Parity in football (1 Viewer)

[Dr. Awesome]

Rather than continuing a hijack I started, I decided to fire up this spinoff.

There is an often repeated myth that baseball has the same teams winning every year (which is one of the reasons folk don't like it). This same myth often mentions football's salary cap as the great equalizer and as a sport as a whole they offer a great deal of playoff turnover.

The following article points out baseball offers just as much parity as football:

The people, it seems, have spoken: The NFL, by most measures, has surpassed major-league baseball as our nation's sport of choice. The latest example came over the weekend with the television numbers from the Pro Bowl: Not only did it beat major-league baseball's All-Star Game (a vastly superior event, in my opinion), but it out-rated Game 3 of the World Series between the Giants and Rangers. This after a regular-season football game (Saints-Steelers) for the first time beat out a World Series game in the ratings. And the annual Harris Poll on American's favorite sports released last week showed NFL football with a double-digit lead over baseball for the ninth straight year (though the gap narrowed slightly).

I'm not going to get into an indepth analysis here of why the NFL now reigns supreme. But I think part of it is the perception among fans that the MLB is build upon an unfair system, that the same teams always win (and just as importantly, the same teams never win), and that the NFL is the sport of parity, equality and a fighting chance for every team to win the championship. This year's Super Bowl matchup is just a reinforcement of that meme: Pittsburgh vs. Green Bay. In baseball, only the most rose-colored dreamers could envision the Pittsburgh team (which has not even had a winning season since 1993) or the Wisconsin team (which hasn't been to the World Series since 1982 -- its only appearance -- and has had two winnings seasons since 1992) in the World Series.

And yet the notion of NFL superiority over MLB in the realm of parity and championship opportunity is simply not borne out by the facts. Yes, the Pirates have been a downtrodden, mismanaged franchise -- but are they, or the Brewers, or the Royals, or the Orioles, any more downtrodden or mismanaged or hopeless than the Detroit Lions (10 straight losing seasons), or the Buffalo Bills (six straight losing seasons, no playoffs since 1999), or the Oakland Raiders (eight straight losing seasons), or the Cleveland Browns (seven out of eight losing seasons)?

The fact is, over the last decade, the average baseball team has just as much of a chance of winning a title -- if not more so -- than the average NFL team. And that's despite the fact that MLB, for now, allows only eight of its 30 teams into the playoffs (27 percent), compared to 12 of 32 in the NFL (38 percent). Playoff expansion is likely coming to MLB in 2012, in part to combat the notion that there's not enough competitive balance in baseball.

You want to talk about different teams having an opportunity to win? Let's look at the 11 years of the current century, taking the NFC title game compared to the NLCS, the AFC title game compared to the ALCS, and then the Super Bowl compared to the World series.

Nine different teams have competed in the last 11 AFC title games. Here are the appearances by teams:

Steelers 5, Patriots 5, Colts 3, Jets 2, Ravens 2, Raiders 2, Chargers 1, Broncos 1, Titans 1.

Over that same time period, 11 different teams have competed in the last 11 American League Championship Series. Here are the appearances by teams:

Yankees 6, Red Sox 4, Angels 3, Mariners 2, Rangers 1, Rays 1, Indians 1, Tigers 1, A's 1, White Sox 1, Twins 1.

Twelve different teams have competed in the last 11 NFC title games:

Eagles 5, Packers 2, Bears 2, Giants 2, Saints 2, Vikings 2, Panthers 2, Seahawks 1, Cardinals 1, Bucs 1, Rams 1, Falcons 1.

Eleven different teams have competed in the last 11 National League Championship Series:

Cardinals 5, Phillies 3, Giants 2, Dodgers 2, Diamondbacks 2, Mets 2, Astros 2, Marlins 1, Cubs 1, Braves 1, Rockies 1.



Fifteen different teams have competed in the last 11 Super Bowls (with championships in parentheses):

Patriots 4 Super Bowls (3 titles), Steelers 3 (2 titles, with this year's game still to be played), Colts 2 (1), Giants 2 (1), Packers 1 (this year's game still to be played), Saints 1 (1), Cardinals 1, Bears 1, Seahawks 1, Eagles 1, Panthers 1, Bucs 1 (1), Ravens 1 (1), Raiders 1, Rams 1.



Fifteen different teams have competed in the last 11 World Series (with championships in parentheses):

Yankees 4 (2), Red Sox 2 (2), Cardinals 2 (1), Phillies 2 (1), Giants 2 (1), White Sox 1 (1), Marlins 1 (1), Angels 1 (1), Diamondbacks 1 (1), Mets 1, Astros 1, Rockies 1, Rays 1, Rangers 1, Tigers 1.

Pretty comparable, I would say. The NFL has had 21 different teams in its Final Four, while MLB has had 22 different teams in its Final Four. Both had 15 different teams in its championship game. Considering the NFL has more teams in its league, and MLB has fewer teams in the playoffs, I'd call it a wash. For all the talk about the Yankees and Red Sox out-spending their way to championships, the Patriots have been a bigger dynasty than either of them. And if the Steelers win Sunday, they, too, will have been more dominating in the playoffs than the Yankees or Red Sox.

Tyler Kepner of the New York Times took another angle to point out that MLB doesn't have to apologize for its parity, compared to the NFL. He looked at the final eight teams still alive in the NFL playoffs this year, and compared them to the eight teams in the 2010 MLB playoffs. Kepner found that only one of those last eight teams alive in the NFL had gone more than five years since its last appearance in a conference title game, while in baseball, five of the eight had waited that long.

Furthermore, Kepner noted, 24 of 32 teams have made the NFL playoffs over the last five seasons -- 75 percent. In MLB, 22 of 30 teams have made the playoffs over the same time span --73.3 percent. Not much of a difference, when you consider the fact that the NFL has four more playoff berths and just two more teams.

Jayson Stark of ESPN adds a few more nuggets: Only two of 16 NL teams haven't made the playoffs over the last eight seasons -- the Nationals/Expos and Pirates. Ten of the 14 AL teams have made it in that span, all except the Royals, Orioles, Blue Jays and Mariners. And the Mariners made it in both 2000 and 2001, and won 93 games the following two seasons without making the playoffs. The NFL, by comparison, also had six teams not make the playoffs over the last eight years (the 49ers, Raiders, Browns, Bills, Texans and Lions) -- again, despite a bigger playoff field.

Most people complain that the same teams make it every year in baseball. But Stark points out that 11 teams have made at least five playoff appearances over the last 10 years in the NFL, compared to eight in baseball -- the Yankees (9), Cardinals (7), Red Sox (6), Angels (6), Braves (6), A's (5) and Twins (5). Furthermore, Stark noted, 16 NFL teams have made the playoffs at least four times in the last 10 years, compared to just 10 MLB teams.

More numbers: Nine teams have won the last 10 World Series (with only Boston repeating). Seven teams have won the last 10 Super Bowls (with New England winning three, and Pittsburgh two). MLB has featured a plethora of recent breakthroughs, including the GIants last year winning their first World Series since 1954, the White Sox their first in 87 years in 2005, the Red Sox their first in 85 years in 2004, the Cardinals their first in 23 years in 2006, and the Phillies their first in 27 years in 2008. The Diamondbacks, Angels, Astros, Rockies, Rays and Rangers have all appeared in their first World Series in the last 10 years.

Another rap against baseball is that payroll determines success, and though there's certainly some truth to that (or to the converse), it's not as cut and dry as you'd think. Jon Heyman of SI.com pointed out recently that just two of the top nine teams in Opening Day payroll qualified for the 2010 postseason, while three of the bottom 12 teams in payroll made the postseason: the Reds (19th), Rays (21st) and Rangers (27th).

Joel Sherman of the New York Post, last October, came up with an interesting way to compare competitive balance in NFL vs. MLB. He looked at each market to see which team provided its fans with more hope. Sherman determined that the NFL clearly came out on top in five markets: Ravens vs. Orioles in Baltimore, Steelers vs. Pirates in Pittsburgh, Packers vs. Brewers in Wisconsin, Redskins vs. Nationals in DC, and Chargers vs. Padres in San Diego. I'm not so sure that the last two hold up any more, to be honest.

Sherman gives the edge to seven MLB teams: Rockies vs. Broncos in Denver, Phillies vs. Eagles in Philadelphia, Tigers vs. Lions in Detroit, Rays vs. Bucs in Tampa, Cardinals vs. Rams in St. Louis, Giants vs. 49ers in San Francisco, and A's vs. Raiders in Oakland. I'd say the gap has closed in Tampa, with the Bucs' resurgence this year and the Rays forced to dismantle a playoff team; but with a bountiful farm system, I think the Rays are going to be better than people think in 2011. And they did make the playoffs last year -- over the mighty Red Sox.

