What If the NBA Was Like the NFL?
Posted by Neil Paine on January 28, 2010
In honor of the long 2-week layoff between the NFL's conference championship games and a little event I like to call the Super Bowl, I was thinking about what the NBA would be like if it was structured the same way as the NFL -- 16-game schedules, heavy divisional play with a set rotation of intraconference division matchups, 6 teams from each conference make the playoffs, etc. What if the 2009-10 season so far was structured that way? Who would win the NBA's Super Bowl?
Well, this is the part where I describe how I brought this wacky idea to life... First, I went to this terrific site to generate a schedule for our hypothetical NFLBA. As it turns out, the divisional setup of the 2010 NBA is basically identical to the NFL's setup from 1995 to 1998 (with differently-named divisions, of course), so it was easy to pick the 30-team schedule generator from that list and generate the 6 different possible combinations of schedules based on divisional alignment. Since the 2009 NFL schedule pitted the East divisions vs. the South ones, I decided to go with a schedule for our NBAFL that matched the Atlantic (the closest you can get to the East divisions) with the Southwest (the closest you can get to the South). That means we get this 17-week schedule (byes included):
WEEK 1 | WEEK 2 | WEEK 3 | WEEK 4 | WEEK 5 | WEEK 6 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
LAL @ SAC | ORL @ GSW | LAL @ MIN | LAL @ GSW | PHO @ HOU | OKC @ GSW |
DEN @ POR | PHO @ LAL | GSW @ DEN | HOU @ LAC | GSW @ SAC | LAL @ LAC |
UTA @ PHO | MIN @ DEN | POR @ UTA | OKC @ MIL | UTA @ SAS | SAC @ PHO |
SAS @ MEM | HOU @ NOH | LAC @ OKC | DEN @ CHI | NJN @ MEM | SAS @ POR |
NOH @ OKC | MEM @ DAL | MEM @ HOU | SAC @ UTA | LAC @ DAL | CLE @ MIN |
DAL @ HOU | SAS @ PHI | NOH @ SAS | TOR @ MEM | NOH @ NYK | IND @ DEN |
TOR @ BOS | NYK @ TOR | NJN @ DAL | POR @ NOH | BOS @ DET | DET @ UTA |
CLE @ NJN | BOS @ NJN | NYK @ PHI | CHA @ CLE | MIL @ IND | TOR @ PHI |
DET @ NYK | MIL @ DET | MIL @ TOR | IND @ DET | ATL @ CHI | NYK @ BOS |
IND @ MIL | UTA @ CLE | CLE @ IND | PHO @ MIA | CHA @ LAL | CHI @ MIL |
MIN @ CHI | CHI @ IND | SAC @ ORL | ORL @ ATL | MIA @ TOR | ORL @ NJN |
PHI @ ORL | LAC @ CHA | MIA @ CHA | DAL @ MIN | ORL @ WAS | WAS @ MIA |
CHA @ WAS | MIA @ SAC | ATL @ PHO | PHI @ CLE | ATL @ CHA | |
ATL @ MIA | WAS @ ATL | DET @ WAS | |||
GSW @ LAC | OKC @ POR | CHI @ BOS | |||
WEEK 7 | WEEK 8 | WEEK 9 | WEEK 10 | WEEK 11 | WEEK 12 |
MEM @ NOH | DET @ CHI | WAS @ LAL | OKC @ DEN | ORL @ PHO | GSW @ MIA |
SAC @ LAL | MIN @ SAC | GSW @ MEM | MIN @ MEM | UTA @ MIN | LAC @ PHO |
GSW @ ATL | IND @ POR | LAC @ SAC | SAS @ DAL | POR @ OKC | MIN @ POR |
PHO @ LAC | DEN @ OKC | NOH @ PHO | NOH @ HOU | DEN @ LAL | OKC @ CLE |
POR @ MIL | MEM @ UTA | OKC @ MIN | PHI @ NYK | NYK @ HOU | HOU @ DEN |
