Parity in football (1 Viewer)

[renesauz]

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?

It wasn't really harder before. It SHOULD have been harder before, because there was less random chance involved in the playoffs. A 90 win team is not at a significant disadvantage to a 100 win team in a short series. Before...the 90 win team stayed home. Now, that team has a chance to upset the 100 win team in a divisional series. ONE team of 12 (or so, depending on the year) made the playoffs (WS). Now 4 teams make it, each with a roughly equal chance to advance not because of parity, but because of the random chance inherent in baseball. From that perspective, making the WS 4 times in a decade now is even more an example of NON-PARITY than making it 4 or 5 times in the 40's or 50's.

 

[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?

It wasn't really harder before. It SHOULD have been harder before, because there was less random chance involved in the playoffs. A 90 win team is not at a significant disadvantage to a 100 win team in a short series. Before...the 90 win team stayed home. Now, that team has a chance to upset the 100 win team in a divisional series. ONE team of 12 (or so, depending on the year) made the playoffs (WS). Now 4 teams make it, each with a roughly equal chance to advance not because of parity, but because of the random chance inherent in baseball. From that perspective, making the WS 4 times in a decade now is even more an example of NON-PARITY than making it 4 or 5 times in the 40's or 50's.

Even with the Yankees making it to the WS 4 times this decade, the stats show there have been as many teams to make the WS as there have been teams to make the SB. The Patriots have made the SB 4 times this decade. Why does one case show this huge disparity while the other is totally ignored?

 

[renesauz]

Even with the Yankees making it to the WS 4 times this decade, the stats show there have been as many teams to make the WS as there have been teams to make the SB. The Patriots have made the SB 4 times this decade. Why does one case show this huge disparity while the other is totally ignored?

It doesn't necesarily do so. You continue to make your decision on parity/non-parity based solely on the statistical results of the teams appearing in the championship game.I've pointed out very valid reason why a football team can achieve a decade of dominance even in an environment of parity (QB dominance). Baseball has no equivalent. Even a dominant pitcher only starts every 5th game. Parity can not be fairly defined solely by short term results...this is the serious flaw in your comparison. Any statistical evaluation must be tempered by an objective analyses of the circumstances by which those results were obtained. Did teams start on a roughly equal footing?One could make a very strong argument that football does NOT have parity, but nobody can deny that football has, at least in the past 20 years, made a very serious attempt to do so. Baseball has made no such attempt. Interpretations of the results of this (attempt in football) vary, but of 32 teams, the fan-bases of 20 or more have realistic aspirations for the playoffs at the start of any given year...not so in baseball. Of the 12 or so teams without realistic aspirations, all but a select few have realistic expectations of progress, and a serious playoff run in a year or two. Those select few who don't expect such progress feel that way not because of a system, but because of team management. Do Brewers fans expect their team to ever make another run under MLB's current system? Would ANYONE reasonably blame Brewers management?If statistical results is ONLY argument that matters to youy in discussing whether parity exists in baseball, then we're at a crossroads. Most people will disagree with that approach.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Even with the Yankees making it to the WS 4 times this decade, the stats show there have been as many teams to make the WS as there have been teams to make the SB. The Patriots have made the SB 4 times this decade. Why does one case show this huge disparity while the other is totally ignored?

It doesn't necesarily do so. You continue to make your decision on parity/non-parity based solely on the statistical results of the teams appearing in the championship game.I've pointed out very valid reason why a football team can achieve a decade of dominance even in an environment of parity (QB dominance). Baseball has no equivalent. Even a dominant pitcher only starts every 5th game. Parity can not be fairly defined solely by short term results...this is the serious flaw in your comparison. Any statistical evaluation must be tempered by an objective analyses of the circumstances by which those results were obtained. Did teams start on a roughly equal footing?One could make a very strong argument that football does NOT have parity, but nobody can deny that football has, at least in the past 20 years, made a very serious attempt to do so. Baseball has made no such attempt. Interpretations of the results of this (attempt in football) vary, but of 32 teams, the fan-bases of 20 or more have realistic aspirations for the playoffs at the start of any given year...not so in baseball. Of the 12 or so teams without realistic aspirations, all but a select few have realistic expectations of progress, and a serious playoff run in a year or two. Those select few who don't expect such progress feel that way not because of a system, but because of team management. Do Brewers fans expect their team to ever make another run under MLB's current system? Would ANYONE reasonably blame Brewers management?If statistical results is ONLY argument that matters to youy in discussing whether parity exists in baseball, then we're at a crossroads. Most people will disagree with that approach.

I've argued both championship appearances and/or playoff appearances. Both show parity in baseball. Please read the initial article again. It also points out not only championship appearances but playoff appearances. Stop mentioning the Brewers. They made the playoffs in 2008. 2008 operated under the current system. Assuming they can stay healthy they have a very legitimate chance at the playoffs this year.So your previous argument was the NFL had parity but MLB did not. When it was shown the two sports have actually had equal parity over the past decade, you've now changed your argument to the NFL does NOT have parity but they've at least *tried*? By what measure? How has the NFL tried to bring parity?

 

[Dr. Awesome]

If statistical results is ONLY argument that matters to youy in discussing whether parity exists in baseball, then we're at a crossroads. Most people will disagree with that approach.

I choose to use reality and facts. If you choose to use another means more power to you.

 

[JFurby]

I'm not a fan of baseball because I find it to be a boring way to spend 4 hours. However, I don't have strong feelings against baseball, and I have no real desire to benchmark it against other sports. I'm just not really interested in the game. So as someone indifferent towards the comparison of parity in the NFL vs parity in MLB, I've read through this thread trying to figure out which side I believe.

I don't know that I came to a conclusion but it seems to me that the perception that parity does not exist in MLB is solely because of the Yankees. If you remove the extremely skewed Yankee championship/playoff history and yankee payroll, most of the perception would vanish. It is difficult for me to not draw a strong correlation between the past success and having a payroll multiple times higher than that of your opponents.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

I'm not a fan of baseball because I find it to be a boring way to spend 4 hours. However, I don't have strong feelings against baseball, and I have no real desire to benchmark it against other sports. I'm just not really interested in the game. So as someone indifferent towards the comparison of parity in the NFL vs parity in MLB, I've read through this thread trying to figure out which side I believe.I don't know that I came to a conclusion but it seems to me that the perception that parity does not exist in MLB is solely because of the Yankees. If you remove the extremely skewed Yankee championship/playoff history and yankee payroll, most of the perception would vanish. It is difficult for me to not draw a strong correlation between the past success and having a payroll multiple times higher than that of your opponents.

No worries. I'm a fanatic and even I can't sit and watch an entire game without doing something else to keep me occupied. Different strokes for everyone. That's a great point about the Yankees. They have a truly legendary past and when you combine that with the fact they *do* spend a lot of money alongside with their incompetent division (at least until the last few years nobody outside NY had a clue), that goes a very long ways to adding to their perception.

 

[VTjkru]

If statistical results is ONLY argument that matters to youy in discussing whether parity exists in baseball, then we're at a crossroads. Most people will disagree with that approach.

"I choose to use reality and facts. If you choose to use another means more power to you.

You are still arguing a different definition of "parity" then most of the users in this thread.I hate to use Wikipedia but read the article on sports parity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parity_(sports)

Is the MLB the first league you think of when you read that? Most would say no.