Sherman called several other market matchups a wash: Yankees/Mets vs. Giants/Jets, Twins vs. Vikings, Royals vs. Chiefs, Blue Jays vs. Bills, Cowboys vs. Rangers, Browns vs. Indians, Patriots vs. Red Sox, Braves vs. Falcons, Reds vs. Bengals, Astros vs. Texans, Diamondbacks vs. Cardinals, Marlins vs. Dolphins. I'd put Cubs/White Sox vs. Bears in that category, too. Yeah, the Cubs haven't won a title since 1908, but they've made the playoffs three times in the last 10 years, while the Sox have a championship in 2005. The Bears haven't won it all since 1985.

As for Los Angeles, the Angels and Dodgers are usually competitive (NLCS appearances for the Dodgers in 2008-09, and six playoff appearances in nine years by the Angels), while the NFL doesn't even have a team in the nation's No. 2 market.

In Seattle, I'd call it a wash, even though the Mariners are coming off a miserable year, and the Seahawks are coming off a playoff year (despite a 7-9 record). If you had asked this question after the 2009 season, when the M's won 85 games while the Seahawks went 5-11 (after a 4-12 mark in '08), I think Seattle fans would have given the hope edge to the Mariners.

I believe a large part of baseball's image problem when it comes to parity is due to the dominance of the Yankees and Red Sox, and the fact that one or the other of those teams have made the playoffs every year since 1995 (with both of them making it in 1995, 1998, 1999, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, and 2009).

Their high-profile success, and the fact those two teams' payroll dwarves all the other teams in baseball, leads to a perception that the other ballclubs don't have a chance. But I've just shown that that's simply not true. Even in the AL East, the Rays, with their skimpy payroll, have made the playoffs in two of the last three years. Yes, there is far more payroll disparity in baseball than in the NFL, with its salary cap. But especially in light of increased revenue sharing in baseball, almost every team is getting its turn at a title shot, provided they draft well, develop their prospects, and spend wisely. The Yankees, for all their nearly $200 million payroll and complaints of buying championships, are no sure thing -- certainly no more so than the Patriots. The Yankees look to have some crippling holes in their rotation heading into 2011. And they've won only one World Series since 2001.

All this is just some food for thought as you prepare for Sunday's Super Bowl. Enjoy the game, then get ready for the sport of true parity -- baseball.

You don't like baseball? No worries. Just don't claim to hate it because of its lack of parity. That is a complete fabrication.

 

[Ksquared]

Rather than continuing a hijack I started, I decided to fire up this spinoff.

There is an often repeated myth that baseball has the same teams winning every year (which is one of the reasons folk don't like it). This same myth often mentions football's salary cap as the great equalizer and as a sport as a whole they offer a great deal of playoff turnover.

The following article points out baseball offers just as much parity as football:

The people, it seems, have spoken: The NFL, by most measures, has surpassed major-league baseball as our nation's sport of choice. The latest example came over the weekend with the television numbers from the Pro Bowl: Not only did it beat major-league baseball's All-Star Game (a vastly superior event, in my opinion), but it out-rated Game 3 of the World Series between the Giants and Rangers. This after a regular-season football game (Saints-Steelers) for the first time beat out a World Series game in the ratings. And the annual Harris Poll on American's favorite sports released last week showed NFL football with a double-digit lead over baseball for the ninth straight year (though the gap narrowed slightly).

I'm not going to get into an indepth analysis here of why the NFL now reigns supreme. But I think part of it is the perception among fans that the MLB is build upon an unfair system, that the same teams always win (and just as importantly, the same teams never win), and that the NFL is the sport of parity, equality and a fighting chance for every team to win the championship. This year's Super Bowl matchup is just a reinforcement of that meme: Pittsburgh vs. Green Bay. In baseball, only the most rose-colored dreamers could envision the Pittsburgh team (which has not even had a winning season since 1993) or the Wisconsin team (which hasn't been to the World Series since 1982 -- its only appearance -- and has had two winnings seasons since 1992) in the World Series.

And yet the notion of NFL superiority over MLB in the realm of parity and championship opportunity is simply not borne out by the facts. Yes, the Pirates have been a downtrodden, mismanaged franchise -- but are they, or the Brewers, or the Royals, or the Orioles, any more downtrodden or mismanaged or hopeless than the Detroit Lions (10 straight losing seasons), or the Buffalo Bills (six straight losing seasons, no playoffs since 1999), or the Oakland Raiders (eight straight losing seasons), or the Cleveland Browns (seven out of eight losing seasons)?

The fact is, over the last decade, the average baseball team has just as much of a chance of winning a title -- if not more so -- than the average NFL team. And that's despite the fact that MLB, for now, allows only eight of its 30 teams into the playoffs (27 percent), compared to 12 of 32 in the NFL (38 percent). Playoff expansion is likely coming to MLB in 2012, in part to combat the notion that there's not enough competitive balance in baseball.

You want to talk about different teams having an opportunity to win? Let's look at the 11 years of the current century, taking the NFC title game compared to the NLCS, the AFC title game compared to the ALCS, and then the Super Bowl compared to the World series.

Nine different teams have competed in the last 11 AFC title games. Here are the appearances by teams:

Steelers 5, Patriots 5, Colts 3, Jets 2, Ravens 2, Raiders 2, Chargers 1, Broncos 1, Titans 1.

Over that same time period, 11 different teams have competed in the last 11 American League Championship Series. Here are the appearances by teams:

Yankees 6, Red Sox 4, Angels 3, Mariners 2, Rangers 1, Rays 1, Indians 1, Tigers 1, A's 1, White Sox 1, Twins 1.

Twelve different teams have competed in the last 11 NFC title games:

Eagles 5, Packers 2, Bears 2, Giants 2, Saints 2, Vikings 2, Panthers 2, Seahawks 1, Cardinals 1, Bucs 1, Rams 1, Falcons 1.

Eleven different teams have competed in the last 11 National League Championship Series:

Cardinals 5, Phillies 3, Giants 2, Dodgers 2, Diamondbacks 2, Mets 2, Astros 2, Marlins 1, Cubs 1, Braves 1, Rockies 1.



Fifteen different teams have competed in the last 11 Super Bowls (with championships in parentheses):

Patriots 4 Super Bowls (3 titles), Steelers 3 (2 titles, with this year's game still to be played), Colts 2 (1), Giants 2 (1), Packers 1 (this year's game still to be played), Saints 1 (1), Cardinals 1, Bears 1, Seahawks 1, Eagles 1, Panthers 1, Bucs 1 (1), Ravens 1 (1), Raiders 1, Rams 1.



Fifteen different teams have competed in the last 11 World Series (with championships in parentheses):

Yankees 4 (2), Red Sox 2 (2), Cardinals 2 (1), Phillies 2 (1), Giants 2 (1), White Sox 1 (1), Marlins 1 (1), Angels 1 (1), Diamondbacks 1 (1), Mets 1, Astros 1, Rockies 1, Rays 1, Rangers 1, Tigers 1.

Pretty comparable, I would say. The NFL has had 21 different teams in its Final Four, while MLB has had 22 different teams in its Final Four. Both had 15 different teams in its championship game. Considering the NFL has more teams in its league, and MLB has fewer teams in the playoffs, I'd call it a wash. For all the talk about the Yankees and Red Sox out-spending their way to championships, the Patriots have been a bigger dynasty than either of them. And if the Steelers win Sunday, they, too, will have been more dominating in the playoffs than the Yankees or Red Sox.

Tyler Kepner of the New York Times took another angle to point out that MLB doesn't have to apologize for its parity, compared to the NFL. He looked at the final eight teams still alive in the NFL playoffs this year, and compared them to the eight teams in the 2010 MLB playoffs. Kepner found that only one of those last eight teams alive in the NFL had gone more than five years since its last appearance in a conference title game, while in baseball, five of the eight had waited that long.

Furthermore, Kepner noted, 24 of 32 teams have made the NFL playoffs over the last five seasons -- 75 percent. In MLB, 22 of 30 teams have made the playoffs over the same time span --73.3 percent. Not much of a difference, when you consider the fact that the NFL has four more playoff berths and just two more teams.

Jayson Stark of ESPN adds a few more nuggets: Only two of 16 NL teams haven't made the playoffs over the last eight seasons -- the Nationals/Expos and Pirates. Ten of the 14 AL teams have made it in that span, all except the Royals, Orioles, Blue Jays and Mariners. And the Mariners made it in both 2000 and 2001, and won 93 games the following two seasons without making the playoffs. The NFL, by comparison, also had six teams not make the playoffs over the last eight years (the 49ers, Raiders, Browns, Bills, Texans and Lions) -- again, despite a bigger playoff field.

Most people complain that the same teams make it every year in baseball. But Stark points out that 11 teams have made at least five playoff appearances over the last 10 years in the NFL, compared to eight in baseball -- the Yankees (9), Cardinals (7), Red Sox (6), Angels (6), Braves (6), A's (5) and Twins (5). Furthermore, Stark noted, 16 NFL teams have made the playoffs at least four times in the last 10 years, compared to just 10 MLB teams.