MIN @ OKC | HOU @ SAS | SAS @ NJN | BOS @ ATL | SAS @ NOH | MIL @ UTA |
DEN @ UTA | DAL @ NOH | HOU @ DAL | NJN @ TOR | DAL @ GSW | NOH @ MEM |
TOR @ SAS | BOS @ TOR | TOR @ NYK | IND @ CLE | MEM @ PHI | LAL @ SAS |
BOS @ HOU | MIL @ CLE | PHI @ BOS | CHI @ POR | NJN @ BOS | PHI @ TOR |
WAS @ PHI | CHA @ ORL | CLE @ DET | LAL @ ORL | DET @ IND | NYK @ NJN |
DAL @ NYK | NYK @ MIA | UTA @ IND | SAC @ CHA | CHA @ ATL | CHI @ DET |
NJN @ CHA | ATL @ WAS | MIL @ CHI | MIA @ DET | MIA @ LAC | ATL @ ORL |
MIA @ ORL | PHI @ NJN | POR @ DEN | LAC @ WAS | WAS @ MIL | IND @ CHA |
PHO @ GSW | CLE @ CHI | WAS @ SAC | |||
DAL @ BOS | |||||
WEEK 13 | WEEK 14 | WEEK 15 | WEEK 16 | WEEK 17 | |
CHA @ GSW | LAC @ LAL | CLE @ DEN | OKC @ HOU | MIN @ UTA | |
DEN @ MIN | SAC @ GSW | LAL @ ATL | NJN @ CHI | NJN @ NYK | |
MEM @ LAL | DET @ OKC | SAC @ LAC | LAC @ GSW | ATL @ LAC | |
PHO @ SAC | UTA @ DEN | GSW @ PHO | LAL @ PHO | SAS @ SAC | |
POR @ LAC | NYK @ SAS | MIN @ IND | SAC @ NOH | PHO @ POR | |
UTA @ OKC | HOU @ NJN | OKC @ UTA | UTA @ POR | CHI @ OKC | |
SAS @ HOU | NOH @ TOR | HOU @ MEM | MIL @ MIN | DAL @ MEM | |
NOH @ DAL | PHI @ DAL | DAL @ SAS | MEM @ SAS | HOU @ TOR | |
BOS @ NYK | MEM @ BOS | PHI @ NOH | BOS @ PHI | BOS @ NOH | |
NJN @ PHI | IND @ CHI | NYK @ MIL | DET @ CLE | DEN @ DET | |
TOR @ WAS | MIL @ ORL | TOR @ NJN | TOR @ IND | IND @ PHI | |
DET @ MIL | CHA @ MIA | POR @ DET | ORL @ CHA | CLE @ MIL | |
ORL @ IND | CLE @ ATL | CHI @ MIA | ATL @ NYK | ORL @ MIA | |
CHI @ CLE | PHO @ WAS | WAS @ ORL | MIA @ WAS | WAS @ CHA | |
MIA @ ATL | POR @ MIN | CHA @ BOS | DEN @ DAL | GSW @ LAL |
Excellent. Now all we have to do is use each team's SRS score to create an expected winning % for each game, simulate the games, determine the playoff seedings, and sim through the postseason and the Super Bowl. Here's a totally random example season:
Sim #1 | |
---|---|
Atlantic | Northwest |
BOS 12-4 | UTA 12-4 |
TOR 10-6 | OKC 12-4 |
NYK 7-9 | DEN 10-6 |
PHI 5-11 | POR 9-7 |
NJN 1-15 | MIN 1-15 |
Central | Pacific |
CLE 9-7 | LAL 10-6 |
MIL 9-7 | PHO 8-8 |
CHI 8-8 | LAC 8-8 |
DET 6-10 | SAC 5-11 |
IND 6-10 | GSW 3-13 |
Southeast | Southwest |
ORL 13-3 | SAS 12-4 |
MIA 12-4 | DAL 12-4 |
ATL 8-8 | MEM 11-5 |
CHA 7-9 | NOH 5-11 |
WAS 5-11 | HOU 4-12 |
Seeds | Seeds |
1. ORL 13-3 | 1. UTA 12-4 |
2. BOS 12-4 | 2. SAS 12-4 |
3. CLE 9-7 | 3. LAL 10-6 |
4. MIA 12-4 | 4. DAL 12-4 |
5. TOR 10-6 | 5. OKC 12-4 |
6. MIL 9-7 | 6. MEM 11-5 |
WILD CARD | |
MIL def CLE | LAL def MEM |
TOR def MIA | OKC def DAL |
DIVISIONAL | |
ORL def MIL | OKC def UTA |
TOR def BOS | LAL def SAS |
CONF CHAMP | |
TOR def ORL | LAL def OKC |
SUPER BOWL | |
LAL def TOR |
Now, as is customary in posts like this, let's run through this fantasy situation 10,000 times and see who would have the best odds of winning the "Super Bowl" if the NBA had an NFL-style season structure:
