, so it's not as much of a big deal to play a game at home, then a game on the east coast, then a game at home, then a game on the west coast in a four game stretch. This way they can avoid the "burden" of long road trips.

I don't think an analysis will support that road trips are bad. Two of the best teams to come out of the middle of the country over the last two decades, Chicago and San Antonio, both take a crazy long road trips in the middle of the season (for the circus and rodeo, respectively.)

The key in my mind is that with long road trips come long home stands. Teams like the Wolves are deficient in these, and I think it hurts. So the key might not be as much alignment, but scheduling.

shrink · Post #17 » by **shrink** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 6:58 pm

One point I could have made is that while the Wolves may travel farther than other teams, since they are in the middle of the country, they may suffer less jet lag, because they are never more than two time zones from their home. Teams on either coast have to suffer through three time zone changes. A long road trip allows a team to acclimatize to the time zone change.

Post #18 » by **C.lupus** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 10:57 pm

OK shrink, I'm not sure if this is exactly what you wanted but here you go. I created a polygon for each division using the cities as the verticies. I then calculated the center of the polygon (the centroid) and then calculated the straight-line distance from each city to the centroid. Here is a map of the current divisions so you can see what I'm talking about. The red dots are the centroids of the polygons, blue dots are the cities with NBA teams.

So, using that methodology, here are the average linear distances traveled to the center of each division (i.e., centroid of polygon):

163 miles Atlantic
149 miles Central
333 miles Southeast
254 miles Southwest
554 miles Northwest
237 miles Pacific

537 miles New Northwest (if SEA goes to OKC)

Here are the average linear distances traveled to the center of your new divisions :

170 miles Atlantic
191 miles Central
334 miles Southeast
407 miles West
328 miles Pacific

Here are Minnesota's distances to centroids:

MIN in Northwest with SEA: 780 miles to geographic center of conference
MIN in Northwest with OKC: 612 miles to geographic center of conference
MIN in Central: 370 miles to geographic center of conference

shrink · Post #19 » by **shrink** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 1:15 am

Wow -- that's just gorgeous. Thanks CL. I really appreciate that.

I took those numbers and added the average travel distance and found them virtually identical 279 in the current system, and 286 by my reorganized, 5-division system. This is surprising, since the new system only uses five centroids, instead of 6, so I think the system is better.

I'm curious if your GIS program allows you to ask a question like: "what locations minimize travel distance is you are allowed to use six centroids .. i.e. what teams would be best grouped into conferences?"

Thanks for taking the time to do this. I don't have access to these kind of tools, so I feel like I'm trying to carve a statue with a sledgehammer sometimes.

Post #20 » by **C.lupus** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 2:57 pm

I thought of doing a similar calculation after I posted yesterday but I was too tired. I think it would be interesting to see the average distance to the centroid for each team but also compare the variability. So, here are the mean and standard deviation of the trvel distances using all 30 teams:

Current system
mean distance = 282
std dev = 180

shrink's system
mean distance = 292
std dev = 153

So your realignment doesn't change the average travel for teams much but does make it a bit more equitable.

The GIS software can calculate the best grouping based on distance. It does this by doing a nearest-neighbor analysis. Unfortunately, I can't do it at home. My laptop that had GIS on it died and the GIS software I have is not compatable with my new laptop, which is Vista (and I don't have an extra $2500 to purchase newer software). I borrowed my wife's work laptop that has an older, basic version of GIS on it but the nearest-neighbor calculations were off (it said Memphis and OKC were closer than Detroit). So, I will have to do that at work.

In the meantime, here are the distances for all the teams:
Atlantic dist to center
Boston 214
Toronto 240
NY 116
NJ 102
Phil 144
average 163.2

Central
Detroit 121
Cleveland 186
Indiana 132
Chicago 130
Milwaukee 175
average 148.8

Southeast
Orlando 287
Wash 482
Atlanta 239
Charlotte 184
Miami 472
average 332.8

Northwest
Utah 263
Denver 355
Portland 695
Minnesota 780
Seattle 678
average 554.2

Pacific
L.A. 116
Phoenix 387
GS 285
Sac 279
L.A. 116
average 236.6

Southwest
NO 242
SA 342
Houston 180
Dallas 202
Memphis 303
average 253.8

NW w/ OKC
OKC 591
Utah 381
Denver 149
Portland 950
Minnesota 614
average 537

New 5-division alignment

Atlantic dist to center
Boston 248
Toronto 231
New 118
New 104
Phil 123
Wash 195
average 169.8

Central
Detroit 195
Cleveland 277
Indiana 169
Chicago 46
Milwaukee 81
Minnesota 375
average 190.5

Southeast
Orlando 288
Memphis 400
Atlanta 167
Charlotte 350
Miami 477
NO 324
average 334.3

Pacific
Portland 550
L.A. 286
Phoenix 493
Golden 203
Sac 150
L.A. 286
average 328

Southwest
Utah 650
Denver 343
OKC 267
San 457
Houston 550
Dallas 355
average 407.25

*is this a geek discussion or what?*