More numbers: Nine teams have won the last 10 World Series (with only Boston repeating). Seven teams have won the last 10 Super Bowls (with New England winning three, and Pittsburgh two). MLB has featured a plethora of recent breakthroughs, including the GIants last year winning their first World Series since 1954, the White Sox their first in 87 years in 2005, the Red Sox their first in 85 years in 2004, the Cardinals their first in 23 years in 2006, and the Phillies their first in 27 years in 2008. The Diamondbacks, Angels, Astros, Rockies, Rays and Rangers have all appeared in their first World Series in the last 10 years.

Another rap against baseball is that payroll determines success, and though there's certainly some truth to that (or to the converse), it's not as cut and dry as you'd think. Jon Heyman of SI.com pointed out recently that just two of the top nine teams in Opening Day payroll qualified for the 2010 postseason, while three of the bottom 12 teams in payroll made the postseason: the Reds (19th), Rays (21st) and Rangers (27th).

Joel Sherman of the New York Post, last October, came up with an interesting way to compare competitive balance in NFL vs. MLB. He looked at each market to see which team provided its fans with more hope. Sherman determined that the NFL clearly came out on top in five markets: Ravens vs. Orioles in Baltimore, Steelers vs. Pirates in Pittsburgh, Packers vs. Brewers in Wisconsin, Redskins vs. Nationals in DC, and Chargers vs. Padres in San Diego. I'm not so sure that the last two hold up any more, to be honest.

Sherman gives the edge to seven MLB teams: Rockies vs. Broncos in Denver, Phillies vs. Eagles in Philadelphia, Tigers vs. Lions in Detroit, Rays vs. Bucs in Tampa, Cardinals vs. Rams in St. Louis, Giants vs. 49ers in San Francisco, and A's vs. Raiders in Oakland. I'd say the gap has closed in Tampa, with the Bucs' resurgence this year and the Rays forced to dismantle a playoff team; but with a bountiful farm system, I think the Rays are going to be better than people think in 2011. And they did make the playoffs last year -- over the mighty Red Sox.

Sherman called several other market matchups a wash: Yankees/Mets vs. Giants/Jets, Twins vs. Vikings, Royals vs. Chiefs, Blue Jays vs. Bills, Cowboys vs. Rangers, Browns vs. Indians, Patriots vs. Red Sox, Braves vs. Falcons, Reds vs. Bengals, Astros vs. Texans, Diamondbacks vs. Cardinals, Marlins vs. Dolphins. I'd put Cubs/White Sox vs. Bears in that category, too. Yeah, the Cubs haven't won a title since 1908, but they've made the playoffs three times in the last 10 years, while the Sox have a championship in 2005. The Bears haven't won it all since 1985.

As for Los Angeles, the Angels and Dodgers are usually competitive (NLCS appearances for the Dodgers in 2008-09, and six playoff appearances in nine years by the Angels), while the NFL doesn't even have a team in the nation's No. 2 market.

In Seattle, I'd call it a wash, even though the Mariners are coming off a miserable year, and the Seahawks are coming off a playoff year (despite a 7-9 record). If you had asked this question after the 2009 season, when the M's won 85 games while the Seahawks went 5-11 (after a 4-12 mark in '08), I think Seattle fans would have given the hope edge to the Mariners.

I believe a large part of baseball's image problem when it comes to parity is due to the dominance of the Yankees and Red Sox, and the fact that one or the other of those teams have made the playoffs every year since 1995 (with both of them making it in 1995, 1998, 1999, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, and 2009).

Their high-profile success, and the fact those two teams' payroll dwarves all the other teams in baseball, leads to a perception that the other ballclubs don't have a chance. But I've just shown that that's simply not true. Even in the AL East, the Rays, with their skimpy payroll, have made the playoffs in two of the last three years. Yes, there is far more payroll disparity in baseball than in the NFL, with its salary cap. But especially in light of increased revenue sharing in baseball, almost every team is getting its turn at a title shot, provided they draft well, develop their prospects, and spend wisely. The Yankees, for all their nearly $200 million payroll and complaints of buying championships, are no sure thing -- certainly no more so than the Patriots. The Yankees look to have some crippling holes in their rotation heading into 2011. And they've won only one World Series since 2001.

All this is just some food for thought as you prepare for Sunday's Super Bowl. Enjoy the game, then get ready for the sport of true parity -- baseball.

You don't like baseball? No worries. Just don't claim to hate it because of its lack of parity. That is a complete fabrication.

Complete BS!! The league is made up of have and have nots. Management makes a big difference, but for small market teams to compete there cannot be any mistakes. And then you have a short window. Look at the Devil Rays - build a Champion level team and then sell them off, because the FA system is setup that they will not be able to afford those players in the next year or two. As an ex Athletics fan, I gave up being the farm system for the big city teams. You develop a young player and have to move them early, because you know that they will be offered way more than can be afforded.A couple of years ago the Yankees had spent more than the bottom 18 teams combined. Great for some players, but sucks for the rest of the league. I have not gone to a baseball game since the players struck and cost the end of the season, and probably never will. I don't even watch MLB on TV anymore.

I have a feeling my following of NFL will become similar to MLB if the NFL ends up with a system that is close.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Complete BS!! The league is made up of have and have nots. Management makes a big difference, but for small market teams to compete there cannot be any mistakes. And then you have a short window. Look at the Devil Rays - build a Champion level team and then sell them off, because the FA system is setup that they will not be able to afford those players in the next year or two. As an ex Athletics fan, I gave up being the farm system for the big city teams. You develop a young player and have to move them early, because you know that they will be offered way more than can be afforded.A couple of years ago the Yankees had spent more than the bottom 18 teams combined. Great for some players, but sucks for the rest of the league. I have not gone to a baseball game since the players struck and cost the end of the season, and probably never will. I don't even watch MLB on TV anymore. I have a feeling my following of NFL will become similar to MLB if the NFL ends up with a system that is close.

Yeah, let's ignore all the numbers he presents. It's BS because I said so!The Rays have lost a few pieces the last few years - but their team looks like it's going to be a strong force again despite losing Crawford - because they have competent management. The Yankees look extremely questionable for a team with that budget. And what of the Mets? Cubs? Angels? Three of the largest payrolls in baseball and what did that buy them last year? They all finished below .500. The Red Sox didn't even make the playoffs. In 2010, only 3 of the top 10 payrolls made the playoffs. The Giants (World Series winner) were the 11th highest. The Rangers (World Series loser) were the 4th LOWEST. The team with the second lowest payroll (Padres) blew their playoff hopes in the last week of the season. It's similar to the Bills losing a shot at the playoffs in week 17.Heck, the Mariners had the 9th highest payroll. And finished with the 2nd worst record.

 

[Christo]

You don't like baseball? No worries. Just don't claim to hate it because of its lack of parity. That is a complete fabrication.

While it might be true, just looking at the SB and WS may not tell the whole story. I'd like to see the analysis for the entire playoffs or division winners. Take Chicago for instance. The Bears are in the NFC North. Since realignment in 2002, 3/4 of the teams have won the division. In fact, 3/4 have gone to the NFCCG and 2/4 have gone to the SB. The Cubs are in the NL Central. Since 2002, 3/6 teams have won the division, 2/6 teams have gone to the NLCS and 1/6 has gone to the WS. The White Sox are in the AL Central. Since 2002, 3/5 have won the division, 2/5 have gone to the ALCS and 1/6 has gone to the WS. While there may seem to be parity in the sports with respect to the championship game, the parity may not trickle down to qualifying for the playoffs.So let's flip it around. I'm going to give you the gift of being a decent pro athlete with a seven year career, 3.5 as a starter. Injuries/life expectancy/salary are not a factor. You want your best shot at glory on the field. Do you want to play for the Detroit Lions or the Kansas City Royals?

 

[Dr. Awesome]

You don't like baseball? No worries. Just don't claim to hate it because of its lack of parity. That is a complete fabrication.

While it might be true, just looking at the SB and WS may not tell the whole story. I'd like to see the analysis for the entire playoffs or division winners. Take Chicago for instance. The Bears are in the NFC North. Since realignment in 2002, 3/4 of the teams have won the division. In fact, 3/4 have gone to the NFCCG and 2/4 have gone to the SB. The Cubs are in the NL Central. Since 2002, 3/6 teams have won the division, 2/6 teams have gone to the NLCS and 1/6 has gone to the WS. The White Sox are in the AL Central. Since 2002, 3/5 have won the division, 2/5 have gone to the ALCS and 1/6 has gone to the WS. While there may seem to be parity in the sports with respect to the championship game, the parity may not trickle down to qualifying for the playoffs.So let's flip it around. I'm going to give you the gift of being a decent pro athlete with a seven year career, 3.5 as a starter. Injuries/life expectancy/salary are not a factor. You want your best shot at glory on the field. Do you want to play for the Detroit Lions or the Kansas City Royals?