Team | Conf | Div | AvgW | AvgL | MaxW | MinW | 11+ W | 9-10 W | 7-8 W | 4-6 W | 0-3 W | 16-0 | 0-16 | 1st-Div | 2nd-Div | 3rd-Div | 4th-Div | 5th-Div |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BOS | E | A | 11.3 | 4.7 | 16 | 4 | 6964 | 2530 | 472 | 34 | 0 | 31 | 0 | 8374 | 1286 | 278 | 62 | 0 |
TOR | E | A | 8.7 | 7.3 | 15 | 2 | 1611 | 3918 | 3337 | 1116 | 18 | 0 | 0 | 1102 | 5319 | 2421 | 1154 | 4 |
NYK | E | A | 7.4 | 8.6 | 14 | 1 | 420 | 2316 | 4181 | 2972 | 111 | 0 | 0 | 319 | 1943 | 4238 | 3487 | 13 |
PHI | E | A | 7.2 | 8.8 | 14 | 1 | 287 | 1938 | 4196 | 3417 | 162 | 0 | 0 | 205 | 1452 | 3061 | 5261 | 21 |
NJN | E | A | 1.3 | 14.7 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 345 | 9654 | 0 | 2501 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 36 | 9962 |
CLE | E | C | 11.8 | 4.2 | 16 | 5 | 7884 | 1871 | 236 | 9 | 0 | 49 | 0 | 9196 | 689 | 98 | 16 | 1 |
MIL | E | C | 8.1 | 7.9 | 15 | 1 | 981 | 3270 | 3870 | 1824 | 55 | 0 | 0 | 578 | 5674 | 2374 | 1000 | 374 |
CHI | E | C | 7.2 | 8.8 | 13 | 1 | 289 | 1933 | 4189 | 3438 | 151 | 0 | 0 | 175 | 2461 | 4354 | 2119 | 891 |
DET | E | C | 5.6 | 10.4 | 13 | 0 | 36 | 563 | 2492 | 5687 | 1222 | 0 | 4 | 29 | 720 | 1818 | 3987 | 3446 |
IND | E | C | 5.3 | 10.7 | 12 | 0 | 16 | 364 | 2152 | 5984 | 1484 | 0 | 6 | 22 | 456 | 1356 | 2878 | 5288 |
ORL | E | S | 10.5 | 5.5 | 16 | 3 | 5153 | 3561 | 1153 | 131 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 3900 | 3638 | 1676 | 699 | 87 |
ATL | E | S | 10.4 | 5.6 | 16 | 3 | 4836 | 3566 | 1381 | 215 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 4599 | 2958 | 1596 | 731 | 116 |
MIA | E | S | 8.7 | 7.3 | 15 | 2 | 1693 | 3603 | 3454 | 1229 | 21 | 0 | 0 | 792 | 1632 | 2815 | 4006 | 755 |
CHA | E | S | 8.5 | 7.5 | 15 | 2 | 1276 | 3766 | 3646 | 1299 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 692 | 1667 | 3575 | 3329 | 737 |
WAS | E | S | 5.4 | 10.6 | 13 | 0 | 30 | 427 | 2262 | 5875 | 1406 | 0 | 13 | 17 | 105 | 338 | 1235 | 8305 |
DEN | W | N | 10.1 | 5.9 | 16 | 3 | 4251 | 4009 | 1529 | 210 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3808 | 2694 | 2066 | 1429 | 3 |
UTA | W | N | 10.1 | 5.9 | 16 | 3 | 4187 | 4031 | 1546 | 235 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 3078 | 2912 | 2361 | 1645 | 4 |
POR | W | N | 9.5 | 6.5 | 15 | 2 | 3037 | 4125 | 2339 | 493 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1684 | 2411 | 2818 | 3080 | 7 |
OKC | W | N | 9.5 | 6.5 | 15 | 3 | 2894 | 4239 | 2397 | 467 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1430 | 1983 | 2754 | 3824 | 9 |
MIN | W | N | 2.3 | 13.7 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 29 | 1740 | 8230 | 0 | 876 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 22 | 9977 |
LAL | W | P | 11.3 | 4.7 | 16 | 4 | 6984 | 2524 | 470 | 22 | 0 | 33 | 0 | 8564 | 1242 | 164 | 23 | 7 |
