In light of Stern's decision to fine the Spurs $250k for ruining a marquee matchup on national television by resting the Big 3 against the Miami Heat, I asked myself a very simple question - what effect did resting the big 3 have on TNT's viewership and market share during the game?
I came to the conclusion that such a question is virtually impossible to answer. Perhaps if we had a time machine and time travel into the past was logically coherent and intelligible (it's not: http://vimeo.com/11917849), we could directly measure the effect that playing the big 3 would have had on viewership and Nielsen ratings for this game. Obviously this isn't a viable option.
So instead of finagling the data and producing arbitrary and contrived summary statistics and/or comparisons, I'll simply present the raw the data and let you guys make whichever comparisons you deem fit. The sample size is sufficiently small for the raw data to be easily readable and accessible, in my opinion.
A brief introduction and definition to Nielsen ratings per wikipedia (verbatim): "The most commonly cited Nielsen results are reported in two measurements: ratings points and share, usually reported as: "ratings points/share". As of September 1, 2010, there are an estimated 115.9 million television households in the United States. A single national ratings point represents one percent of the total number, or 1,159,000 households for the 2010–11 season. Share is the percentage of television sets in use tuned to the program. For example, Nielsen may report a show as receiving a 9.2/15 during its broadcast, meaning that on average 9.2 percent of all television-equipped households were tuned in to that program at any given moment, while 15 percent of households watching TV were tuned into that program during this time slot. The difference between rating and share is that a rating reflects the percentage of the total population of televisions tuned to a particular program while share reflects the percentage of televisions actually in use."
TLDR: The bigger the "rating," the better.
October 30, 2012
TNT Heat vs Celtics: 5.371 million viewers, rating = 2.5
TNT Mavs vs Lakers: 4.2 million viewers, rating = 2.1
November 1, 2012:
TNT Spurs vs OKC: 2.144 million, rating = 1.0
November 2, 2012
ESPN Heat vs Knicks: 2.783 million, rating = 1.2
ESPN Lakers vs Clippers: 3.062 million, rating = 1.5
November 7, 2012
ESPN Spurs vs Clippers: 1.336 million viewers, rating = 0.6
November 8, 2012
TNT OKC vs Bulls: 1.848 million, rating = 0.7
TNT Clippers vs Portland: 1.407 million, rating = 0.6
November 9, 2012
ESPN Utah vs Denver: 1.050 million, rating = 0.5
November 14, 2012
ESPN Heat vs Clippers: 2.241 million, rating = 1.1
ESPN OKC vs Memphis: 1.679 million, rating = 0.7
November 15, 2012
TNT Celtics vs Brooklyn: 1.408 million, rating = 0.6
TNT Heat vs Denver: 1.590 million, rating = 0.8
November 16, 2012:
ESPN Knicks vs Memphis; 2.040 million, rating = 0.9
ESPN Utah vs 76ers: 1.1 million, rating = 0.4
November 21, 2012:
ESPN OKC vs Clippers: 2.136 million, rating = 0.8
November 29, 2012
TNT Spurs (Toros) vs Heat: 1.964 million viewers, Rating = 0.8
TNT Denver vs GSW: 1.208 million viewers, Rating = 0.5
Couple of brief notes: I'd refrain from using any of the opening night games (October 30: Heat vs Celtics / Mavs vs Lakers) as barometers for any comparison you're gong to make. The ratings here seem to be outliers that reflect boosted viewership from the mere fact that it's "opening night," although obviously I can't be 100% certain (henceforth referred to as the "opening night effect.")
Obviously there are a couple of comparisons that may shed light on what a proper (Big 3 included) Spurs vs Heat matchup "should have" brought in (ratings-wise) -
Comparison #1:
TNT Heat vs Denver: 1.590 million, rating = 0.8
TNT Spurs (Toros) vs Heat: 1.964 million viewers, Rating = 0.8
Denver has roughly twice the television market size as San Antonio, although the Spurs have fan contingents extending (notably) to Austin as well as other cities, so a direct Denver-San Antonio television market comparison is a bit deceptive.
Both San Antonio and Denver seem (subjectively) to be comparable in terms of overall marketability. Both teams boast high octane offenses built around a team-centric play with no marquee superstars.