From the article I posted:

Furthermore, Kepner noted, 24 of 32 teams have made the NFL playoffs over the last five seasons -- 75 percent. In MLB, 22 of 30 teams have made the playoffs over the same time span --73.3 percent. Not much of a difference, when you consider the fact that the NFL has four more playoff berths and just two more teams.Jayson Stark of ESPN adds a few more nuggets: Only two of 16 NL teams haven't made the playoffs over the last eight seasons -- the Nationals/Expos and Pirates. Ten of the 14 AL teams have made it in that span, all except the Royals, Orioles, Blue Jays and Mariners. And the Mariners made it in both 2000 and 2001, and won 93 games the following two seasons without making the playoffs. The NFL, by comparison, also had six teams not make the playoffs over the last eight years (the 49ers, Raiders, Browns, Bills, Texans and Lions) -- again, despite a bigger playoff field.

That seems for even just making the playoffs the parity is equal.Imo the Royals are perhaps the worst run franchise in professional sports. There have been numerous articles on them from the baseball community the last few years. IIRC they even banned a reporter for asking questions they didn't like. Even the Pirates (perhaps the only other MLB team as awful as the Royals) last year started to show hints of ownership with a clue. In your scenario I take the Lions, no questions asked.

 

[Christo]

That does surprise me.

The percentage of playoff teams, not your choice.

 

[massraider]

In football, you can have a terrible team, and build a consistently good team, with playoff aspirations every year. Like the Colts. Worst to first, and stayed near the top.

You cannot do that in baseball, because the small-market teams cannot pay their stars. Every year, a young hungry team can make the playoffs. But in order to win consistently, those small market teams need to be run better than a Yankees or Red Sox.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

In football, you can have a terrible team, and build a consistently good team, with playoff aspirations every year. Like the Colts. Worst to first, and stayed near the top.You cannot do that in baseball, because the small-market teams cannot pay their stars. Every year, a young hungry team can make the playoffs. But in order to win consistently, those small market teams need to be run better than a Yankees or Red Sox.

I think part of quick turnaround is due to rookies. In the NFL, rookies play right off the bat and make an impact from game one. Sometimes they'll sit for a year or sometimes they'll get more and more playing time but for the most part they hit the ground running.In baseball it takes several years to make it to the majors. I don't believe they need to be run better than the Red Sox/Yankees. But like in football, you can't have one good draft then blow the others. And since it takes a few years to start seeing results, we're just now witnessing the results of the early trendsetters who realized the importance of strong drafts.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

The percentage of playoff teams, not your choice.

Of course it doesn't. You picked two options that were slanted towards the answer you wanted. The Lions are considered an up and coming team who a lot of experts think can be Super Bowl contenders in the next couple of years. The Royals are a pathetic excuse of a baseball team. The A's or the Raiders? I pick the baseball squad.Tigers or Lions? I go with the Tigers.Padres or Chargers? I go with Rivers and company.

 

[massraider]

In football, you can have a terrible team, and build a consistently good team, with playoff aspirations every year. Like the Colts. Worst to first, and stayed near the top.You cannot do that in baseball, because the small-market teams cannot pay their stars. Every year, a young hungry team can make the playoffs. But in order to win consistently, those small market teams need to be run better than a Yankees or Red Sox.

I think part of quick turnaround is due to rookies. In the NFL, rookies play right off the bat and make an impact from game one. Sometimes they'll sit for a year or sometimes they'll get more and more playing time but for the most part they hit the ground running.In baseball it takes several years to make it to the majors. I don't believe they need to be run better than the Red Sox/Yankees. But like in football, you can't have one good draft then blow the others. And since it takes a few years to start seeing results, we're just now witnessing the results of the early trendsetters who realized the importance of strong drafts.

The Yankees don't need to develop players in the minors. They can just purchase developed players on the free market. It takes a lot more work/skill/patience to develop a great farm system. Their money gives them a greater margin for error than a Milwaukee or Kansas City.

 

[Ice Cream Man]

This is an interesting analysis.

Of course, this presumes that variation in playoff appearances/world series appearances is the best (or only) metric for parity.

In any case, the parity issue in baseball -- or the perception of it -- is largely a relic from the 1994 CBA breakdown. Before the strike, there was significant revenue sharing in baseball; coming out of the 1994 wreckage the league largely scrapped all of it. I'm sure if one included the seasons from 1995-1999, you'd have a much different picture. Likewise, if you included seasons from 1980 onwards, you'd see far more parity in baseball than in football.

What this does seem to suggest is that:

- baseball is a more random sport. The saying you "win a third, lose a third, and a third is skill" rings true.

- teams have adjusted to the "revenue disparity shock" and are finding clever ways to remain competitive. As an example, the Athletics use of OBA to identify high quality players, on the margin. [i don't think the luxury tax has been the primary driver].

- there are far more quality players to go around these days [as there has not been expansion in a long time], thus dampening the advantage of having high payrolls. This is particularly true for pitchers, which makes all the difference in the world.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

The Yankees don't need to develop players in the minors. They can just purchase developed players on the free market. It takes a lot more work/skill/patience to develop a great farm system. Their money gives them a greater margin for error than a Milwaukee or Kansas City.

You're working with the assumption high priced FA's don't seriously underperform (or flat out flop). AJ Burnett, Carl Pavano. Barry Zito. Albert Haynesworth. Derrick Ward. Chone Figgins. I'm sure a lot of NY fans are hoping last year with Texiera (sp?) was just a fluke. Just because they cost a lot of $$ doesn't mean they'll pan out. When the Yankees were truly terrifying in the late 90's/early 00's, a great deal of their talent was homegrown. They began to falter when they got away from that and focused on going the Daniel Snyder route. Cashman has recently made it a point to rebuild the farm system. The Red Sox bought Crawford this offseason but they also traded for Adrian Gonzalez. And they couldn't have done that if they didn't have a farm system to tap into.

 

[Ice Cream Man]

The Yankees don't need to develop players in the minors. They can just purchase developed players on the free market. It takes a lot more work/skill/patience to develop a great farm system. Their money gives them a greater margin for error than a Milwaukee or Kansas City.

Interestingly, the Yankees have had one of the best farm system on the planet for a LONG time. The Expos/Nationals had a great system for while, Braves, Toronto.. but I don't think any team has been as consistently good as the Yankees.So the Yanks would have to disagree with you -- they do "need" to develop players in the minors. Otherwise they wouldn't put nearly the same of time/energy/skill in doing so that they currently do, and have always done.Now the Yanks "need" for a good farm system is probably less than other teams, because they fill short-term needs in a better manner than other teams. If that was your point, then I'll concede it. But they still need a good farm system, which is not what your statement conveys at all.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

.

- teams have adjusted to the "revenue disparity shock" and are finding clever ways to remain competitive. As an example, the Athletics use of OBA to identify high quality players, on the margin. [i don't think the luxury tax has been the primary driver].

Do you mean their use of OBP? On base percent/average? Lots of teams caught on to that. Oakland then switched to focusing on defensive value - something Boston, Seattle, and a few other teams have focused on as well. It's worked for some teams. It's been a disaster for others. Most teams have now recognized what they truly need to do is build a team through the draft or overseas scouting. Even the Pirates have recently ramped up the $$ they spend on overseas scouting.The previous problem with baseball is teams tried keeping up with the Yankees when it came to buying FA's. That's just stupid. The Raiders stand no chance if they try getting into a shootout with the Colts. Peyton Manning would destroy them. Instead they run the crap out of the ball and try to win with an entirely different style. Now squads are turning to the Oakland/Tampa/Minnesota style - build a quality team through the draft. Sign a few key pieces and continue to replace the others. The Padres showed a lot of success doing this last year. As did many other teams. We're just starting to see the results of these practices. And only a few teams did this at the beginning - we're a few more years away from some downtrodden franchises resurrecting themselves.

 

[Christo]

The percentage of playoff teams, not your choice.

Of course it doesn't. You picked two options that were slanted towards the answer you wanted. The Lions are considered an up and coming team who a lot of experts think can be Super Bowl contenders in the next couple of years. The Royals are a pathetic excuse of a baseball team. The A's or the Raiders? I pick the baseball squad.Tigers or Lions? I go with the Tigers.Padres or Chargers? I go with Rivers and company.

Of those teams, only the Lions fit the paradigm. The Raiders were in the SB in 2002. The A's, Tigers and Chargers have gone to their respective conference championships since 2002. And the A's, Chargers and Padres have won their divisions multiple times since 2002.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Of those teams, only the Lions fit the paradigm. The Raiders were in the SB in 2002. The A's, Tigers and Chargers have gone to their respective conference championships since 2002. And the A's, Chargers and Padres have won their divisions multiple times since 2002.

Gotcha. I thought you were simply listing crappy teams, not ones that fit the paradigm. I can think of a few MLB and NFL teams that have made the playoffs somewhat lately that I would want no part of. In any case I'd rather play for the Nationals than the Bills.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

The Red Sox bought Crawford this offseason but they also traded for Adrian Gonzalez. And they couldn't have done that if they didn't have a farm system to tap into.

Getting a player to the point that he looks like he has the potential to be a superstar one day is completely different than getting a player to the point that he actually DOES develop into a superstar that puts up big numbers in the majors.How many of those dozens and dozens of prospects that Boston/New York have traded away for superstars in the last decade have actually developed into stars in the majors?