"Parity in sports is defined as attempting to make an equal playing field for all participants, specifically with regard to financial issues."

Definitely not the MLB.

"When parity in a sports league is achieved, all participating teams enjoy roughly equivalent levels of talent."

Again, not the MLB when many teams are seriously considered as farm teams for the upper echelon teams.

"In such a league, the "best" team is not significantly better than the "worst" team."

The bottom teams in the MLB are years away from even being close to the top teams. In the NFL it can literally be an offseason away.

"This leads to more competitive contests where the winner cannot be easily predicted in advance."

Vegas odds show how predictable each MLB season as a whole will be. Yes, it's hard to predict it down to a T but unless a team experiences major hurdles (i.e. injuries) the teams competing for a playoff spot are already known.

"The opposite condition, which could be considered "disparity" between teams, is a condition where the elite teams are so much more talented that the lesser teams are hopelessly outmatched."

And this is what it boils down to. The elite teams in the MLB have such an advantage over the disadvantaged teams that I dont know how those cities even sport them.

I'm sure most of us have read Moneyball (great book if you havnt). Michael Lewis does a great job outlining how the league is made up of haves and have nots and the only way to be competitive if you are a have not is to play a totally different game. A game that you cant consistently be on top of no matter how hard you try.

 

[daveR]

What explains the Steelers' ability to compete vesus the Pirates' inability?

BTW, I've always wondered why we haven't heard more squawking out of Astros fans, given their market size...

 

[DropKick]

If statistical results is ONLY argument that matters to youy in discussing whether parity exists in baseball, then we're at a crossroads. Most people will disagree with that approach.

"I choose to use reality and facts. If you choose to use another means more power to you.

You are still arguing a different definition of "parity" then most of the users in this thread.I hate to use Wikipedia but read the article on sports parity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parity_(sports)

Is the MLB the first league you think of when you read that? Most would say no.

"Parity in sports is defined as attempting to make an equal playing field for all participants, specifically with regard to financial issues."

Definitely not the MLB.

"When parity in a sports league is achieved, all participating teams enjoy roughly equivalent levels of talent."

Again, not the MLB when many teams are seriously considered as farm teams for the upper echelon teams.

"In such a league, the "best" team is not significantly better than the "worst" team."

The bottom teams in the MLB are years away from even being close to the top teams. In the NFL it can literally be an offseason away.

"This leads to more competitive contests where the winner cannot be easily predicted in advance."

Vegas odds show how predictable each MLB season as a whole will be. Yes, it's hard to predict it down to a T but unless a team experiences major hurdles (i.e. injuries) the teams competing for a playoff spot are already known.

"The opposite condition, which could be considered "disparity" between teams, is a condition where the elite teams are so much more talented that the lesser teams are hopelessly outmatched."

And this is what it boils down to. The elite teams in the MLB have such an advantage over the disadvantaged teams that I dont know how those cities even sport them.

I'm sure most of us have read Moneyball (great book if you havnt). Michael Lewis does a great job outlining how the league is made up of haves and have nots and the only way to be competitive if you are a have not is to play a totally different game. A game that you cant consistently be on top of no matter how hard you try.

These are great points that others have touched on as well. Unfortunately, Dr. Awe holds on to a narrow measurement of parity as defined by play-off and championship appearances - completely ignoring the competitive balance of the sport, the true definition of parity.I hope Dr. Awe isn't a Yankee fan... that might explain the perspective.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

What explains the Steelers' ability to compete vesus the Pirates' inability?BTW, I've always wondered why we haven't heard more squawking out of Astros fans, given their market size...

What explains the difference between the Steelers being able to compete and the Bills being unable to compete? Competent ownership/management. Last year (or the year before, can't recall) was the first time in a very, very long while the Pirates started to show even the slightest hint of what it takes to compete. In the next few years we'll see if they are able to continue down this path, and if they are they'll compete soon enough.The Astros made the playoffs 3 times this decade and lost the World Series in 2005. Since that time the awful contracts they handed out have caught up to them as players flopped/got old. Now they're a lousy team with a lousy farm system stuck with a bloated payroll.

 

[daveR]

What explains the Steelers' ability to compete vesus the Pirates' inability?BTW, I've always wondered why we haven't heard more squawking out of Astros fans, given their market size...

What explains the difference between the Steelers being able to compete and the Bills being unable to compete? Competent ownership/management. Last year (or the year before, can't recall) was the first time in a very, very long while the Pirates started to show even the slightest hint of what it takes to compete. In the next few years we'll see if they are able to continue down this path, and if they are they'll compete soon enough.The Astros made the playoffs 3 times this decade and lost the World Series in 2005. Since that time the awful contracts they handed out have caught up to them as players flopped/got old. Now they're a lousy team with a lousy farm system stuck with a bloated payroll.

So... if the Pirates had competent management, they'd be competing for a title year-in, year-out?

 

[Dr. Awesome]

You are still arguing a different definition of "parity" then most of the users in this thread.

And? Most people have been using a flawed perception of parity.

"Parity in sports is defined as attempting to make an equal playing field for all participants, specifically with regard to financial issues."

Definitely not the MLB.

I don't see how financial issues matter very much. You can keep arguing because the Yankees have a large payroll there is no parity. But a large payroll hasn't shown to be the advantage people think it is. Hence only 3 of the largest payrolls last year making the playoffs.

"When parity in a sports league is achieved, all participating teams enjoy roughly equivalent levels of talent."

Again, not the MLB when many teams are seriously considered as farm teams for the upper echelon teams.

The Bills have roughly the same level of talent as the Patriots? The Browns are about as talented as the Steelers? There are always some great teams and some lousy teams. Last year the Rangers (4th lowest payroll) knocked the Yankees out of the playoffs (largest payroll). In a 7 game series (so no arguing 1 fluke game argument).

"In such a league, the "best" team is not significantly better than the "worst" team."

The bottom teams in the MLB are years away from even being close to the top teams. In the NFL it can literally be an offseason away.

In the NFL rookies make an immediate impact. Having one great class makes a difference THAT year. In baseball it takes several years for the talent to develop. The perception in the NFL is this magical turnaround can be one year away. The best teams in the NFL are miles better than the worst teams in the NFL. I really can't imagine you'll find many folk to dispute that.

"This leads to more competitive contests where the winner cannot be easily predicted in advance."

Vegas odds show how predictable each MLB season as a whole will be. Yes, it's hard to predict it down to a T but unless a team experiences major hurdles (i.e. injuries) the teams competing for a playoff spot are already known.

If you look at the past 10 years it's incredibly clear despite Vegas' best guesses, the contests CANNOT be easily predicted in advance.

"The opposite condition, which could be considered "disparity" between teams, is a condition where the elite teams are so much more talented that the lesser teams are hopelessly outmatched."

And this is what it boils down to. The elite teams in the MLB have such an advantage over the disadvantaged teams that I dont know how those cities even sport them.

You mean like the Rangers beating the Yankees last year? Despite the Yankees spending close to 4x the $$? Which team had the disadvantage? You mean like the Mariners finishing with the second worst record despite having the 9th highest payroll? By my count, 4 teams made the NFL playoffs in 2010 who did not make the playoffs in 2009. There were 5 teams that made the MLB playoffs in 2010 who did not make the playoffs in 2009.

