Last night I was watching the Dallas Mavericks play against the Atlanta Hawks. The game turned out to be pretty competitive until the end, and I was joking with girlfriend that there were a lot of “ic’s” in the game. Names like Bogdanović, Dončić, Jokić (who was playing later that night she was confused with). As it turns out the Mavs and Hawks have a combined 10 of the 120 international players in the NBA this season, which is a result of the direction the NBA has been moving the last few decades.
The NBA game has become increasingly international
And international players aren’t held to lesser roles on their teams. Some of the best players in the game today are international, namely Antetokounmpo (Greece), Embiid (Cameroon), and Jokic (Serbia).
This is great for basketball as it grows the game, exposes the league to new and interesting styles of play, and increases competition. As the supply of NBA players is fixed (15 spots per team for 30 teams), increasing the pool of applicants necessarily increases quality (or if you are economics minded, the price! Players need to spend more time training and developing skills to be selected to one of the few spots.) And an increase in quality makes teams overall better, and it is more fun to watch.
More talent = More points
In addition to becoming more international, the NBA has seen an increase in scoring in recent decades. Since 2000 the average points scored per game has increased 17%, offensive rating (which tracks quality of offensive possessions) is up 9%, and 3-point attempts are up 150%.
I do not mean that international competition is entirely responsible for these trends but it likely has helped. Additionally rule changes (such as hand checking on defense), style of play, and pace have changed a lot since the 00’s as well.
In general higher scores are great for fans to see non-stop amazing plays from incredible athletes, but as they say “there is only one ball.” And so naturally the best players while spend more time with the ball in their hands, take more shots, and on the margin they are the ones to decide games. So when talent concentrates on each team, it’s in players’ interest to spread out to other teams that either have the salary cap room or less talent to progress their careers. That is, unless they are teaming up to try to win a championship.
But going to a bad team for a higher salary isn’t the only way to reallocate talent. Throughout the history of the NBA there has been many periods of expansion, and specifically 11 expansion drafts to redistribute players to newly created teams. The incentive here would be to grow the game and unlock new markets for ownership and management.
Lots of talent means the NBA can expand
Expansions have historically resulted in a decrease in points scored, while contractions have resulted in increases. Expansions have also led to other trends, but we can take average points scored per game per team as an example here.
More teams leading to less scoring with relatively the same players makes sense intuitively as well. If your 300 best players are dispersed among 2 teams (like an All Star game) then on each possession you necessarily have better players taking shots than if your 300 best players are dispersed among 30 teams. You might also say, well, wouldn’t the defense also be better leading to the same amount of points scored? Well yes! But for basketball specifically it is uncommon for the best defender to also be the best scorer and vice versa. James Harden for example has a reputation of being a prolific scorer but plays below average defense.
And if you look at the scoring levels for 2023, we are near historic highs of points scored, indicating there is room for expansion.
Does talent influence parity?
But should we be concerned that if talent is spread out among more teams, which leads to a decrease in scoring as was the case in the past, would there be a decrease in competition? Not really.
Looking at the inequality of teams today compared to previous seasons might help. As of Jan 19, 2023 the difference between first and last place teams is 22 games in each conference.
But maybe this year isn’t a great year since teams that might be “tanking” that is, losing on purpose, to have a greater chance at having a once in a generation player, Victor Wembanyama, on their teams.
Taking a look last year at this time (Jan 19, 2022), first place in the eastern conference was the Chicago Bulls at 28-15, and last place was the Orlando Magic at 8-38, which amounts to a 21.5 games difference. So it looks like it doesn’t matter much for this year compared to last year when there wasn’t as much of an incentive to tank.
And compared to Jan 19, 2000, when scoring was relatively low, the leaders in the eastern conference were the Indiana Pacers at 26-12 while the Chicago Bulls were 6-30 (a 19 game difference).
So it looks like parity of the league is relatively constant with regards to scoring, prospects, and expansions (Similar discrepancies can be found in the ‘95, ‘89, and ‘88 expansion years.)
Time to expand?
So my question then, is why not expand, and why not into Europe?
Since the game is already international, has room for expansion, and potential to unlock new markets at convenient times for the modern American and European worker why not consider a few teams in Europe? This would likely ease travel burdens as teams could make road trips out to places such as France, Germany, Slovenia, or maybe even cash-flushed Saudi Arabia. It would diversify the fan experience and promote access to the sport at it’s highest level in ways the Euroleague might not be able to achieve. And I imagine it might instill a sense of American or European pride to root for not only your team but your country’s team.
What’s more is that the NBA and NFL already play games in Europe. And timely for this post the Pistons and Bulls just finished playing in Paris at the time of this writing.
So why not expand into Europe? It may even lead to more friendly diplomatic relations between countries- something we should promote in the globalized world we live in. Rather than erecting barriers, preventing aid, and withholding information, slowing progress in an age where we need to coordinate and work together to solve the (several) crises of today.