 

[Dr. Awesome]

The Red Sox bought Crawford this offseason but they also traded for Adrian Gonzalez. And they couldn't have done that if they didn't have a farm system to tap into.

Getting a player to the point that he looks like he has the potential to be a superstar one day is completely different than getting a player to the point that he actually DOES develop into a superstar that puts up big numbers in the majors.How many of those dozens and dozens of prospects that Boston/New York have traded away for superstars in the last decade have actually developed into stars in the majors?

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[Nagle2998]

I understand all your number but to me the bottom line is a small market team like Oakland even with great management has no shot at staying on top team in football with great management you can stay good.

 

[renesauz]

I posted this in another thread:

I get so tired of hearing about parity in baseball. How many WS victories do the Yankees have? How many times have the Brewers been to the playoffs? What happened with the Marlins after they won the WS, and why? The truth is that baseball really only has 5 or 6 "have" teams. Those five or six are in the hunt EVERY year. Just because the other 20+ teams manage to win 3 or 4 WS in a dozen years doesn't mean there is parity. There are at least ten teams in baseball that will NEVER win a WS. There are 12-15 teams that CAN win IF they catch lightning in a bottle...if they catch a couple vets having career years at the same time they develop 2 or 3 youngsters. BUT...unlike the yanks, they can't hold those youngsters. Their window is the one year, not the next five.The idea of parity in baseball is a joke. I used to love baseball, but now despise it for it's economics.

Baseball only has a handful of elite teams, and those elite teams compete every year. It has a large middle class....3 or 4 of those teams will compete in any given year, giving the illusion of parity, while a dozen or so teams have absolutely, positively, no chance, EVER under the current arrangement.Football has no truly elite teams. Teams with great QBs can remain ultra competitive for several years, but it takes great drafting and management to stay at or near the top for long. Still one great QB can help a football team far more than any one player can help a baseball team. Football has a HUGE middle class, a very large number of teams that can compete in any given year, and can change fortunes in just one or two seasons. While the bottom football franchises have less resources than the top teams, the gap is MUCH MUCH smaller than in baseball. The bottom teams are limited less by economics and more by management and bad luck (like can't find a QB for an entire decade.)Nobody is disputing the figures...it's the interpretation of the figures.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

I understand all your number but to me the bottom line is a small market team like Oakland even with great management has no shot at staying on top team in football with great management you can stay good.

I don't see free agents flocking to sign with the Bills. And Oakland *hasn't* had great management the last several years. I'd a die hard A's fan but Beane made quite a few mistakes recently. So yes, a small payroll, with bad decisions, with a rash of non stop injuries, with a crappy stadium that causes free agents to refuse to play for you (allegedly the biggest reason Beltre refused to sign with them), can hurt a team.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

I posted this in another thread:

I get so tired of hearing about parity in baseball. How many WS victories do the Yankees have? How many times have the Brewers been to the playoffs? What happened with the Marlins after they won the WS, and why? The truth is that baseball really only has 5 or 6 "have" teams. Those five or six are in the hunt EVERY year. Just because the other 20+ teams manage to win 3 or 4 WS in a dozen years doesn't mean there is parity. There are at least ten teams in baseball that will NEVER win a WS. There are 12-15 teams that CAN win IF they catch lightning in a bottle...if they catch a couple vets having career years at the same time they develop 2 or 3 youngsters. BUT...unlike the yanks, they can't hold those youngsters. Their window is the one year, not the next five.The idea of parity in baseball is a joke. I used to love baseball, but now despise it for it's economics.

Baseball only has a handful of elite teams, and those elite teams compete every year. It has a large middle class....3 or 4 of those teams will compete in any given year, giving the illusion of parity, while a dozen or so teams have absolutely, positively, no chance, EVER under the current arrangement.Football has no truly elite teams. Teams with great QBs can remain ultra competitive for several years, but it takes great drafting and management to stay at or near the top for long. Still one great QB can help a football team far more than any one player can help a baseball team. Football has a HUGE middle class, a very large number of teams that can compete in any given year, and can change fortunes in just one or two seasons. While the bottom football franchises have less resources than the top teams, the gap is MUCH MUCH smaller than in baseball. The bottom teams are limited less by economics and more by management and bad luck (like can't find a QB for an entire decade.)Nobody is disputing the figures...it's the interpretation of the figures.

Your personal beliefs don't match up with the facts.And you're going to argue the Steelers/Patriots are not truly elite teams?

 

[Choke]

Yep, comeplete BS.

Baseball doesnt have parity anywhere near what Football offers.

 

[renesauz]

I posted this in another thread:

I get so tired of hearing about parity in baseball. How many WS victories do the Yankees have? How many times have the Brewers been to the playoffs? What happened with the Marlins after they won the WS, and why? The truth is that baseball really only has 5 or 6 "have" teams. Those five or six are in the hunt EVERY year. Just because the other 20+ teams manage to win 3 or 4 WS in a dozen years doesn't mean there is parity. There are at least ten teams in baseball that will NEVER win a WS. There are 12-15 teams that CAN win IF they catch lightning in a bottle...if they catch a couple vets having career years at the same time they develop 2 or 3 youngsters. BUT...unlike the yanks, they can't hold those youngsters. Their window is the one year, not the next five.The idea of parity in baseball is a joke. I used to love baseball, but now despise it for it's economics.

Baseball only has a handful of elite teams, and those elite teams compete every year. It has a large middle class....3 or 4 of those teams will compete in any given year, giving the illusion of parity, while a dozen or so teams have absolutely, positively, no chance, EVER under the current arrangement.Football has no truly elite teams. Teams with great QBs can remain ultra competitive for several years, but it takes great drafting and management to stay at or near the top for long. Still one great QB can help a football team far more than any one player can help a baseball team. Football has a HUGE middle class, a very large number of teams that can compete in any given year, and can change fortunes in just one or two seasons. While the bottom football franchises have less resources than the top teams, the gap is MUCH MUCH smaller than in baseball. The bottom teams are limited less by economics and more by management and bad luck (like can't find a QB for an entire decade.)Nobody is disputing the figures...it's the interpretation of the figures.

Your personal beliefs don't match up with the facts.And you're going to argue the Steelers/Patriots are not truly elite teams?

No...I'm gonna argue that they are elite teams because of superior management and elite QB's. How many Super Bowls did the Pats win before Brady?????I'm going to argue that the Steelers and the Patriots do NOT have a significant operating advantage over the bengals and the Bills. Or, at least, the significance of such pales in comparison to the operating advantage the Yankees enjoy over the Expos and MOST of the MLB teams. The Yankees have ALWAYS been elite. The Steelers and and Patriots have not. The Yanks have appeared in FORTY ONE World series' in 90 years, including 4 since 2000. That kind of dominance has no long term counterpart in football, especially in today's game. Football can offer short term counterparts, but not long term. And more than one person has argued that short term dominance is inherently EASIER in football because of the impact of the QB position.

 

[Ice Cream Man]

I'm going to argue that the Steelers and the Patriots do NOT have a significant operating advantage over the bengals and the Bills. Or, at least, the significance of such pales in comparison to the operating advantage the Yankees enjoy over the Expos and MOST of the MLB teams.

This is a straw man. No one is making this claim. The claim we are making - based on the empirical evidence, mind you, rather than emotions - is that teams are as competitive in baseball in SPITE of this.

I've offered reasons why, which of course you refuse to even address.

The Yankees have ALWAYS been elite. The Steelers and and Patriots have not. The Yanks have appeared in FORTY ONE World series' in 90 years, including 4 since 2000. That kind of dominance has no long term counterpart in football, especially in today's game.

First, on the basis of ONE team, it's hard to make an argument for or against parity. So because the Yanks have been a good team for a long time, there's no parity or less parity in MLB? That is a metric that, I would argue, few would embrace as being a useful/insightful measure of parity.Second, the Yankees have not always been elite. Were you a fan during the 1980s? I don't recall a lot of domination. In fact, their awesome rotation comes to mind: Cary, Hudson, LaPoint.. Since the move to the playoff system, but prior to the 1994 strike, the Yanks have been pretty average at best. They went 14 seasons without even being in the playoffs. I don't know if there's a nicer way to say this but, you don't know what you're talking about.

Third, you have to compare apples with apples:

-There was NO playoff system in baseball for most of the Yankees World Series appearances. You lead the division, you go to the World Series. So let's look at the percentage time the Yankees made the playoffs (which happened to be the World Series prior to the 1969). The Yanks made the playoffs 50% of their seasons (49/98) while the Steelers made it 55.6% of the time (25/45).

-If you look at just the playoff-seasons, the Yanks progressed through the playoffs to the World Series 26% of the time (11/42), while the Steelers progressed to the Superbowl 20% of the time (9/45). This difference could easily be explained away by it being harder for a good team to lose in a 4 out of 7 series, than a one-game take all format.

-None of these differences are statistically significant.