The *perception* is the Yankees have some huge advantage and there is no turnover - it's the same teams in the playoffs every year. It's the same team in the World Series every year. But nothing backs it up other than people repeating it so often we start to believe it.

Do some teams have zero chance this year? Absolutely. The Royals are going nowhere. Neither are the Orioles. Is that any different than the NFL? Who's picking the Cardinals to win it all? Anyone picking the Bills to go all the way? Most fans of most baseball teams *do* have a reason to be optimistic about their teams.

And that's all the more impressive when you consider 162 games makes it much harder for some flukes to happen (as can take place with a 16 game schedule).

FTR, I hate the Yankees and am an Oakland A's fan.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

So... if the Pirates had competent management, they'd be competing for a title year-in, year-out?

As much as any other team, yes.

 

[dparker713]

Even with the Yankees making it to the WS 4 times this decade, the stats show there have been as many teams to make the WS as there have been teams to make the SB. The Patriots have made the SB 4 times this decade. Why does one case show this huge disparity while the other is totally ignored?

It doesn't necesarily do so. You continue to make your decision on parity/non-parity based solely on the statistical results of the teams appearing in the championship game.I've pointed out very valid reason why a football team can achieve a decade of dominance even in an environment of parity (QB dominance). Baseball has no equivalent. Even a dominant pitcher only starts every 5th game. Parity can not be fairly defined solely by short term results...this is the serious flaw in your comparison. Any statistical evaluation must be tempered by an objective analyses of the circumstances by which those results were obtained. Did teams start on a roughly equal footing?One could make a very strong argument that football does NOT have parity, but nobody can deny that football has, at least in the past 20 years, made a very serious attempt to do so. Baseball has made no such attempt. Interpretations of the results of this (attempt in football) vary, but of 32 teams, the fan-bases of 20 or more have realistic aspirations for the playoffs at the start of any given year...not so in baseball. Of the 12 or so teams without realistic aspirations, all but a select few have realistic expectations of progress, and a serious playoff run in a year or two. Those select few who don't expect such progress feel that way not because of a system, but because of team management. Do Brewers fans expect their team to ever make another run under MLB's current system? Would ANYONE reasonably blame Brewers management?If statistical results is ONLY argument that matters to youy in discussing whether parity exists in baseball, then we're at a crossroads. Most people will disagree with that approach.

Baseball has structural rules in place which allow for much greater parity than you claim. First off, there has never been a time when more money was shared between the teams due to the luxury tax, revenue sharing, national TV deals and MLB.com. Also, the expenditures of teams is much closer in terms of multiples than a simple perusal of the payrolls indicate. Small market teams have parity in spending in terms of scouting, development and the draft. In fact, no team has spent more on the Rule IV draft over the past 3 years than the Pirates and the Nationals. Plus, the reserve clause provides clubs with cost control for players during their peak years, with rare exceptions. Baseball players generally peak from ages 26-29, but they don't generally reach the majors until age 23 or later. Baseball teams control players for their first 3 years of service time at the league minimum and then get discounted rates on players in years 4-6 before a player reaches free agency. Additionally, most of the best young players receive long term deals to secure a few extra years at a significant team discount. Its because of this system that a team can put as much talent on the field as anyone despite having one of the lower payrolls in the majors, ala the Rays.And the only reason why a team would have no shot of winning a WS would be due to incompetent management/ownership. Most of the best talent in MLB is cost controlled and teams are certainly able to accumulate enough talent at once to get into the playoffs. And then once in the playoffs everyone has close to even odds given the nature of the sport.

 

[Jersey35]

Dr. Awesome, you keep going back to the whole, if I may paraphrase, "since the outcome seems fair, it is fair" argument. Everyone gets that the stats you are putting out there seem to suggest that there is parity in MLB in the sense the the final outcomes seem no worse than football. What most of us are saying as that even though the outcomes suggest it, you need to look deeper than wins and losses for the answer.

To reiterate my point: you shouldn't be looking at the outcome to determine if the system is fair or promotes parity. It can be argued that the appearance of what you suggest is parity in baseball is occurring despite the inequalities of the present system - not because the system is inherently promoting parity.

Let me offer you a comparison: Consider a race between friends of equal speed where one friend is given a "head start". Who wins? Now consider a race where the slower runner is given a head start. Who wins? Finally think about a race where the faster friend is given a head start. Who wins?

In two of the three cases, the outcome is very predictable. Only in the case where the slower runner gets the head start is the outcome in doubt.

Major League Baseball is currently a league that provides a head start to some teams. Sometimes the team with the head start is the slower (or more poorly managed) and the other, better organization is able to beat them in that race that day. At other times, the team getting the head start is also the one that is faster (or better managed) and the outcome is likely known beforehand.

Only in situations where both organizations are start on the same line can the outcome be said to be based fully on talent: athletic, coaching, managerial, development and scouting. In all other cases, the outcome is driven, in part, by unequal starting position.

The NFL, as it is today (or at least as it still was a few weeks ago), sets a minimum and maximum for payroll and teams are able to choose to work within those boundries as they see fit. The NFL has short and medium-term dynasties due to better coaching, talent, scouring, and management - not because some large market teams are simply able to pay more.

Again: Just because some low payroll teams are winning in MLB doesn't mean that all teams have an equal chance. They are winning despite the disadvantage - and that does not equal parity.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

So...despite the outcome over the last 10 years showing things are relatively fair, you want to argue they're not fair despite all appearances.

Okay, cool. How does the MLB give a head start to certain teams? Do the Indians start the season with a 5 game lead? Does Bud Selig say "Hey Baltimore, you guys really suck while everyone else in the division is pretty good. Here's a 10 game bonus!"?

You want to keep arguing the results of this race are a given if we don't give MLB teams a head start. Even though the data shows the results of this race are NOT predictable.

People often claim parity in baseball does not take place while parity in football is everywhere. I brought some stats to show that is not the case. Christo admitted he was surprised by the results (as was I). I imagine quite a few people were surprised by this data. Yet a few of you now want to ignore the data and argue things are STILL flawed DESPITE evidence pointing to the contrary.

I'm not saying each team has an equal chance this year. I already stated the Royals are dead in the water. Does every team in the NFL have a chance? Find one person who honestly thinks the Bills have as much of a chance as the Steelers/Colts/Patriots.

But over time, with competent management, every team DOES have a chance. The Rays went from dead last in their division to losing the World Series the next year. Teams regularly go from being middle of the pack piles of mediocrity to playoff participants and World Series contenders. Same as football.

 

[dparker713]

Dr. Awesome, you keep going back to the whole, if I may paraphrase, "since the outcome seems fair, it is fair" argument. Everyone gets that the stats you are putting out there seem to suggest that there is parity in MLB in the sense the the final outcomes seem no worse than football. What most of us are saying as that even though the outcomes suggest it, you need to look deeper than wins and losses for the answer.

To reiterate my point: you shouldn't be looking at the outcome to determine if the system is fair or promotes parity. It can be argued that the appearance of what you suggest is parity in baseball is occurring despite the inequalities of the present system - not because the system is inherently promoting parity.

Let me offer you a comparison: Consider a race between friends of equal speed where one friend is given a "head start". Who wins? Now consider a race where the slower runner is given a head start. Who wins? Finally think about a race where the faster friend is given a head start. Who wins?

