May 13th - May 19th

-The Illusion of Conference: The conference finals for the NBA playoffs are taking shape, and the thing that sticks out most is the marked difference in style of play from conference to conference. The remaining teams from the Eastern Conference (Miami, Indiana, Philadelphia, and Boston) play a defensive style of basketball, while the remaining teams from the West (San Antonio and Oklahoma City) play a more upbeat, offensive-minded brand of basketball. Consider that, of those teams from the East, not a single one averaged over 100 points per game in the regular season. Both the Spurs and the Thunder averaged over 103 points per game. But the difference goes beyond this small sampling of teams. In fact, NOT A SINGLE TEAM from the Eastern Conference averaged over 100 points per game in the regular season. Of the top ten scoring teams in the NBA, only two came from the East: Milwaukee and Miami. Boston and Philadelphia, one of which who will compete in the Eastern Conference Finals, both were in the bottom ten (Boston was in the bottom five). The difference in style between the two conferences is something we take for granted, but why is the difference so pervasive? There are no requirements or rule differences from conference to conference, so why are the teams choosing such similar approaches to the game? Does conference assignment really matter all that much? An easy way to investigate this question is to look at a franchise that has played in both conferences and see if there was any noticeable difference in their statistical trends. And we don't have to look back very far to do this. With the creation of the Charlotte Bobcats in 2005, the New Orleans Hornets were moved from the East to the West. Using the Hornets as a case study, we learn that in the three years previous to the switch, they averaged 89.8 ppg. Over the next three years, as a Western Conference team, they averaged 94.9 ppg. This specific example is largely influenced by the drafting of Chris Paul at the precise moment the Hornets were switching conferences, but the full five point difference indicates there is some statistical foundation to the thought of the conferences playing wildly different styles of basketball. The difference being, of course, a conference-mandated predisposition towards either defense (East) or offense (West). But why? It certainly can't be due to the players in either conference, as they get drafted and shuffled around from team to team all the time. The difference can be attributed to coaching styles or organizational mindsets that dictate a style of play, but why would all the coaches in a certain conference randomly choose the same style? Coaches determine the culture of a team by placing emphasis on particular facets of the game (the stats are a reflection of where the emphasis falls, defense or offense). But how does a single decision by a single coach, in regards to what he wants to do with his team, fit so snugly into the identity of a conference? A team from the East can play any way it chooses; it doesn't have to mimic the defensive-centered schemes from their conference mates. Similarly, a team from the West could just as easily set its mind about playing lockdown defense every night and limiting possessions. And while some teams do branch off, the conference identity is pervasively consistent. So where did this chasm begin? Dare I say it has a racial origin? I dare. It's possible that the differences in approach came from the most public rivalry of the 1980's: between the very black Lakers and the very white Celtics. The Lakers played run-and-gun and earned the nickname "Showtime," while the Celtics has a methodical half-court approach that was designed to neutralize the athleticism of their opponents. And the Lakers and Celtics dominated their respective conferences in the 80's: from 1979 to 1989, either the Celtics or Lakers appeared in every single NBA Finals (three times they both made it and played against each other). So, because all would-be contenders had to get through the Green or Gold to get to the Finals, it makes sense that they would imitate their styles of play, recognizing that their conference leaders were finding great success with those styles. Notice that the "Bad Boys" in Detroit adopted the same type of rugged, defensive style that the Celtics dominated with for so long (and they won two titles once they did). From then on, it seems that it became a conference tradition to mimic the leader. The best teams from the West were always high-flying transition teams; the East was always paced by defensive stalwarts (with the exception of Jordan's Bulls, who transcended a singular approach to basketball; they did it all). As time went on, these alternating philosophies hung over every team in either conference. And the NBA isn't the only professional sports league with separate conference identities. In Major League Baseball, there is a huge perceived difference between the American League and the National League. The AL is seen as the offensive league, with high scores accepted as the norm. The NL is thought of as pitcher-dominated, hearkening back to a more traditional brand of baseball. But there is an actual rules difference between the AL and the NL. While the DH only constitutes one batter, there is an understandably massive difference between letting a pitcher bat three times a game or having a big-league hitter take his place. It isn't surprising that the AL can produce many more runs with the addition of the DH. The NFL doesn't have much of an identity difference between its conferences, but that is mostly due to the strange way its conferences are arranged. The AFC has teams from either coast (Oakland, San Diego, and New England), as does the NFC (San Francisco, Carolina, and Philadelphia). Therefore, even when there are offensive schemes as specifically labeled as "The West Coast Offense," it could apply to either conference and both are left with ambiguous identities. But does this mean that the difference in the NBA's conferences is geographically based? It's unlikely, especially since the aforementioned Hornets had already moved from Charlotte to New Orleans before the conference switch in 2005 (they moved in 2001). There was no statistical shift when they moved from North Carolina to Louisiana, but there was when they moved from the Eastern Conference to the Western Conference (though they hadn't moved an inch on the map). Without worrying about which conference plays the better brand of basketball, why are they so different, today? I settle on the thought that this is a case of perception controlling reality. In other words, the Eastern Conference perceives itself to be the "defensive conference" and puts its efforts towards making itself so. It isn't so much a self-actualization process as it is a systematic reordering. The Western Conference, likewise, plays run-and-gun because, well, the Western Conference is run-and-gun. The labels, though imaginary at the outset, end up dictating a team's style of play by controlling which players and coaches they attract and the mindset the organization operates with. The problem with this, of course, is that not every team is suited for every style of play. Due to salary issues, lottery fortunes, or trades, certain franchises get stuck with teams that are quite different than those they have assembled in the past. And you can't force a style onto basketball players; you must custom-fit your philosophies to their pre-existing talents. It is foolish how some teams disregard this simple truth, trying to compete in a style that is doomed from the outset (I'm looking at you Golden State, Sacramento, and Toronto). If it isn't to your team's advantage to play a certain way, you should ditch that style and adapt a new team identity. In fact, by playing a style opposite to your conference, you may even find a slight advantage by toying with team's expectations. Memphis is a great example of this. They seem custom built for the East - with their aggressive defense and strong inside game - but they play in the West. So, did they give in and orchestrate some motion offense that would allow them to compete with the other run-and-gunners of the West? No. They play their game. Last season, it got them to the Western Conference Finals. It was a good reminder that no team is an "Eastern Conference team" or a "Western Conference team"; those are just arbitrary boundaries to divvy up the league. The styles themselves are just an illusion that teams choose to make a reality. But it's an important lesson for some franchises to learn (once again, I'm looking at you Golden State): you will never make it to the top if you are just mimicking whatever you perceive to be your conference "style," for that doesn't even exist. You make it to the top by becoming the kind of team you were meant to be.