Football can offer short term counterparts, but not long term. And more than one person has argued that short term dominance is inherently EASIER in football because of the impact of the QB position.

The entire basis for your comments/concerns are unfounded, as I've shown.

 

[renesauz]

I'm going to argue that the Steelers and the Patriots do NOT have a significant operating advantage over the bengals and the Bills. Or, at least, the significance of such pales in comparison to the operating advantage the Yankees enjoy over the Expos and MOST of the MLB teams.

This is a straw man. No one is making this claim. The claim we are making - based on the empirical evidence, mind you, rather than emotions - is that teams are as competitive in baseball in SPITE of this.

I've offered reasons why, which of course you refuse to even address.

The Yankees have ALWAYS been elite. The Steelers and and Patriots have not. The Yanks have appeared in FORTY ONE World series' in 90 years, including 4 since 2000. That kind of dominance has no long term counterpart in football, especially in today's game.

First, on the basis of ONE team, it's hard to make an argument for or against parity. So because the Yanks have been a good team for a long time, there's no parity or less parity in MLB? That is a metric that, I would argue, few would embrace as being a useful/insightful measure of parity.Second, the Yankees have not always been elite. Were you a fan during the 1980s? I don't recall a lot of domination. In fact, their awesome rotation comes to mind: Cary, Hudson, LaPoint.. Since the move to the playoff system, but prior to the 1994 strike, the Yanks have been pretty average at best. They went 14 seasons without even being in the playoffs. I don't know if there's a nicer way to say this but, you don't know what you're talking about.

Third, you have to compare apples with apples:

-There was NO playoff system in baseball for most of the Yankees World Series appearances. You lead the division, you go to the World Series. So let's look at the percentage time the Yankees made the playoffs (which happened to be the World Series prior to the 1969). The Yanks made the playoffs 50% of their seasons (49/98) while the Steelers made it 55.6% of the time (25/45).

-If you look at just the playoff-seasons, the Yanks progressed through the playoffs to the World Series 26% of the time (11/42), while the Steelers progressed to the Superbowl 20% of the time (9/45). This difference could easily be explained away by it being harder for a good team to lose in a 4 out of 7 series, than a one-game take all format.

-None of these differences are statistically significant.

Football can offer short term counterparts, but not long term. And more than one person has argued that short term dominance is inherently EASIER in football because of the impact of the QB position.

The entire basis for your comments/concerns are unfounded, as I've shown.

Lead your divison and go to the world series...umm....there were 10 or so teams in those "divisions". Winning a pennant and going to the series should have been HARDER, not easier, than it is now. The real straw man in the room is that football to baseball is an apples to apples comparison to start with. AS long as the Yankees are free to spend 4 or 5 times what the bottom half of MLB is able to, then there can be no real parity.Statistics don't lie, but interpretations can be very misleading. I, and others, have given several very good reasons why short term parity comparisons are similar. Ten or 12 years is pretty short term. The dominance of the big-market clubs in MLB has been a long term phenomenum, and does not appear to have dramaticly improved. Meanwhile, the Bills managed a 4 or 5 year run of dominance on the arm of a great QB and a good RB (I know they lost, but they went to 4 straight!), and the Packers, in a market smaller than any other professional sports team period, have managed to not only stay competitive, but win more than their share through superior management. What small market team in baseball has won even CLOSE to it's "share", let alone exceeded that share?

Sorry...the stats are misleading.

ETA: Oh...and the Yankees are the ULTIMATE example of disparity in sports. You can't disregard that long-term history...it SCREAMS disparity. And that history is very relevant because baseball operates fundamentally the same now as it did in 1920.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

ETA: Oh...and the Yankees are the ULTIMATE example of disparity in sports. You can't disregard that long-term history...it SCREAMS disparity. And that history is very relevant because baseball operates fundamentally the same now as it did in 1920.

 

[renesauz]

ETA: Oh...and the Yankees are the ULTIMATE example of disparity in sports. You can't disregard that long-term history...it SCREAMS disparity. And that history is very relevant because baseball operates fundamentally the same now as it did in 1920.

Really? The rich teams don't buy any and all players they want while the small market clubs struggle to keep young talent? The Yankees can't outbid everyone else for any FA player they want, the same as they did in 1920?Every MLB team is essentially on its own...the same as they were in 1920.

I realize that MANY things in baseball have changed in the last 90 years, but these aspects, the ones most damaging to parity...have remained essentially untouched.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

ETA: Oh...and the Yankees are the ULTIMATE example of disparity in sports. You can't disregard that long-term history...it SCREAMS disparity. And that history is very relevant because baseball operates fundamentally the same now as it did in 1920.

Really? The rich teams don't buy any and all players they want while the small market clubs struggle to keep young talent? The Yankees can't outbid everyone else for any FA player they want, the same as they did in 1920?Every MLB team is essentially on its own...the same as they were in 1920.

I realize that MANY things in baseball have changed in the last 90 years, but these aspects, the ones most damaging to parity...have remained essentially untouched.

For one, the MLB didn't have free agents until the 1970's. If you were with a club you were stuck with that club unless they decided to trade you (as the Red Sox did with Babe Ruth).

 

[Dr. Awesome]

ETA: Oh...and the Yankees are the ULTIMATE example of disparity in sports. You can't disregard that long-term history...it SCREAMS disparity. And that history is very relevant because baseball operates fundamentally the same now as it did in 1920.

Really? The rich teams don't buy any and all players they want while the small market clubs struggle to keep young talent? The Yankees can't outbid everyone else for any FA player they want, the same as they did in 1920?Every MLB team is essentially on its own...the same as they were in 1920.

I realize that MANY things in baseball have changed in the last 90 years, but these aspects, the ones most damaging to parity...have remained essentially untouched.

Second, as Ice Cream Man mentioned, baseball didn't even have a playoff system until 1969. Meaning if you finished with the best record in the American league you made the World Series and played the team from the National League with the best record. I think the Super Bowl matchups would have looked a LOT different if they were structured the same way. The playoffs went through tweaks in the 70's and 80's. Major League baseball has used its current playoff system since 1995.

Since the playoff system, the Yankees were dominant in the late 70's/early 80's. Aside from that they absolutely sucked. Until the mid 90's when their farm system took control for several years. After that they've consistently made the playoffs but been unable to win it all. In 2009 they won the World Series. In 2008 they missed the playoffs. In 2010 they won the wild card to make the playoffs. Meaning they would have missed the playoffs entirely in a pre-1995 era.

 

[renesauz]

The Yankees appeared in the WS in:

1921,2,3,6,7,8

1932,6,7,8,9

1941,2,3,7,9

1950,1,2,3,5,6,7,8

1960,1,2,3,4

ALL those years the Yankees won more games than any other team in the AL. Y'all say there was no playoff system...so winning the league outright in the regular season in order to go to the WS should have been a more difficult achievement. If every team was able to keep every drafted player with talent indefinately, this would not be the case. This is CLEARLY not an example of parity. Ironicly....the Yankees always had the highest payroll. Free agency did not look anything like it does now, but something similar did infact exist. Players did sign contracts and did move between clubs, albeit less frequently/easily.

If parity ever existed in MLB, it was between 1970 and 1990, when 8 differant teams represented the AL and the Yankees only 4 times (76,7,8,81.) Perrenially financially challenged clubs such as the Brewers, Tigers, and Royals made appearances.

The Yankees had a bad stretch in the 80s with only 1 world series appearance.

Since 1996...the Yankees have again represented the AL in the world series an impossible 7 times. IE: 50% of the time the AL winner has been the Yankees. And you call this parity????????? Parity is not measured by the differant 3rd and 4th place clubs, but by the differant champions. In contrast, the Patriots and Steelers lead the NFL in Super Bowl appearances over that same period with 4 each.

Baseball does not have parity. We can argue over whether true parity exists in football, but not in baseball.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

The Yankees appeared in the WS in:1921,2,3,6,7,81932,6,7,8,91941,2,3,7,91950,1,2,3,5,6,7,81960,1,2,3,4ALL those years the Yankees won more games than any other team in the AL. Y'all say there was no playoff system...so winning the league outright in the regular season in order to go to the WS should have been a more difficult achievement. If every team was able to keep every drafted player with talent indefinately, this would not be the case. This is CLEARLY not an example of parity. Ironicly....the Yankees always had the highest payroll. Free agency did not look anything like it does now, but something similar did infact exist. Players did sign contracts and did move between clubs, albeit less frequently/easily.If parity ever existed in MLB, it was between 1970 and 1990, when 8 differant teams represented the AL and the Yankees only 4 times (76,7,8,81.) Perrenially financially challenged clubs such as the Brewers, Tigers, and Royals made appearances.The Yankees had a bad stretch in the 80s with only 1 world series appearance.Since 1996...the Yankees have again represented the AL in the world series an impossible 7 times. IE: 50% of the time the AL winner has been the Yankees. And you call this parity????????? Parity is not measured by the differant 3rd and 4th place clubs, but by the differant champions. In contrast, the Patriots and Steelers lead the NFL in Super Bowl appearances over that same period with 4 each.Baseball does not have parity. We can argue over whether true parity exists in football, but not in baseball.