Comparison #2:
TNT Spurs vs OKC: 2.144 million, rating = 1.0
TNT Spurs (Toros) vs Heat: 1.964 million viewers, Rating = 0.8
OKC is probably the closest thing we have to a "western conference Miami Heat" in terms of overall marketability, although the Spurs vs OKC matchup has special significance in that it was last year's western conference finals. Furthermore, it's difficult to say whether the Spurs vs OKC matchup was sufficiently removed from the "opening night effect."
Comparison #3:
ESPN Heat vs Knicks: 2.783 million, rating = 1.2
TNT Spurs (Toros) vs Heat: 1.964 million viewers, Rating = 0.8
If the defending champions vs the large market New York Knicks pulled a 1.2, it's reasonable to say that a hypothetical matchup between a full strength Spurs roster (Big 3 included) vs Miami Heat would at maximum have a ceiling of 1.2 (probably much lower).
Anyways, I'll leave it at that. As you can see there are so many confounding variables to consider that it's difficult to make any sort of definitive analysis. Feel free to post your own comparisons and corresponding rationalizations.
Great post.
In effect, a Spurs bench vs the Heat game basically brought (from a maximalist projection) down the ratings by 0.2-0.3 points (around 100,000 viewers). And the Spurs have been fined $2.5 for each prospective loss of a viewer!
Stupid indeed.
I agree, a loss of .2-.3 rating points from sitting the Big 3 seems to be a reasonable guess.
Another interesting comparison is
TNT Heat vs Denver: 1.590 million, rating = 0.8
TNT Spurs vs OKC: 2.144 million, rating = 1.0
If you believe that Spurs ~= Denver in terms of overall marketability and OKC ~= Heat in terms of overall marketability, the Spurs have done reasonably well to attract viewers for being such a small market and historically "boring" team.
In fact, outside of opening night, TNT's highest rated games were
1) TNT Spurs vs OKC: 2.144 million, rating = 1.0
2) TNT Spurs (Toros) vs Heat: 1.964 million viewers, Rating = 0.8
3) TNT Heat vs Denver: 1.590 million, rating = 0.8
OKC/Bulls and Celtics/Brooklyn brought in lower ratings for TNT than Toros/Heat -
TNT OKC vs Bulls: 1.848 million, rating = 0.7
TNT Celtics vs Brooklyn: 1.408 million, rating = 0.6
Wow, I'm amazed that none of those games went above 2.0. I think WWE gets better ratings than the NBA lmao
And that is why Stern is salty. He's not competing against Selig or Bettman, he's competing against McMahon.
thanks i was looking for these numbers
great post
Thanks for the post and research
Looking at the other numbers, 0.8 looks about what should have been expected. Maybe even high considering that in the previous three weeks, the only games with >0.8 included LA or NY.
Looks higher than I'd expect for a Spurs game. Either the controversy boosted the numbers or the Spurs had zero influence on the viewership for that game.
thanks for posting this one..
The Heat draw at least a 1.0 rating when they are the first game.
.2 to .4 loss in the ratings.
They played Boston, New York and LA. That might be a factor.
In other words, 2nd highest rated TNT game outside of the season openers, the only higher rated game. . .also being a Spurs game.
Stern with the pre-emptive ing for the loss.
Didn't expect the numbers to be that high considering they went up against the NFL- N.O./ATL
It wasn't because of the ratings. It would have been the same had the game not even had been on TV.In other words, 2nd highest rated TNT game outside of the season openers, the only higher rated game. . .also being a Spurs game.
Stern with the pre-emptive ing for the loss.
Pop made a power move and statement against the NBA(didn't like the scheduling) and Stern did not like that.
I doubt if the Spurs were even really all that tired and could not have played at a high level in the game.
Last edited by rascal; 12-02-2012 at 10:26 AM.
dunno why his chasing wwe ratings, when they only appear on tv 2x a week only....
The Clippers don't have a huge fan base.
If you say so.
Not tired after 3 road games in the previous 4 days? 4 in the last 6? 5 in the last 8? Right after coming off a stretch of tough games against tough opponents? Not sure how you came up with that tbh. If there's any time they'd be tired, that's it. If you don't think they'd be tired there, then you must think they'd never be tired at any point.
You're reaching, assuming it was a "power move against the NBA". Popovich usually rests guys in situations like that. He's done it the last two years under similar conditions, including (like this time) when it cashes in a winning streak.
I'm sure the NBA wouldn't have reacted the same way if it wasn't a TNT game. The main reason they have to be upset is that it may have costed them viewers. The other crap they're spewing about not informing the league in time is just a cover for not outright saying they're mad about being jilted of a star-packed nationally televised game.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