PHO | W | P | 8.7 | 7.3 | 15 | 0 | 1708 | 3697 | 3337 | 1230 | 28 | 0 | 1 | 1194 | 6135 | 1783 | 677 | 211 |
SAC | W | P | 6.2 | 9.8 | 14 | 0 | 90 | 940 | 3346 | 5045 | 579 | 0 | 1 | 93 | 983 | 2927 | 3547 | 2450 |
LAC | W | P | 6.2 | 9.8 | 13 | 0 | 115 | 942 | 3246 | 5096 | 601 | 0 | 4 | 115 | 1142 | 3603 | 3131 | 2009 |
GSW | W | P | 5.4 | 10.6 | 12 | 0 | 37 | 433 | 2181 | 5894 | 1455 | 0 | 9 | 34 | 498 | 1523 | 2622 | 5323 |
SAS | W | S | 10.4 | 5.6 | 15 | 3 | 4792 | 3694 | 1327 | 184 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 5287 | 2706 | 1264 | 573 | 170 |
DAL | W | S | 10.0 | 6.0 | 16 | 3 | 4036 | 3969 | 1727 | 266 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 3307 | 3824 | 1825 | 800 | 244 |
HOU | W | S | 8.3 | 7.7 | 15 | 2 | 1184 | 3322 | 3721 | 1725 | 48 | 0 | 0 | 769 | 1754 | 3329 | 2779 | 1369 |
MEM | W | S | 8.1 | 7.9 | 15 | 2 | 865 | 3225 | 4102 | 1771 | 37 | 0 | 0 | 525 | 1387 | 2709 | 3738 | 1641 |
NOH | W | S | 6.4 | 9.6 | 14 | 0 | 162 | 1126 | 3396 | 4753 | 563 | 0 | 1 | 112 | 329 | 873 | 2110 | 6576 |
Team | Conf | Div | Playoffs | #1Seed | CCWin | CCLoss | SBWin | SBLoss |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BOS | E | A | 9499 | 2304 | 2388 | 2282 | 1214 | 1174 |
TOR | E | A | 4885 | 145 | 180 | 375 | 70 | 110 |
NYK | E | A | 1778 | 25 | 31 | 102 | 11 | 20 |
PHI | E | A | 1279 | 15 | 9 | 50 | 4 | 5 |
NJN | E | A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
CLE | E | C | 9804 | 4767 | 3640 | 2444 | 1963 | 1677 |
MIL | E | C | 3344 | 71 | 98 | 225 | 36 | 62 |
CHI | E | C | 1436 | 13 | 27 | 78 | 3 | 24 |
DET | E | C | 289 | 2 | 1 | 11 | 0 | 1 |
IND | E | C | 174 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
ORL | E | S | 8744 | 979 | 1334 | 1706 | 628 | 706 |
ATL | E | S | 8584 | 1386 | 1865 | 1794 | 987 | 878 |
MIA | E | S | 4934 | 162 | 198 | 476 | 79 | 119 |
CHA | E | S | 4996 | 127 | 229 | 444 | 84 | 145 |
WAS | E | S | 254 | 2 | 0 | 12 | 0 | 0 |
DEN | W | N | 7693 | 1395 | 1450 | 1453 | 702 | 748 |
UTA | W | N | 7520 | 1154 | 1279 | 1289 | 649 | 630 |
POR | W | N | 5798 | 539 | 530 | 775 | 225 | 305 |
OKC | W | N | 5417 | 376 | 482 | 685 | 190 | 292 |
MIN | W | N | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
LAL | W | P | 9413 | 4038 | 3482 | 2161 | 1940 | 1542 |
PHO | W | P | 3527 | 184 | 232 | 405 | 81 | 151 |
SAC | W | P | 328 | 4 | 4 | 19 | 3 | 1 |
LAC | W | P | 378 | 5 | 9 | 19 | 2 | 7 |
GSW | W | P | 145 | 2 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 0 |
SAS | W | S | 7766 | 1281 | 1416 | 1588 | 664 | 752 |
DAL | W | S | 7085 | 818 | 865 | 1126 | 366 | 499 |
HOU | W | S | 2468 | 105 | 141 | 254 | 57 | 84 |
MEM | W | S | 1977 | 84 | 89 | 178 | 37 | 52 |
NOH | W | S | 485 | 15 | 21 | 41 | 5 | 16 |
The poor Nets -- even with the NFL's trademark short-season randomness, they never made the playoffs and only mustered 7 wins in a season once:
Sim #1403 | |
---|---|