Stop bringing up the pre-playoff structure. It's fairly clear you didn't have a clue what you were talking about. It's not a big deal - nobody outside timschochet can know everything. Let's talk about the 1970's to present. Ice Cream Man was rather polite when he said you're flat out wrong.As far as your Yankees dominating the WS argument,

Fifteen different teams have competed in the last 11 Super Bowls (with championships in parentheses)atriots 4 Super Bowls (3 titles), Steelers 3 (2 titles, with this year's game still to be played), Colts 2 (1), Giants 2 (1), Packers 1 (this year's game still to be played), Saints 1 (1), Cardinals 1, Bears 1, Seahawks 1, Eagles 1, Panthers 1, Bucs 1 (1), Ravens 1 (1), Raiders 1, Rams 1.Fifteen different teams have competed in the last 11 World Series (with championships in parentheses):

The Yankees had an incredibly dominant short run (which per your argument is entirely reasonable). They built up a great team (the bulk of the team was from pieces they brought through their farm system - NOT players they bought). They also had some seriously incompetent teams in their division. Think the Patriots playing in the same division as the Lions, Browns, Bills, and Raiders. But even with their short span of total dominance, baseball HAS had parity since 2000 (possibly longer but the article only goes back that far). The Yankees have been to 4 World Series in that time. Since 2000 the Patriots have been to 4 Super Bowls. The facts support the opposite of what you've claimed. Shall I mention the Bills making the Super Bowl FOUR years in a row to show the NFL doesn't have parity?

 

[Choke]

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Yep, comeplete BS. Baseball doesnt have parity anywhere near what Football offers.

Go away.

 

[Mr. Retukes]

Furthermore, Kepner noted, 24 of 32 teams have made the NFL playoffs over the last five seasons -- 75 percent. In MLB, 22 of 30 teams have made the playoffs over the same time span --73.3 percent. Not much of a difference, when you consider the fact that the NFL has four more playoff berths and just two more teams.

Why does it only look back at the last 5 years? Why not 4? Or 6? Or 10?In baseball, there are 5-6 teams that will never play in a World Series under the current system (Pittsburgh, KC, Milwaukee, etc.) But in football, every single team at least has an equal shot at a Super Bowl.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Furthermore, Kepner noted, 24 of 32 teams have made the NFL playoffs over the last five seasons -- 75 percent. In MLB, 22 of 30 teams have made the playoffs over the same time span --73.3 percent. Not much of a difference, when you consider the fact that the NFL has four more playoff berths and just two more teams.

Why does it only look back at the last 5 years? Why not 4? Or 6? Or 10?In baseball, there are 5-6 teams that will never play in a World Series under the current system (Pittsburgh, KC, Milwaukee, etc.) But in football, every single team at least has an equal shot at a Super Bowl.

Brewers made the playoffs in 2008. They have a pretty good shot to make it again this year. I'd argue they have a much better shot to win the World Series in the next few years than the Browns at winning the Super Bowl.

 

[Choke]

Yep, comeplete BS. Baseball doesnt have parity anywhere near what Football offers.

Go away.

Not. A. Chance.Silly thread is fun!

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Not. A. Chance.Silly thread is fun!

Hi Steel,It's cool if you disagree. I'm up for a good discussion about things. Christo and massraider made a couple of good points. But please take this crappy obnoxious shtick back to the FFA political threads. TIA

 

[Fensalk]

Rather than continuing a hijack I started, I decided to fire up this spinoff.There is an often repeated myth that baseball has the same teams winning every year (which is one of the reasons folk don't like it). This same myth often mentions football's salary cap as the great equalizer and as a sport as a whole they offer a great deal of playoff turnover.

This is NOT what they are saying. What people are saying is that some baseball teams are able to stay competitive because they have an enormous financial advantage. While some NFL teams are able to compete every year, their reasons are based more on skill.

 

[DropKick]

An over complicated analysis of a situation that is relatively easy to explain. To the average fan, NFL "parity" exists because of the salary cap, lack of guaranteed contracts, the nature of injury, the short season, "any given Sunday", the occasional quick rise to success and the occasional quick fall from grace. While it's true that well coached teams, well run franchises and teams with stable QB play are always in the thick of things, the perception is that the vast majority of teams have a shot. As I recall, a large percentage of NFL teams were mathematically alive the last few weeks of last season.

In baseball, perception is driven by the big market teams and specifically the AL East. The seeds of frustration are sewn in the off-season when hot free agents sign in NY or Boston, reinforced by fire sales at the trade deadline, and entrenched with the Yankees/Red Sox in the post season.

Parity, to me, doesn't equate to every team having an equal chance of winning a title. That's never reality. Differences in coaching, current personnel, etc. make certain teams favorites for sometimes extended periods of time. I expect that ebb and flow in sports. Parity is defined as functional equivalence or, in my mind, "fairness". So, if you're a fan of a small market team with a limited payroll, you feel like your team is at a disadvantage. They are... their chance of success and margin for injury or error is quite small. Fortunately, baseball being baseball... different teams can and do win the WS.

 

[DropKick]

I often suspect that statistics are presented but not necessarily interpreted very well. Meaning is in the eye of the beholder. For example (from a previous post):

Nine different teams have competed in the last 11 AFC title games. Here are the appearances by teams: Steelers 5, Patriots 5, Colts 3, Jets 2, Ravens 2, Raiders 2, Chargers 1, Broncos 1, Titans 1.

Over that same time period, 11 different teams have competed in the last 11 American League Championship Series. Here are the appearances by teams: Yankees 6, Red Sox 4, Angels 3, Mariners 2, Rangers 1, Rays 1, Indians 1, Tigers 1, A's 1, White Sox 1, Twins 1.

Some might say that, since football has less turn over, there is actually less parity. Or, that the two are comparable. I see the opposite. The Steelers, Patriots and Colts (13 of 22 appearances) are well run franchises with superior defense and/or QB play. In the next decade, we could see the Packers, Bucs and Chargers take their role. The Yankees, Red Sox and Angels (13 of 22) are big market teams who have assembled virtual all-star teams. Their success is attributed less to scheme or strategy but purely to dollars. I suspect NY and Boston will remain in the mix permanently under the current structure.

 

[renesauz]

The Yankees appeared in the WS in:1921,2,3,6,7,81932,6,7,8,91941,2,3,7,91950,1,2,3,5,6,7,81960,1,2,3,4ALL those years the Yankees won more games than any other team in the AL. Y'all say there was no playoff system...so winning the league outright in the regular season in order to go to the WS should have been a more difficult achievement. If every team was able to keep every drafted player with talent indefinately, this would not be the case. This is CLEARLY not an example of parity. Ironicly....the Yankees always had the highest payroll. Free agency did not look anything like it does now, but something similar did infact exist. Players did sign contracts and did move between clubs, albeit less frequently/easily.If parity ever existed in MLB, it was between 1970 and 1990, when 8 differant teams represented the AL and the Yankees only 4 times (76,7,8,81.) Perrenially financially challenged clubs such as the Brewers, Tigers, and Royals made appearances.The Yankees had a bad stretch in the 80s with only 1 world series appearance.Since 1996...the Yankees have again represented the AL in the world series an impossible 7 times. IE: 50% of the time the AL winner has been the Yankees. And you call this parity????????? Parity is not measured by the differant 3rd and 4th place clubs, but by the differant champions. In contrast, the Patriots and Steelers lead the NFL in Super Bowl appearances over that same period with 4 each.Baseball does not have parity. We can argue over whether true parity exists in football, but not in baseball.

Stop bringing up the pre-playoff structure. It's fairly clear you didn't have a clue what you were talking about. It's not a big deal - nobody outside timschochet can know everything. Let's talk about the 1970's to present. Ice Cream Man was rather polite when he said you're flat out wrong.As far as your Yankees dominating the WS argument,

Fifteen different teams have competed in the last 11 Super Bowls (with championships in parentheses)atriots 4 Super Bowls (3 titles), Steelers 3 (2 titles, with this year's game still to be played), Colts 2 (1), Giants 2 (1), Packers 1 (this year's game still to be played), Saints 1 (1), Cardinals 1, Bears 1, Seahawks 1, Eagles 1, Panthers 1, Bucs 1 (1), Ravens 1 (1), Raiders 1, Rams 1.Fifteen different teams have competed in the last 11 World Series (with championships in parentheses):

The Yankees had an incredibly dominant short run (which per your argument is entirely reasonable). They built up a great team (the bulk of the team was from pieces they brought through their farm system - NOT players they bought). They also had some seriously incompetent teams in their division. Think the Patriots playing in the same division as the Lions, Browns, Bills, and Raiders. But even with their short span of total dominance, baseball HAS had parity since 2000 (possibly longer but the article only goes back that far). The Yankees have been to 4 World Series in that time. Since 2000 the Patriots have been to 4 Super Bowls. The facts support the opposite of what you've claimed. Shall I mention the Bills making the Super Bowl FOUR years in a row to show the NFL doesn't have parity?