In two of the three cases, the outcome is very predictable. Only in the case where the slower runner gets the head start is the outcome in doubt.

Major League Baseball is currently a league that provides a head start to some teams. Sometimes the team with the head start is the slower (or more poorly managed) and the other, better organization is able to beat them in that race that day. At other times, the team getting the head start is also the one that is faster (or better managed) and the outcome is likely known beforehand.

Only in situations where both organizations are start on the same line can the outcome be said to be based fully on talent: athletic, coaching, managerial, development and scouting. In all other cases, the outcome is driven, in part, by unequal starting position.

The NFL, as it is today (or at least as it still was a few weeks ago), sets a minimum and maximum for payroll and teams are able to choose to work within those boundries as they see fit. The NFL has short and medium-term dynasties due to better coaching, talent, scouring, and management - not because some large market teams are simply able to pay more.

Again: Just because some low payroll teams are winning in MLB doesn't mean that all teams have an equal chance. They are winning despite the disadvantage - and that does not equal parity.

The NFL system as of last week did not place teams on an equal playing field. There is significant revenue disparity between the top teams such as the Cowboys and the bottom teams such as the Bengals. While there is a maximum disparity allowed under the salary cap, some of the teams were unable to spend much above the floor or generate sufficient cash flow to compete for FAs seeking large bonuses. Additionally, certain teams spend significantly more on coaches, trainers, and other amenities all of which can provide real competitive advantages. Additionally, there is very little in place to control the costs of the best young players in the NFL, whereas MLB has very rigid rules in that regard. Sure, player costs in both leagues account for 50-60% of overall costs. In MLB the league realizes most of the revenue disparity between high and low revenue teams in player salaries while other costs are more closely inline. The NFL takes the opposite tact, but just because player salaries are largely in the same ballpark does not mean that high revenue teams in the NFL do not employ their significant financial advantages to create advantages on the field.

 

[renesauz]

So...despite the outcome over the last 10 years showing things are relatively fair,

Still stuck on outcome. Correlation does not equal causation.THE OUTCOME DOES NOT PROVE FAIRNESS.

 

[renesauz]

People often claim parity in baseball does not take place while parity in football is everywhere. I brought some stats to show that is not the case.

This is not the case. The argument generally being pushed is that there is MORE parity in football. I've argued that football has made a meaningful effort to achieve parity. I've conceeded that a strong argument could be made that there is NOT true parity in football.However...the effort towards parity in football is both obvious and logical. The "luxury tax" in baseball is a joke.Part of the reason for the illusion of parity in baseball might be because outside of 3 or 4 ballclubs, the next 20 or so do have some parity. Consider opening day 2010 payrolls;1. Yankees 201 M 2. Boston 162 M3. Chicago 147 M4. Philly 141 M5. Mets 134 M6. Detroit 123 M7. White Sox 106 M8. Angels 105 M....18. Milwaukee 81 M...25. Arizona 61 M...30. Pittsburgh 35 MNow...Does a team like Pittsburgh have even a remote chance to compete under this structure?8 teams make the playoffs. The differance between #7 and #18 is less than 25% by payroll. Significant, but not as significant as such a gap would be in football. Why? Because mediocre teams can become highly competitive if two or more key position players have career years simultaneously. IE: I conceed that payroll disparity does not make as big a differance in baseball as it would in football. That concession made....the payroll disparity from the top 5 to the bottom five is not minor...it's GROSS. And guess what...those top 4 teams DOMINATE your playoff list. They lead the majors in appearances and wins...this is no fluke. Your "proof" of parity comes not from the top, but from turnover at the 5 through 8 playoff positions. In a sport that emphasizes short streaks...it's no wonder a couple of those 5 through 8 teams actually managed to make or win the WS.Sorry....Not buying your interpretation of the data. The bottom five or six teams are at such a large economic disadvantage, and the top 4 at such an advantage, that any claim of parity rings more than a little bogus.

 

[renesauz]

The NFL system as of last week did not place teams on an equal playing field. There is significant revenue disparity between the top teams such as the Cowboys and the bottom teams such as the Bengals. While there is a maximum disparity allowed under the salary cap, some of the teams were unable to spend much above the floor or generate sufficient cash flow to compete for FAs seeking large bonuses. Additionally, certain teams spend significantly more on coaches, trainers, and other amenities all of which can provide real competitive advantages. Additionally, there is very little in place to control the costs of the best young players in the NFL, whereas MLB has very rigid rules in that regard. Sure, player costs in both leagues account for 50-60% of overall costs. In MLB the league realizes most of the revenue disparity between high and low revenue teams in player salaries while other costs are more closely inline. The NFL takes the opposite tact, but just because player salaries are largely in the same ballpark does not mean that high revenue teams in the NFL do not employ their significant financial advantages to create advantages on the field.

This is all true, and is part of that "strong argument" against there being true parity in football. It's misleading at best to claim that these disparities in football have the same impact on the playing field as a player payroll however. Teams like Green Bay, who should be operating under this economic disadvantage, still manage to obtain their share of key FA's. Regardless, the thrust of the argument right now is whether parity exists in baseball.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

So...despite the outcome over the last 10 years showing things are relatively fair,

Still stuck on outcome. Correlation does not equal causation.THE OUTCOME DOES NOT PROVE FAIRNESS.

One of my new favorite posters. Spot on in his analysis.

 

[Jersey35]

So...despite the outcome over the last 10 years showing things are relatively fair, you want to argue they're not fair despite all appearances.

Yes. As I've repeated, simply because the outcome seems fair doesn't mean the process is. If a card player rigs a poker game with an ace up his sleeve and still loses, does that mean that the game was fair? Teams can overcome their disadvantage from time to time - and the stats you've displayed prove that, nothing more.

Okay, cool. How does the MLB give a head start to certain teams? Do the Indians start the season with a 5 game lead? Does Bud Selig say "Hey Baltimore, you guys really suck while everyone else in the division is pretty good. Here's a 10 game bonus!"?

MLB gives some teams a head start by allowing them to pay their players up to seven times more than other teams. Was the analogy not clear?

You want to keep arguing the results of this race are a given if we don't give MLB teams a head start. Even though the data shows the results of this race are NOT predictable.

No, what I'm saying is that in two of the three possible scenarios baseball offers, the results are skewed in favor of the team with the higher payroll.1) Team A has higher payroll and better organizational system: Team A nearly always comes out ahead

2) Team A has higher payroll and equal organizational system: Team A nearly always comes out ahead

3) Team A has higher payroll and worse organizational system: Team A is not as likely to come out ahead

So, in two of the three possible scenarios, the outcome is affected in part by the ability of Team A to pay its players more. The only scenario (not presented here) that is based solely on team play and management is a scenario where both teams have equal payroll (or at least the ability to offer it). Because of the disadvantage in team talent (due to the huge financial gap between teams) a Team B needs to click on all cylindars at the same time to keep up with Team A. Again, just because Team B can (and does) come out ahead, does not mean the system is inherently fair.

People often claim parity in baseball does not take place while parity in football is everywhere. I brought some stats to show that is not the case. Christo admitted he was surprised by the results (as was I). I imagine quite a few people were surprised by this data. Yet a few of you now want to ignore the data and argue things are STILL flawed DESPITE evidence pointing to the contrary.

