On Wednesday, we wrote about why the NBA schedule needs to be reworked. The specific point of emphasis put forth in the piece was that only 16 of 82 games — under 20 percent — are played within a division.
Such a reality greatly diminishes the significance of being slotted in a particular division. It’s true that a division filled with tough teams makes life more difficult for a given NBA club, but if the NBA does follow through on its intent to revoke protection for division champions in its playoff seeding system — something that’s widely seen as a necessary move — the value of divisional standings evaporates. Competitions for playoff spots will become entirely conference-based in nature. You’re not fighting four divisional opponents so much as you’re fighting 14 conference opponents.
If you grasp this basic component of the NBA under its current scheduling dynamics, you’ll quickly realize what it means to play in a noticeably strong or weak division. The short answer: not much.
*
Today, let’s look at a representative example of a team playing in a weak division. The Boston Celtics, in the Atlantic, enjoy just such a situation. The New York Knicks, Brooklyn Nets, and Philadelphia 76ers make the Atlantic one of the weaker divisions in the league, and clearly the weakest division in the Eastern Conference. The inclination to think Boston has it made in the chase for one of the final few playoff spots in the East for 2016 is an easy one. Boston should finish behind the Toronto Raptors in the East, good enough for second place in the Atlantic. If one is wedded to the idea that divisional success and playoff appearances go hand-in-hand in American sports (as is the case in the NFL and MLB), you should think the Celtics are in great shape.
Yet, when you stop to remember how divisional and conference games are allotted in the NBA, it should quickly become apparent that the Celtics’ playoff window is a narrow one this season.
Boston will play only 16 games against that weak Atlantic Division. It will have to play 36 games against teams in the loaded Central and Southeast. Indiana, with Paul George back for a full season, should clearly be a playoff team. Miami, with Chris Bosh and Goran Dragic aboard for a full campaign, should clearly be a playoff team. Barring a major injury to Derrick Rose, or another injury that could similarly compromise one of the other top six teams in the East last season, the pathway to the playoffs for the Celtics is extremely narrow.
Let’s briefly step into an alternate universe, one in which divisional games represented the heart of a team’s schedule and non-division conference games were severely reduced in number. The specific numbers: 32 divisional games (eight against four divisional opponents), 20 non-division conference games (two against 10 non-division conference opponents), and the current 30 games out of conference (two against each non-conference opponent). With this formula, the Celtics could pile up something in the area of 25 wins in their division while Central and Southeast Division teams would beat each other up. Milwaukee, Indiana and Chicago would all eat at least four losses against Cleveland alone, and would go something close to 4-4 in head-to-head competition against each other. With Boston winning around 75 percent of its divisional games in this hypothetical, the Celtics — forced to play Central and Southeast teams only two times apiece — could gain leverage against a large chunk of the East.
The current schedule, with only 16 divisional games and 36 non-division games against the rest of the East, hits the Celtics where it hurts. A weak division means little when a team gets few chances to feast on it, at least in comparison with the rest of its schedule.
What’s a great argument for NBA scheduling reform, especially in relationship to the use and value of a divisional structure in the Association? The Boston Celtics are the argument.
They’d also like to make one on their behalf.