As I concluded...we can argue about whether football has parity. IN fact, pre-salary cap football did NOT have much parity.I have not ignored your arguments. I have rejected your conclusion. I have pointed out WHY football lends itself to short period of dominance by particular teams and stated that that fact alone makes any short term (and 10-12 years is certainly short term) comparison invalid. I've also pointed out that baseball has a stronger history of individual team dominance...as again many of the Yankees WS appearances happened BEFORE a playoff structure under a system that should have made it harder to obtain that appearance.This argument may be about semantics. The meaning of the word "parity".To me, parity means that more (and preferrably ALL) teams have a roughly equal and legit shot to be competitive. Parity can not, and should not be measured solely by turnover at the top in a short time frame, but by turnover at both ends of the spectrum over a longer time frame coupled with a reasonable analyses of WHY those specific teams dwelling at the differant ends of the spectrum have continued to dwell where they do. Parity is not short term results, but methods used to ensure equal opportunity. Your entire argument is based solely on short term results.While a study of league playoff teams and champions can give some indication of parity...it does NOT tell the whole story. It does not, for example, tell us how many teams had ZERO shot to be competitive. The structure of football encourages such parity. There is no logical reason beyond mismanagement (or bad luck) why the Lions and the Bills have not been competitive for the better part of 20 years. There are dozens (millions of $) of reasons why the Brewers and the Royals have not been competitive...they do NOT operate on anything close to a level playing field. IE: THe financial handicap of footballs bottom feeders pales in comparison to the handicaps of the bottom feeders in Baseball. Football has designed a system meant to encourage parity in a sport where parity should have been harder to achieve (because of the dominance of the QB position). Baseball has nothing beyond the draft (which is even more a crap-shoot than in football) in which to encourage any kind of parity, and has never made a legit attempt to gain such financial parity.IN the end, you've presented data for the top end and presented it as "proof" of parity. You've put your proof above the analyses, and rejected other explanations of the data.

 

[Jersey35]

Interesting topic. I'm afraid it seems like many of us (including the writer of the article listed in the OP) are making the mistake of looking at a given set of outcomes and deriving conclusions about parity from them. Sure the numbers are there, but the interpretation is faulty.

What I mean is that just because x of xx teams have won the World Series, made the playoffs, or won their division in the past x MLB seasons does not mean that MLB has parity. Just like the fact that x of xx NFL teams have won the SuperBowl, made the playoffs, or won their division in the past x NFL seasons does not mean that the NFL has parity. At least not in the sense that matters for the purposes of this discussion...

It seems to me that what people are concerned with when they discuss parity in sports is whether or not teams start on relatively equal footing in their efforts to achieve success. People respect talent in sports: athletic talent, coaching talent, managerial talent, and scouting talent. Having more money isn't a talent that a sports fan cares about.

Have you looked at the 2011 MLB Salary/payroll comparison? An MLB team with a payroll two times, three times, or even SEVEN times that of its competitors has an undeniable advantage over their competition. The fact that they waste that advantage with poor decision-making, coaching, and play does not change that fact. Imagine one of the better run small-market teams with a payroll five times what it is now. You have to imagine they'd be having a great deal more success not having to start with a handicap.

I know what the OP numbers say, but I vehemently disagree with what they mean.

 

[VTjkru]

Have to agree that some are skewing what most fans see as parity.

During the offseason, NFL teams are all on a much more even playing field than MLB teams are. A great indicator of that are future betting odds. Look at the division winner odds and league wide odds for their respective championships: http://www.vegasinsider.com/nfl/odds/futures/ and http://www.vegasinsider.com/mlb/odds/futures/

 

[gandalas]

Not. A. Chance.Silly thread is fun!

Hi Steel,It's cool if you disagree. I'm up for a good discussion about things. Christo and massraider made a couple of good points. But please take this crappy obnoxious shtick back to the FFA political threads. TIA

The thing is, the only stats you keep referring to are from that one article listed in the OP, which is one person's interpretation of the past 10-15 years. The fact is, ANY system in which a team has an inherent advantage due solely to their geographical position can never be a fair system.Examples - in baseball it is the big market teams with their individual TV deals that can outspend contemporaries on a 10-1 margin (or more!). In basketball, there has been many examples of a state's taxation policies which give certain teams an advantage (Texas in the 90's with the Spurs and Rockets, Miami just the past year). The soft salary cap in basketball also lends itself to a league of have and have-nots as well. I can understand the tax element somewhat, as that is something that the league can do nothing about, and I don't really understand why that has not been more of a factor in the NFL as well. But Baseball's system of no minimum or maximum cap is the worst possible scenario that could come to the NFL.

 

[Ice Cream Man]

It seems to me that what people are concerned with when they discuss parity in sports is whether or not teams start on relatively equal footing in their efforts to achieve success. People respect talent in sports: athletic talent, coaching talent, managerial talent, and scouting talent. Having more money isn't a talent that a sports fan cares about.

I disagree. Baseball fans care about whether their team can win. If the Brewers won the next three World Series, this whole parity discussion would go out the window (if it hasn't already). Before there were caps and revenue sharing in the other sports, there was never talk about parity or a lack thereof in MLB - even though certain baseball teams had financial advantages over others. Having a similar financial footing not what baseball fans care about; they care if the difference is so much that they can't win.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

as again many of the Yankees WS appearances happened BEFORE a playoff structure under a system that should have made it harder to obtain that appearance.

How in the world does a non-playoff structure make it HARDER to advance to the World Series?

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Interesting topic. I'm afraid it seems like many of us (including the writer of the article listed in the OP) are making the mistake of looking at a given set of outcomes and deriving conclusions about parity from them. Sure the numbers are there, but the interpretation is faulty.

What I mean is that just because x of xx teams have won the World Series, made the playoffs, or won their division in the past x MLB seasons does not mean that MLB has parity. Just like the fact that x of xx NFL teams have won the SuperBowl, made the playoffs, or won their division in the past x NFL seasons does not mean that the NFL has parity. At least not in the sense that matters for the purposes of this discussion...

It seems to me that what people are concerned with when they discuss parity in sports is whether or not teams start on relatively equal footing in their efforts to achieve success. People respect talent in sports: athletic talent, coaching talent, managerial talent, and scouting talent. Having more money isn't a talent that a sports fan cares about.

Have you looked at the 2011 MLB Salary/payroll comparison? An MLB team with a payroll two times, three times, or even SEVEN times that of its competitors has an undeniable advantage over their competition. The fact that they waste that advantage with poor decision-making, coaching, and play does not change that fact. Imagine one of the better run small-market teams with a payroll five times what it is now. You have to imagine they'd be having a great deal more success not having to start with a handicap.

I know what the OP numbers say, but I vehemently disagree with what they mean.

We don't know how 2011 will pan out so let's look at 2010's payroll: http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/salaries/teams3 of the 10 highest payrolls made the playoffs. The 9th highest payroll finished with the 2nd WORST record. 2 of the 10 lowest payrolls made the playoffs.

And your argument is simply because baseball has a high rate of turnover when it comes to playoff appearances and World Series champs doesn't mean there is parity? By what means do you wish to measure things?

The Royals don't suck because they don't have the same payroll as NY. They suck because they're the Lions of the MLB.

The Yankees have a clear advantage when it comes to bidding on free agents. But many of their signings have flopped. Think Daniel Snyder signing Albert Haynesworth. Some work out for a few years but the average age of a free agents combined with the length makes things difficult as the players age (as we're seeing now).

When it comes to spending $$ on scouting or signing draft picks, the Yankees are middle of the pack. http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/draft/?p=2928 http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/international-affairs/2011/2611345.html

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Have to agree that some are skewing what most fans see as parity.

During the offseason, NFL teams are all on a much more even playing field than MLB teams are. A great indicator of that are future betting odds. Look at the division winner odds and league wide odds for their respective championships: http://www.vegasinsider.com/nfl/odds/futures/ and http://www.vegasinsider.com/mlb/odds/futures/

Vegas is betting on what they think has the best odds of happening moving forward. I'd rather gamble on the Phillies than the Cubs (despite the Cubs having a higher 2010 payroll). But data since 2000 shows it doesn't matter what Vegas picks as the favorites - because reality doesn't turn out as gamblers hope. It doesn't matter how much we perceive teams to be on the same playing field. What matters are the end results. And the end results over this past decade show most teams have a pretty good shot at making the playoffs.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

The Yankees, Red Sox and Angels (13 of 22) are big market teams who have assembled virtual all-star teams. Their success is attributed less to scheme or strategy but purely to dollars. I suspect NY and Boston will remain in the mix permanently under the current structure.

The Red Sox and Angels both missed the playoffs last year and finished 3rd in their divisions. The Yankees missed the playoffs in 2008. In 2009 the Yankees won the World Series after finishing 2nd in their division (losing to the team with the 6th lowest payroll).