I'm not saying each team has an equal chance this year. I already stated the Royals are dead in the water. Does every team in the NFL have a chance? Find one person who honestly thinks the Bills have as much of a chance as the Steelers/Colts/Patriots.

Yep. There is good management and coaching in the NFL and bad management and coaching in the NFL. But nobody can claim that it's because the Green Bay Packers are able to spend more money on their players than the Buffalo Bills.

 

[pollardsvision]

We all understand the disadvantage some MLB teams have, but I don't see how there's any denying that the parity difference we'd expect b/w MLB and the NFL just isn't there.

In theory, MLB and the NFL souldn't be close in this regard. In reality, however, they are. I think more interesting question is, "Why?".

As I stated in the other thread, I think the reason that the parity difference isn't as large as we expect is because of 2 things:

1-The importance of an elite QB (and the small number of them)

2-The way the draft works.

There are about 10 QBs that you can reasonably expect to win a SB with. An Eli might get hot from time to time and slip through, but in general, if you don't have one of these (roughly) 10 players, you don't have a reasonable shot. This is very similar to the NBA.

Bad teams, in their desperate attempt to get one of these, often get stuck paying huge money at the top of the draft to land the next one. When they are wrong, they are set back a half decade.

In baseball, you need good starting pitching to win a title or be competitive. But there are a ton of these players out there. Often, these players can be found fresh out of the farm system and still well under a poor team's control.

The big difference, imo, is that hopeless teams in MLB will tend to remain the same and the hopeless teams in the NFL will rotate (the Colts before and after Peyton, for example). Still though, whether your MLB team is poor or your NFL team is starting Bruce Gradkowski, hopelessness is still hopelessness.

This is not to mention that there are really only a few MLB teams that seem as if they'll always be terrible and even they can expect their time to come. The Royals, for example, have the best farm system in baseball right now and that absolutely matters.

 

[pollardsvision]

People often claim parity in baseball does not take place while parity in football is everywhere. I brought some stats to show that is not the case.

This is not the case. The argument generally being pushed is that there is MORE parity in football. I've argued that football has made a meaningful effort to achieve parity. I've conceeded that a strong argument could be made that there is NOT true parity in football.However...the effort towards parity in football is both obvious and logical. The "luxury tax" in baseball is a joke.Part of the reason for the illusion of parity in baseball might be because outside of 3 or 4 ballclubs, the next 20 or so do have some parity. Consider opening day 2010 payrolls;1. Yankees 201 M 2. Boston 162 M3. Chicago 147 M4. Philly 141 M5. Mets 134 M6. Detroit 123 M7. White Sox 106 M8. Angels 105 M....18. Milwaukee 81 M...25. Arizona 61 M...30. Pittsburgh 35 MNow...Does a team like Pittsburgh have even a remote chance to compete under this structure?8 teams make the playoffs. The differance between #7 and #18 is less than 25% by payroll. Significant, but not as significant as such a gap would be in football. Why? Because mediocre teams can become highly competitive if two or more key position players have career years simultaneously. IE: I conceed that payroll disparity does not make as big a differance in baseball as it would in football. That concession made....the payroll disparity from the top 5 to the bottom five is not minor...it's GROSS. And guess what...those top 4 teams DOMINATE your playoff list. They lead the majors in appearances and wins...this is no fluke. Your "proof" of parity comes not from the top, but from turnover at the 5 through 8 playoff positions. In a sport that emphasizes short streaks...it's no wonder a couple of those 5 through 8 teams actually managed to make or win the WS.Sorry....Not buying your interpretation of the data. The bottom five or six teams are at such a large economic disadvantage, and the top 4 at such an advantage, that any claim of parity rings more than a little bogus.

We can look at payroll lists all day, but the point is that it doesn't seem to matter as much as we all think it would. I don't see the 2010 WS Champs in your top 8.None of the top 8 made the WS last year. 2 of the top 5 were absolutely horrible last year and will be again this year.

 

[pollardsvision]

So...despite the outcome over the last 10 years showing things are relatively fair,

Still stuck on outcome. Correlation does not equal causation.THE OUTCOME DOES NOT PROVE FAIRNESS.

One of my new favorite posters. Spot on in his analysis.

I would question the Dr.'s use of the word "fair", but don't forget that "fairness isn't the same thing as "parity" or "competitive balance" (the terms I think people are generally referring to here)We all know MLB isn't "fair", but that doesn't seem to stop them from achieving actual competitive balance.It seems like alot of people are more interested in arguing in theory and ignoring the reality.

 

[pollardsvision]

The NFL system as of last week did not place teams on an equal playing field. There is significant revenue disparity between the top teams such as the Cowboys and the bottom teams such as the Bengals. While there is a maximum disparity allowed under the salary cap, some of the teams were unable to spend much above the floor or generate sufficient cash flow to compete for FAs seeking large bonuses. Additionally, certain teams spend significantly more on coaches, trainers, and other amenities all of which can provide real competitive advantages. Additionally, there is very little in place to control the costs of the best young players in the NFL, whereas MLB has very rigid rules in that regard.

Sure, player costs in both leagues account for 50-60% of overall costs. In MLB the league realizes most of the revenue disparity between high and low revenue teams in player salaries while other costs are more closely inline. The NFL takes the opposite tact, but just because player salaries are largely in the same ballpark does not mean that high revenue teams in the NFL do not employ their significant financial advantages to create advantages on the field.

This is all true, and is part of that "strong argument" against there being true parity in football. It's misleading at best to claim that these disparities in football have the same impact on the playing field as a player payroll however. Teams like Green Bay, who should be operating under this economic disadvantage, still manage to obtain their share of key FA's. Regardless, the thrust of the argument right now is whether parity exists in baseball.

Is there any argument on the table making a serious claim that it doesn't?I see alot of people saying it "shouldn't" exist, but no one making a legitimate argument that it doesn't exist.

It seems like that question has been clearly answered, but most have a hard time buying it.

 

[dparker713]

People often claim parity in baseball does not take place while parity in football is everywhere. I brought some stats to show that is not the case.

This is not the case. The argument generally being pushed is that there is MORE parity in football. I've argued that football has made a meaningful effort to achieve parity. I've conceeded that a strong argument could be made that there is NOT true parity in football.However...the effort towards parity in football is both obvious and logical. The "luxury tax" in baseball is a joke.Part of the reason for the illusion of parity in baseball might be because outside of 3 or 4 ballclubs, the next 20 or so do have some parity. Consider opening day 2010 payrolls;1. Yankees 201 M 2. Boston 162 M3. Chicago 147 M4. Philly 141 M5. Mets 134 M6. Detroit 123 M7. White Sox 106 M8. Angels 105 M....18. Milwaukee 81 M...25. Arizona 61 M...30. Pittsburgh 35 MNow...Does a team like Pittsburgh have even a remote chance to compete under this structure?8 teams make the playoffs. The differance between #7 and #18 is less than 25% by payroll. Significant, but not as significant as such a gap would be in football. Why? Because mediocre teams can become highly competitive if two or more key position players have career years simultaneously. IE: I conceed that payroll disparity does not make as big a differance in baseball as it would in football. That concession made....the payroll disparity from the top 5 to the bottom five is not minor...it's GROSS. And guess what...those top 4 teams DOMINATE your playoff list. They lead the majors in appearances and wins...this is no fluke. Your "proof" of parity comes not from the top, but from turnover at the 5 through 8 playoff positions. In a sport that emphasizes short streaks...it's no wonder a couple of those 5 through 8 teams actually managed to make or win the WS.Sorry....Not buying your interpretation of the data. The bottom five or six teams are at such a large economic disadvantage, and the top 4 at such an advantage, that any claim of parity rings more than a little bogus.