Atlantic | Northwest |
BOS 14-2 | OKC 12-4 |
PHI 8-8 | DEN 9-7 |
NJN 7-9 | POR 9-7 |
TOR 6-10 | UTA 8-8 |
NYK 5-11 | MIN 3-13 |
Central | Pacific |
CLE 13-3 | LAL 11-5 |
MIL 8-8 | PHO 9-7 |
CHI 8-8 | LAC 8-8 |
DET 4-12 | SAC 4-12 |
IND 4-12 | GSW 3-13 |
Southeast | Southwest |
ORL 13-3 | DAL 11-5 |
CHA 10-6 | SAS 10-6 |
MIA 9-7 | HOU 9-7 |
ATL 8-8 | MEM 8-8 |
WAS 3-13 | NOH 6-10 |
Seeds | Seeds |
1. BOS 14-2 | 1. OKC 12-4 |
2. CLE 13-3 | 2. LAL 11-5 |
3. ORL 13-3 | 3. DAL 11-5 |
4. CHA 10-6 | 4. SAS 10-6 |
5. MIA 9-7 | 5. DEN 9-7 |
6. ATL 8-8 | 6. POR 9-7 |
WILD CARD | |
ATL def ORL | POR def DAL |
CHA def MIA | SAS def DEN |
DIVISIONAL | |
BOS def ATL | OKC def POR |
CHA def CLE | SAS def LAL |
CONF CHAMP | |
BOS def CHA | OKC def SAS |
SUPER BOWL | |
BOS def OKC |
The worst team by SRS to win the NBA Super Bowl was Sacramento, whose -3.48 SRS ranked 24th in the league through Tuesday's games. Here's the best of the 3 Kings Super Bowl-winning seasons:
Sim #6360 | |
---|---|
Atlantic | Northwest |
NYK 12-4 | POR 12-4 |
BOS 11-5 | UTA 11-5 |
PHI 7-9 | DEN 10-6 |
TOR 5-11 | OKC 7-9 |
NJN 2-14 | MIN 4-12 |
Central | Pacific |
CLE 12-4 | SAC 12-4 |
MIL 7-9 | LAL 9-7 |
CHI 7-9 | PHO 9-7 |
DET 7-9 | GSW 7-9 |
IND 4-12 | LAC 6-10 |
Southeast | Southwest |
MIA 10-6 | SAS 10-6 |
ORL 8-8 | HOU 9-7 |
WAS 8-8 | DAL 7-9 |
ATL 7-9 | MEM 7-9 |
CHA 7-9 | NOH 6-10 |
Seeds | Seeds |
1. CLE 12-4 | 1. POR 12-4 |
2. NYK 12-4 | 2. SAC 12-4 |
3. MIA 10-6 | 3. SAS 10-6 |
4. BOS 11-5 | 4. UTA 11-5 |
5. ORL 8-8 | 5. DEN 10-6 |
6. WAS 8-8 | 6. LAL 9-7 |
WILD CARD | |
MIA def WAS | LAL def SAS |
ORL def BOS | UTA def DEN |
DIVISIONAL | |
CLE def ORL | POR def LAL |
MIA def NYK | SAC def UTA |
CONF CHAMP | |
MIA def CLE | SAC def POR |
SUPER BOWL | |
SAC def MIA |
Since I used the SRS ratings through Tuesday's games to generate these simulations, we also know that the Lakers were morally the "best team" in the league in the eyes of the program. This means we can compare their rate of winning the "Super Bowl" to the rate we found when we simulated the 2010 NBA back before the season started (another case where we knew which team was morally the league's best). In that post, the best team in the NBA walked away with the title 48% of the time; in this simulation, the Lakers only won a championship 19.4% of the time. That difference is pretty remarkable, though not surprising, since the NBA is known as the sport where the best teams win most often, and the NFL is known for its "any given Sunday" policy of establishing parity. Still, if these simulations do a decent job of modeling reality (and I think they do), it means the best pro basketball team is approximately 2 and a half times more likely to win its league championship than the best pro football team.
