04/25/24
February 17, 2011
Four Celtics Make All-Star Team: The Boston Celtics have become the seventh team to put four players on an NBA All-Star team. Ray Allen, Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce and Rajon Rondo will be reserves for the East. "They're going to play about four minutes," said Eastern Conference (and Celtics) coach Doc Rivers. "Then I'm going to play LeBron, Wade and those guys probably a good 46, 47 minutes."
posted by rcade to basketball at 02:59 PM - 10 comments
Seems it would be healthier for the league if the talent wealth were more disbursed and more teams had a legitimate shot at contending.
The NBA seems like a few have's and a whole lot of have-nots.
posted by mayerkyl at 05:53 PM on February 17, 2011
Seems it would be healthier for the league if the talent wealth were more disbursed and more teams had a legitimate shot at contending.
I assumed TV rating said otherwise?
posted by jmd82 at 08:18 PM on February 17, 2011
They should do like hockey: put all the players in a pool and pick them school yard style. It would be a more interesting game that way. Especially if they pick them right before the game on live TV.
posted by jmauro2000 at 10:34 PM on February 17, 2011
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that tv ratings make for a rather short-sighted metric of league health. For example, even if the LA market is worth the MN/Charlotte/Pacer markets combined, isn't it better if all are competitive? LA fans will tune in if their team has a shot, as will the latter 3 markets when their team succeeds. But if LA is awesome, composed of 5 all-stars, their fans will watch, while the other 3 really won't if their only good player is Kevin Love, for example (I live in the Twin Cities, & you don't hear a ton about the Wolves).
I get that certain teams are national brands, but for people who aren't fans yet, what's the easiest way to hook them? I would think that the best way is to ensure that it is feasible for their local team to be good. It seems like the easiest way to continually expand (eg long-term picture) the NBA's influence involves setting up conditions where genuine parity is somewhat inevitable.
On the other hand, I'm a Celtics fan if anything, and am currently hopped up on cold meds, so maybe I'm off here.
posted by brainofdtrain at 10:45 PM on February 17, 2011
The NBA seems like a few have's and a whole lot of have-nots.
The Celtics All-Stars are comprised of two great draft picks and two trades. Most of the teams in the league could have done the same. Can't blame the Celtics if they didn't.
For example, even if the LA market is worth the MN/Charlotte/Pacer markets combined, isn't it better if all are competitive? LA fans will tune in if their team has a shot, as will the latter 3 markets when their team succeeds.
This has been disproved any number of times. Having big teams/ dynasties/ etc, either as heroes or villains, helps the overall popularity. Remember that not everyone living in a market is a fan of the local team.
posted by yerfatma at 07:55 AM on February 18, 2011
The Celtics All-Stars are comprised of two great draft picks and two trades. Most of the teams in the league could have done the same. Can't blame the Celtics if they didn't.
Not true. Teams that make terrible trades rarely have enough talent left on the roster for a second team to come knocking and bend them over again.
posted by grum@work at 10:26 AM on February 18, 2011
Well yes. So the answer is still: be smarter.
posted by yerfatma at 11:23 AM on February 18, 2011
So the answer is still: be smarter.
Like the Celtics.
posted by BornIcon at 01:03 PM on February 18, 2011
yerfatma,
Are there actual numbers for this? Not trying to attack here, it is just that I hear this a lot from the national media, but have never seen actual numbers. Of course THEY want a few juggernauts. it's a lot easier to do their jobs in that situation. It's a lot harder to cover 12 pretty good teams than three great ones.
I guess I'm just suspicious when I hear talking heads on ESPN make the argument you have; it smells self-serving. Especially when it becomes arguments like "the NBA is always better if the Lakers/Celtics are great." I get the historical importance of those franchises, but surely the fact that LA/Boston is also where most of the talking heads live is not a coincidence.
Last thing: my argument was for long term growth, not overall popularity in one year. I just really struggle to accept that a model where most teams have significant times of success and grow a tradition/mythology in their franchise over several decades is worse for long term growth than Lakers/Celtics rematches every year. I'm still on the cold meds though, so once again I plead for leniency.
posted by brainofdtrain at 11:13 PM on February 18, 2011
That's about right! Can't wait for the Celtics to make it to this year's NBA Finals either.