The bottom 5 or 6 teams in payroll is not a constant. Teams at the bottom turnover just like the teams in the playoffs. And realisticly, the teams that most need to worry about Yankees and Red Sox spending are the Orioles, Blue Jays and Rays. Baseball teams play each divisional opponent around 17-19 times per year and are in direct competition for 1 guarenteed playoff spot. So a team like the Pirates mainly needs to worry about the spending of the Cubs, Astros, Cardinals, Reds, and Brewers. But all of this ignores the simple fact that the best players are CHEAP. Buster Posey cost $400k last year as did Neftali Feliz, and Jason Heyward. Tim Lincecum, coming off back to back Cy Young award winning seasons signed a two year $23 million dollar contract - less than half what he could command on a per year basis on the open market. Evan Longoria made $950k, Josh Hamilton $3.25 mil. Not even the Yankees can afford to build a team of FAs paying them all market rates. Look at the Yankees last year, Robinson Cano was their best player - cost controlled. Curtis Granderson is signed to a long term deal well under market rates. Phil Hughes, Francisco Cervelli, Brett Gardner all playing for the minimum and all key starters for the team. The Yankees couldn't have afforded to fill those holes. Sure, they have the money to mask mistakes, but one only needs to look at the Mets and Cubs to see how far you get on poorly spent money.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

People often claim parity in baseball does not take place while parity in football is everywhere. I brought some stats to show that is not the case.

This is not the case. The argument generally being pushed is that there is MORE parity in football. I've argued that football has made a meaningful effort to achieve parity. I've conceeded that a strong argument could be made that there is NOT true parity in football.However...the effort towards parity in football is both obvious and logical. The "luxury tax" in baseball is a joke.

Part of the reason for the illusion of parity in baseball might be because outside of 3 or 4 ballclubs, the next 20 or so do have some parity.

Consider opening day 2010 payrolls;

1. Yankees 201 M

2. Boston 162 M

3. Chicago 147 M

4. Philly 141 M

5. Mets 134 M

6. Detroit 123 M

7. White Sox 106 M

8. Angels 105 M

.

.

.

.

18. Milwaukee 81 M

.

.

.

25. Arizona 61 M

.

.

.

30. Pittsburgh 35 M

Now...Does a team like Pittsburgh have even a remote chance to compete under this structure?

8 teams make the playoffs. The differance between #7 and #18 is less than 25% by payroll. Significant, but not as significant as such a gap would be in football. Why? Because mediocre teams can become highly competitive if two or more key position players have career years simultaneously.

IE: I conceed that payroll disparity does not make as big a differance in baseball as it would in football. That concession made....the payroll disparity from the top 5 to the bottom five is not minor...it's GROSS. And guess what...those top 4 teams DOMINATE your playoff list. They lead the majors in appearances and wins...this is no fluke. Your "proof" of parity comes not from the top, but from turnover at the 5 through 8 playoff positions. In a sport that emphasizes short streaks...it's no wonder a couple of those 5 through 8 teams actually managed to make or win the WS.

Sorry....Not buying your interpretation of the data. The bottom five or six teams are at such a large economic disadvantage, and the top 4 at such an advantage, that any claim of parity rings more than a little bogus.

The Twins and A's have consistently been at the bottom of the payroll system yet made the playoffs (though the Twins jumped when they got a new ballpark/extended Mauer). The Rays went from one of the lowest payrolls and last place to the World Series the following year. The Rangers were bottom 5 payroll last year (they lost the WS).I get it - you keep arguing there is no parity in baseball because of the payroll disparity. The data shows that the $$ doesn't make nearly the difference you and I thought it did. Of those top 8 teams you listed, only 1 of them made the playoffs last year. The Yankees. Of the top 10 payrolls last year, 2 teams made the playoffs. No other top 5 team came close. Of the bottom 5 payrolls last year, 1 made the playoffs. 1 team lost in the last few days (the equivalent of the Colts getting bumped from the playoffs in week 17).

Yes, a team like Pittsburgh has a chance to compete under this system (if they had some decent pitchers they would actually compete THIS year). Of the bottom 5 payrolls this year, 3 of the teams are expected to compete for a playoff berth (Rangers, A's, Padres). As other teams with low payrolls have consistently shown, you can - and do - compete if you have good management. Heck, at least one sports analyst (foxsports or espn, can't recall which) has picked the Yankees to MISS the playoffs this year.

The data even shows this parity does not come from the 5-8 teams. You keep presenting arguments that are not backed up with any form of statistics. You can argue I'm interpreting the data wrong, but how about you bring some correctly interpreted data instead of just saying "Well, the data doesn't show what I believe so I'm going to ignore it and argue it's flawed."

ETA to address the bold part - this makes sense. It *feels* right. It sounds logical. Yet the data spits in the face of logic and shows it's not true.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

We all know MLB isn't "fair", but that doesn't seem to stop them from achieving actual competitive balance.

It seems like alot of people are more interested in arguing in theory and ignoring the reality.

Regardless, the thrust of the argument right now is whether parity exists in baseball.

Is there any argument on the table making a serious claim that it doesn't?I see alot of people saying it "shouldn't" exist, but no one making a legitimate argument that it doesn't exist.

It seems like that question has been clearly answered, but most have a hard time buying it.

 

[renesauz]

It's increasingly obvious that one side proves parity by short term results, and the other side wants to prove parity through a system which is on paper more equal. IE: No team has any advantage over another that can be reasonably avoided.

Our definitions of parity are different.

 

[Ice Cream Man]

You keep presenting arguments that are not backed up with any form of statistics. You can argue I'm interpreting the data wrong, but how about you bring some correctly interpreted data instead of just saying "Well, the data doesn't show what I believe so I'm going to ignore it and argue it's flawed."

I disagree.There are numbers. And there are theories. Together these form the conclusions of parity in baseball.

The "other" side hasn't disputed any of these statistics (i.e., measurement problems, etc), nor have they disputed any of the theory (that money can't buy championships for reasons X, Y and Z).

What they have said is that MLB does not have parity because:

1. Money spent on players is not perfectly equal. They haven't tied this connection with on-field performance with any kind of theory or empirical evidence (that hasn't been readily shot down, c.f., Yankees analysis), so the logical conclusion is: "who cares?" Nor have they addressed that money spent on players is just one element among many team expenditures that might be connected to on-field performance (farm system, coaches, etc) -- to me, that is the big elephant in the room.

2. For the last decade a couple teams have not had a chance to compete (as if that was unique to MLB).

 

[dparker713]

It's increasingly obvious that one side proves parity by short term results, and the other side wants to prove parity through a system which is on paper more equal. IE: No team has any advantage over another that can be reasonably avoided.Our definitions of parity are different.