So what do you guys think? Should the NBA inject more randomness into its formula by shortening the season and playoff series? Or are you comforted by the fact that the "right team" wins an NBA title more often than in any other sport?
January 28th, 2010 at 5:55 am
This is alot of fun, thanks for the delightful post.
I myself prefer the NBA's structure, but I imagine that American football is too physical for best-of-seven series.
If the basketball players could take it, I would even support a double-elimination playoff structure (getting knocked out of the playoffs puts you in a mirror playoff where you can compete a second time for a finals spot). I just like competitions to mean something.
January 28th, 2010 at 9:27 am
One thing's for sure, starters would play about 46 minutes a game each. Without the grind of 82 games, there's a lot less need to save anything. And a huge advantage would go to teams who kept their core players in tact and made as few moves as possible in the off season. When you've only got 16 games, being ready to go from game 1 makes a huge difference. There's no warm up time.
January 28th, 2010 at 1:52 pm
Very interesting take Neil, good work. That said, I'm glad I don't live in this awful dystopia that you've just created.
January 28th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
What I think this is missing is that the minutes would more resemble a playoff game, where starters play dramatically more minutes. Teams like Atlanta (6 players over 1000 minutes, would gain wins at the expense of teams like the Spurs who depend on their depth as much as their starters.
What would the numbers look like if you trimmed your bench down to 1 or 2 players?
January 28th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
One major difference is that you'd take out some of the randomness of injury. NFL players get hurt constantly. It's much more of a rarity among NBA players. Player careers don't tend to tank as quickly either... I think that level of parity, logically, would be less likely.
January 28th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
I've always wanted to see a second season where the same number of teams make the playoffs but instead of playoff series there was a round robin format. The reward for best record would be playing all the second season games at home. 2nd place would have to play all but one at home and last place would have to play all their games on the road. After the completion of that 15 game round robin, the top 2 teams would make the championship 7 game series with the top second season team getting the home field.
I think ratings would be better for that, there would be more revenue generated, most likely the two best teams would most likely always play for the championship.
January 28th, 2010 at 8:42 pm
I would love a single table, home and away round robin NBA.
January 29th, 2010 at 12:57 am
Someone better quickly sign up Tractor Traylor to slot in at Nose Tackle.