All you hear lately is how baseball, unlike its pigskin toting cousin, football, has an unbeleivable lack of parity. How in football, any team can win the superbowl, and how on any given day, a certain New England team can beat the three headed cerberus that is Warner/Faulk/Rams Defense. And how in baseball, the New York Yankees can go out and buy the entire Tampa Bay rotation, and have no qualms about doing so. I have two problems with this arguement, which I've heard from many, many people, prominant sportswriters included. My first problem is with the comparison of the sport of football to the sport of baseball. If you analyze football, down to its basic entity, it is in essence, being at the right place at the right time. Every sport has its own degree of uncertainty, but in football, the decision of a Defensive Back to trail the WR closely or to cut off the run can be HUGE in the outcome of a game. Football, whether you like it or not, is essentially a game of immense physical prowess mixed with a healthy dose of LUCK . But then you say, "Doesn't baseball have its share of luck too? For example the difference between hitting a deep pop-fly or a home run can sometimes only mean two inches on where the bat connects!" However, the "luck" factor in baseball, is largely under the control of the player, whereas in football, the collective movement of the entire defense (or offense, depending on POV) can determine a play. So in my understanding, the parity in football and the lack thereof in baseball, is not due to monetary discrepancies, but to the inherent nature of the sports themselves. Secondly, (And I know you all would like me to shut up) I don't agree that there has to be parity at all. Before you go yelling at me about how I don't love the game or whatever, hear me out. Like David and Goliath hurling stones, its always fun to see an underdog beat an accomplished champion. I mean honestly, how exciting is it to watch two "Doliaths" fighting it out? Yes, you see fierce competition, perhaps specatular plays and late inning games with sweaty brows and clenched fists, but we see that anyways don't we? With parity comes with what we have in football...no one is a distinct favorite. And aside from the effects it has to gamblers, it takes away from that "underdog" spirit or that "upset" mentality, the kind where the Carolina Hurricanes come out of nowhere to get to the Stanley Cup, or where the Arizone Diamondbacks beat the unbeatable Yankees. In parity (as in football), no one is "unbeatable". There comes a certain stigma out of beating the free-spending Yankees, or the talent-laden Red Sox. That's the true spirit of the game, not the parity-driven crapshoot that the salary cap will create. Yes folks, that's my whole aim, no salary caps. Its not our money, and they're willing to spend, so if some owners find it unfair that the Yankees and Red Sox and other free-spending teams can go out and get a Raul Mondesi or a Cliff Floyd, I suggest they re-evaluate thier roles as owners, or shut up and manage. Because we've all seen the A's succeed at the low end of the monetary spectrum and the Rangers falter at the high end. Obviously, a salary cap or luxury tax, is not a solution to (if one is needed at ALL) parity. As a thank you to those who have bothered to read this far (or have skipped entire paragraphs to get here), I offer this quote from the unforgettably bad 1962 New York Met's Manager Casey Stengal, which once again proves that you don't need to win anything to be loved by fans... "Well, we've got this Johnny Lewis in the outfield. They hit a ball to him yesterday, and he turned left, then he turned right, then he went straight back and caught the ball. He made three good plays in one. And Greg Goossen, he's only twenty and with a good chance in ten years of being thirty." Casey Stengal, on being asked how his Mets were doing.
Baseball has more luck than you give it credit for. Bad hops. The strike zone. Could you imagine how inconsistent football would be if there weren't chains to measure ten yards? Bat breaking.
Personally I think that part of the "parity" that exists in football is due in a large part to the overall physicality of the game. Guys are hitting each other hard, and constantly. And since a teams success can often be connected to 3 or 4 players (QB, RB, WR, perhaps a defensive player like Ray Lewis), then an injury to one of them can seriously reduce the superbowl hopes of a great team. In baseball, there are fewer injuries (or at least that is the way it seems to me), and less reliance is put on individual shoulders.
"In baseball, there are fewer injuries (or at least that is the way it seems to me), and less reliance is put on individual shoulders." To take your word literally, what about the shoulder of an ace pitcher? How much easier is it to win if you've got a pitcher or two that can just strike everyone out? Now, I'm no baseball expert and I don't have any stats to back up that statement, but just in casual observance, it seems that it's hard to win without a good pitcher or two...kinda like a quarterback or defensive player. Or a good hitter or two...just like a good RB or WR. Just some thoughts.
Yes, there is plenty of pressure put on starting pitchers. But one starting pitcher only effects one game out of 5. I think star quarterbacks and running backs are a little more important because they relied upon heavily to win all games. If one is injured, I think that hurts the team much more than losing an ace pitcher.
did you sleep through the super bowl? the pats came out of nowhere and beat the supposedly unbeatable rams. their run was certainly more improbable than the free-spending diamondbacks', and their win was a much bigger upset.
i was thinking the exact same thing...not only did they beat the unbeatable rams, they beat teams that outmatched them on paper throughout the playoffs, particularly the Steelers. the Titans did the same two years prior, falling short in the super bowl. and what's so underdog about the Diamondbacks?? hell, that team had so much payroll it was sick! the pats were a far better underdog story than the D-Backs were..by far!
A lot of football comes down to coaching and having the right guys for the offensive or defensive scheme. Baseball has those elements too but it has been said many time that.... Baseball is where 9 guys play 9 other guys, and you hit a round ball with a round bat and see what happens. Sounds like a lot of luck in there.
I think that football is so dependent on emotion and raw physical aggression that talent disparities can often be bridged, especially in the NFL. This is tangential to the conversation, but there is a completely different mindset in baseball. Increased intensity in baseball can often be counter-productive, especially in hitting. Jeff Bagwell and Craig Biggio in the playoffs are two good examples of this. Anyway, I think there is more parity in the NFL because of shared revenues. Boring answer, but correct, in my view. When the baseball salary structure had less distance between the haves and have nots in the 70's, 80's and early 90's you had great parity. The Oakland A's, Kansas City Royals, Detroit Tigers, Minnesota Twins, Cincinnati Reds, Toronto Blue Jays, St. Louis Cardinals all had a place at the post season table along with the big boys.
I agree with all your underdog stuff, but not this. If this were true, then parity would have ALWAYS existed in football, but this is not the case.