I've pointed out repeatedly that there are systemic reasons for the parity displayed in MLB despite the payroll disparities. And while you claim the results of the last ten years are short term, the only relevant term for baseball is since 1995. That CBA and the ones that followed fundamentally changed the competition and economics of MLB, due to revenue sharing, realignment and the wildcard. Similarly, there is little reason to include any NFL data prior to the institution of the salary cap, expansion to 12 team playoffs and the implementation of free agency - all of which were in effect by the 1993 season.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

It's increasingly obvious that one side proves parity by short term results, and the other side wants to prove parity through a system which is on paper more equal. IE: No team has any advantage over another that can be reasonably avoided.Our definitions of parity are different.

What is a long term result? I believe 10 years is certainly long enough. How far back would you like to go? Bear in mind baseball's current system has only been in place since 1996. Most people would certainly say 10 years is not a short term result.

 

[gandalas]

"When parity in a sports league is achieved, all participating teams enjoy roughly equivalent levels of talent."

Again, not the MLB when many teams are seriously considered as farm teams for the upper echelon teams.

The Bills have roughly the same level of talent as the Patriots? The Browns are about as talented as the Steelers? There are always some great teams and some lousy teams. Last year the Rangers (4th lowest payroll) knocked the Yankees out of the playoffs (largest payroll). In a 7 game series (so no arguing 1 fluke game argument).

Just this past season, the lowly Browns beat the Saints and Patriots in back-to-back weeks, and took the Jets to the wire the following week.If that is not an illustration that any team can beat another on any given day, then I don't know what is.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Just this past season, the lowly Browns beat the Saints and Patriots in back-to-back weeks, and took the Jets to the wire the following week.If that is not an illustration that any team can beat another on any given day, then I don't know what is.

Just this past season the Pirates (lowest payroll) went 10-5 against the Cubs (3rd highest payroll - highest in the NL).

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

The original article overlooks a pretty big fact. Since 2000, the Yankees have won it twice, so has Boston. They are first and second in payroll respectively. The Yankees have also lost twice in the WS in that time frame. So the top 2 payroll clubs have taken 27% of the available WS spots since 2000, and have won it 36% of the time.

Clubs that currently have payroll in the top 12 have won 9 of the last 11 titles, (81%), and have made up 17 of the 22 participants (77%).

Here's your outliers:

Arizona 2001 Champs. Schilling & Johnson

Florida 2003 Champs. Ironically thought of as a team that bought a championship.

Colorado 2007 WS Losers.

Tampa Bay 2008 WS Losers.

Texas 2010 WS Losers.

On top of that, imagine Peyton Manning spending most of his career with the NY Giants. By now, Ben Roethlisberger would be the QB of the Jets, and Philip Rivers would be QBing the Redskins, and of course Aaron Rodgers would be an upcoming FA being eyed up by Detroit, San Francisco, and one of the Chicago teams. That's the system baseball has in place.

 

[daveR]

So... if the Pirates had competent management, they'd be competing for a title year-in, year-out?

As much as any other team, yes.

Can you give an NFL example of a team losing the best player in the game in back-to-back seasons like the Indians did, due to the financial disparity of the system?

 

[Christo]

Just this past season, the lowly Browns beat the Saints and Patriots in back-to-back weeks, and took the Jets to the wire the following week.If that is not an illustration that any team can beat another on any given day, then I don't know what is.

Just this past season the Pirates (lowest payroll) went 10-5 against the Cubs (3rd highest payroll - highest in the NL).

It's the Cubs. They could have the highest payroll and still find a way to muck it up.

 

[dparker713]

So... if the Pirates had competent management, they'd be competing for a title year-in, year-out?

As much as any other team, yes.

Can you give an NFL example of a team losing the best player in the game in back-to-back seasons like the Indians did, due to the financial disparity of the system?

The Indians have never had the best player in baseball. And they certainly didnt't have the best player in 2008 or 2009.Aside from that inaccuracy, you fail to realize that the baseball system allowed the Indians to keep Sabathia and Lee for 6 years of service time, whereas the NFL system would allow for the team to restrict movement through franchise and transition tags. THe NFL system is designed to keep stars in place, the MLB system is designed to keep all young players in place.

 

[Instinctive]

I think the biggest issue is that in baseball, there is much less hope for any given team to compete for a title.

Let's look at the Astros - I don't realistically see them in a WS, or even in the playoffs really, in the next 3-5 years. They have to build a farm system for those years, and then compete for a year or two, lose all those players in FA to the big spenders, and hope that the farm system can continue to replace guys year in and year out. Pitching is, arguably, the most important position, so let's say that next year, they have one of the best pitchers in baseball. I still don't expect them to compete. Look at them with Oswalt the past few seasons...

Now, how about Oakland next for football. (I tried to pick a team that many would say made bad contract decisions, just like the Astros)

Now, let's give Oakland one of the top 10 quarterbacks next year. Do you think they make the playoffs? I do. Does that QB probably stay with the team for a long time? I think so. Do they stay competitive for a long time? I think so.

I would argue that's parity. I cannot conceive of a situation with the Astros in the WSl next year. I could see Oakland in the SB. I cannot conceive of the Royals in the WS next year. I could see Detroit in the SB. I cannot see how the Nationals make the WS next year. I could see the Panthers in the SB.

That's parity to me. Not simply a correlating number at the end of the season, but the hope at the beginning of the season, and during the season.

 

[daveR]

So... if the Pirates had competent management, they'd be competing for a title year-in, year-out?

As much as any other team, yes.

Can you give an NFL example of a team losing the best player in the game in back-to-back seasons like the Indians did, due to the financial disparity of the system?

The Indians have never had the best player in baseball. And they certainly didnt't have the best player in 2008 or 2009.Aside from that inaccuracy, you fail to realize that the baseball system allowed the Indians to keep Sabathia and Lee for 6 years of service time, whereas the NFL system would allow for the team to restrict movement through franchise and transition tags. THe NFL system is designed to keep stars in place, the MLB system is designed to keep all young players in place.

Regardless of the "best player" claim, they were Cy Young winners, can you answer my question?

 

[dparker713]

I think the biggest issue is that in baseball, there is much less hope for any given team to compete for a title.Let's look at the Astros - I don't realistically see them in a WS, or even in the playoffs really, in the next 3-5 years. They have to build a farm system for those years, and then compete for a year or two, lose all those players in FA to the big spenders, and hope that the farm system can continue to replace guys year in and year out. Pitching is, arguably, the most important position, so let's say that next year, they have one of the best pitchers in baseball. I still don't expect them to compete. Look at them with Oswalt the past few seasons...Now, how about Oakland next for football. (I tried to pick a team that many would say made bad contract decisions, just like the Astros)Now, let's give Oakland one of the top 10 quarterbacks next year. Do you think they make the playoffs? I do. Does that QB probably stay with the team for a long time? I think so. Do they stay competitive for a long time? I think so.I would argue that's parity. I cannot conceive of a situation with the Astros in the WSl next year. I could see Oakland in the SB. I cannot conceive of the Royals in the WS next year. I could see Detroit in the SB. I cannot see how the Nationals make the WS next year. I could see the Panthers in the SB.That's parity to me. Not simply a correlating number at the end of the season, but the hope at the beginning of the season, and during the season.

The Astros made the playoffs 6 out of 9 years in the current system.What you define as parity is merely mobility within the league. The structure of football, with so few games and so few plays per game lead to more unpredictable results over the course of a season. But even baseball has highly unexpected results - nearly no one picked the Giants to win their division last season, and pretty much everyone picked the Padres to be dead last - not fighting for a playoff spot on the last day. The Rays went from worst to first between 07 and 08. Last season the Cubs and Cards were supposed to compete for the NL Central - the Reds walked away with the division. No, one free agent will not change the fortunes of an entire franchise in baseball, but it doesn't really work that way in the NFL either. Take the Saints. Sure they were successful immediately with Brees, and he was a large portion of that. But they also brought in a new head coach and something like 14 other free agents at the same time - most of them to small deals. While the SF Giants last year didn't make a big signing ala Brees, they did make several smaller signings which for the most part panned out and just like the Saints they caught lightning in a bottle.

 

[Instinctive]

What I define as parity is as many teams as possible with a shot to win it all in any given year. The NFL has it. Baseball doesn't.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Just this past season, the lowly Browns beat the Saints and Patriots in back-to-back weeks, and took the Jets to the wire the following week.If that is not an illustration that any team can beat another on any given day, then I don't know what is.

Just this past season the Pirates (lowest payroll) went 10-5 against the Cubs (3rd highest payroll - highest in the NL).

It's the Cubs. They could have the highest payroll and still find a way to muck it up.

They went 4-2 against the Phillies (next highest payroll in the NL).

 

[Dr. Awesome]

What I define as parity is as many teams as possible with a shot to win it all in any given year. The NFL has it. Baseball doesn't.

It certainly feels that way but over the past 10 years the data does not support this conclusion.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

So... if the Pirates had competent management, they'd be competing for a title year-in, year-out?

As much as any other team, yes.

Can you give an NFL example of a team losing the best player in the game in back-to-back seasons like the Indians did, due to the financial disparity of the system?

The Titans lost Haynesworth. The Raiders lost Woodson and now Aso. The Patriots traded Seymour because they were going to lose him. NFL teams lose stars all the time. So do MLB teams. But MLB teams are generally able to keep star players much longer than NFL teams. The Red Sox lost Victor Martinez and Adrian Beltre this year (both amongst the best at their positions). I don't hear anyone arguing their inability to spend $$.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

I think the biggest issue is that in baseball, there is much less hope for any given team to compete for a title.Let's look at the Astros - I don't realistically see them in a WS, or even in the playoffs really, in the next 3-5 years. They have to build a farm system for those years, and then compete for a year or two, lose all those players in FA to the big spenders, and hope that the farm system can continue to replace guys year in and year out. Pitching is, arguably, the most important position, so let's say that next year, they have one of the best pitchers in baseball. I still don't expect them to compete. Look at them with Oswalt the past few seasons...Now, how about Oakland next for football. (I tried to pick a team that many would say made bad contract decisions, just like the Astros)Now, let's give Oakland one of the top 10 quarterbacks next year. Do you think they make the playoffs? I do. Does that QB probably stay with the team for a long time? I think so. Do they stay competitive for a long time? I think so.I would argue that's parity. I cannot conceive of a situation with the Astros in the WSl next year. I could see Oakland in the SB. I cannot conceive of the Royals in the WS next year. I could see Detroit in the SB. I cannot see how the Nationals make the WS next year. I could see the Panthers in the SB.That's parity to me. Not simply a correlating number at the end of the season, but the hope at the beginning of the season, and during the season.

Last year could you have imagined SF and Texas in the WS? Can you imagine the Bills in the SB next year? I can see the Brewers in the WS this year (a team often mentioned in this thread as having no shot). There are a few teams in the NFL and MLB that have little to no chance. Give most teams in baseball a great hitter/pitcher and their chances of 'making it' go up a great deal. Some teams have so many holes it doesn't matter if they get one player.The Lions are a team many people hype as the next SB contenders. They've built their team up through the draft. How is this different from what the Astros need to do? The difference is rookies in football play that year. Rookies in baseball take a few years.The Astros traded away Oswalt because they were so pathetically thin at virtually every position it was the best option to increase their chances of contending in the next few years. Not because they couldn't afford him. It's similar to what dynasty owners around here do when their teams suck.

 

[VTjkru]

Looks as if no one is going to be swayed either way. Let's have a little contest. We can visit this in 2012

Everyone post their predictions for the upcoming season:

- MLB and NFL Playoff teams

- Top 10 MLB and NFL teams

- Bottom 10 MLB and NFL teams

My prediction? Posters will get a much higher percentage of the MLB teams right then the NFL teams. I would attribute it to the MLB having less parity than the NFL.

 

[Instinctive]

What I define as parity is as many teams as possible with a shot to win it all in any given year. The NFL has it. Baseball doesn't.

It certainly feels that way but over the past 10 years the data does not support this conclusion.

The data doesn't support jack ####. The data says that just as many teams in each sport have made it to the playoffs/title games. It says absolutely nothing about how many teams were legitimately in the hunt, or how many teams had a shot at the SB/WS BEFORE any games were played. In the NFL, I could barely name the teams that I think truly have no shot. Buffalo. Miami. Cincinnati. Arizona. Maybe Washington, but I could see it.In baseball? We actually just had this conversation at the gym the other day after placing bets on who WOULD make the playoffs. No chance? Pittsburgh, Houston, Cleveland, Kansas City, Toronto, Baltimore (debatable, but I can't see it), Seattle, NY Mets, and Arizona. I think many would put the Nats, but I could see them as an out-of-nowhere.

That's the difference. I have written off, in my mind, 4 NFL teams and 9 MLB teams. And there are MORE NFL teams.

Can you give an NFL example of a team losing the best player in the game in back-to-back seasons like the Indians did, due to the financial disparity of the system?

The Titans lost Haynesworth. The Raiders lost Woodson and now Aso. The Patriots traded Seymour because they were going to lose him. NFL teams lose stars all the time. So do MLB teams. But MLB teams are generally able to keep star players much longer than NFL teams.

Also, I bolded the part of his question that makes me wonder if you actually read it, based on your response.The Red Sox lost Victor Martinez and Adrian Beltre this year (both amongst the best at their positions). I don't hear anyone arguing their inability to spend $$.

The Raiders didn't lose their guys because of any inability to spend money. The Red Sox didn't lose VM or Beltre, for the same reasons. They let them go because they didn't WANT to pay them. That's different from COULDN'T pay them.

I think the biggest issue is that in baseball, there is much less hope for any given team to compete for a title.

That's parity to me. Not simply a correlating number at the end of the season, but the hope at the beginning of the season, and during the season.

Last year could you have imagined SF and Texas in the WS? Can you imagine the Bills in the SB next year? I can see the Brewers in the WS this year (a team often mentioned in this thread as having no shot). There are a few teams in the NFL and MLB that have little to no chance. Give most teams in baseball a great hitter/pitcher and their chances of 'making it' go up a great deal. Some teams have so many holes it doesn't matter if they get one player.

The Lions are a team many people hype as the next SB contenders. They've built their team up through the draft. How is this different from what the Astros need to do? The difference is rookies in football play that year. Rookies in baseball take a few years.

The Astros traded away Oswalt because they were so pathetically thin at virtually every position it was the best option to increase their chances of contending in the next few years. Not because they couldn't afford him. It's similar to what dynasty owners around here do when their teams suck.

Re: Oswalt - I didn't mean to imply he was lost to FA, but rather that even with a top pitcher, they sucked. To the other stuff, see top of my post.