disagree with that statement. every year the NFL has a team go from worst to first and get in the playoffs, NFC South for an example sent 4 diff teams in 4 diff years. Unlike baseball there is what 6 teams that every year you know are going to make it, Yanks, Rangers, Angels, Cards, Braves, Phils (despite this year) and Red Sox (yea theyre rebuilding but they will be back) Whens the last time a team played in back to back SBs? Phils played in back to back WS and Heat played in back to back NBA finals. So dont give me that pull that the NFL has less parity than baseball, any givin sunday is what coach used to tell us (but of course he meant friday)
"Been proven" by who? It "has been proven" that there is a correlation between payroll size and wins. It is also pretty clear that the KC Royals and the Pittsburgh Pirates of the world will never be on a level playing field in that regard with the Yankees and Red Sox caliber of teams. If you are a fan of a small market team, even if you have the greatest management team in the history of baseball, the best you can hope for is a short stretch of success before your young players go to arbitration and free agency. Essentially 1/2 of the AL is a farm team for the top 25% of teams. Compare that with being a fan of the KC Chiefs. If I'm a Chiefs fan, the only reason my team is worse than the NY Jets, is because my owner and management team sucks. The Chiefs have every right to expect to compete every year with the NY teams. Not so the Royals. If you really think that isn't true, I'm not sure what else to say. We just live in different worlds. It would be like trying to discuss evolution with a creationist.
I remember reading that the World Series had more unique opponents the first decade of the 21st century than the SuperBowl did. That doesn't "prove" that MLB has more parity, but it certainly puts a dent in the idea that the Yankees and Red Sox own it. The Tigers and Twins have been up-and-down from doormat to WS contender; the Pirates are actually a contender this year; the Rangers are amidst a near-dynasty (puke!) in the AL; the Rays built a strong contender and made a WS; we could go on and on.
Because the Marlins won 2 WS? Or the Diamondbacks? Recent WS champs w/ payroll ranking 2011 - Cardinals (11th) 2010 - Giants (9th) 2009 - Yankees (1st) 2008 - Phillies (12th) 2007 - Red Sox (2nd) 2006 - Cardinals (11th) 2005 - White Sox (13th) 2004 - Red Sox (2nd) 2003 - Marlins (25th) - The one outlier 2002 - Angels (15th) 2001 - Diamondbacks (8th) 2000 - Yankees (1st) 1999 - Yankees (1st) 1998 - Yankees (2nd) 1997 - Marlins (7th) 1996 - Yankees (1st) 1995 - Braves (3rd) The payroll disparity really started getting out of hand by the early 2000s. Of those teams that won, only the Marlins/Cardinals don't frequently appear in the top 5 payrolls. Only one WS teams has ever been in the bottom half of payroll, and it is shown to be nearly impossible to have sustained excellence without a large payroll.
Payroll as the only comparative criterion is a little difficult since the NFL has a hard cap. One could argue that the hard cap is the main thing giving the NFL better parity, certainly. Thing is, at any given time since 2000 we would have listed the following teams as "never-contenders": Pirates, Royals, Tigers, Rays, Orioles, Nationals, Rockies, Brewers. And yet several of those teams have either been to the World Series or contended strongly for the playoffs. Several of them are big players this year, most notably the Gnats.
your point was? I didn't realize parity is defined exclusively by also-rans suddenly winning league championships. The next intelligent thing you offer to this thread will be the first.
http://blog.minitab.com/blog/the-statistics-game/which-sport-really-has-the-most-parity-part-2 http://www.fannation.com/blogs/post/452041-which-professional-sports-league-has-the-most-parity http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/01/12/once-again-baseball-has-greater-parity-than-the-nfl/ http://espn.go.com/mlb/blog/_/name/stark_jayson/id/7420412/baseball-not-nfl-king-parity http://suite101.com/article/the-parity-myth-in-pro-sports-a410940 i bet you would have an easier time predicting the final four teams in the NFL playoffs vs the final 4 of the mlb playoffs despite the nfl season still a week away and the mlb season approaching its end...
What does that have to do with anything? I can promise you 10 teams every year in baseball that won't make the postseason, but can't say the same for football. The article concerns itself with parity at the top, not overall. How many NFL teams haven't been to the playoffs in the past 10 years? 1, the Buffalo Bills. How many MLB teams haven't been to the playoffs in the past 10 years? 6(Blue Jays, Orioles, Royals, Mariners, Pirates, Nationals) MLB's spending differences effect the Rays, Jays, & Orioles more than most. Some small market teams have proven you can be compete, but for how long? If there was a hard cap, would the Rays be the best team in baseball? Probably.
It's not NBA bad, but a higher percentage of NFL clubs make the postseason than do MLB clubs, which has as much to do with difficultly making the playoffs as spending. Even the Yankees have missed the postseason recently. That is what makes these conversations challenging: most points have some validity, but we're comparing apples with pork chops.
The Yankees missed once in the past 16 years. That is just ridiculous. The additional playoff teams allow for more parity, though the NBA is completely different in that it isn't anybody's game. MLB and NFL are much more subject to randomness (in the playoffs).
I don't agree that additional teams allow for more parity. They allow for more mediocre teams to make the playoffs. In MLB a team still has to play at an elite level or win a bad division if it hopes to make the playoffs. And quite a few teams have managed to do so recently even though they had been cellar dwellers. Yeah, the Yanks are ridiculous -- but the fact that moneybags himself missed the playoffs one year to me underscores the fact that it's still not easy to make the playoffs.
How many teams make the NFL playoffs? 12 How many teams make the MLB playoffs (prior to this year)? 8 That being said, the Royals, Pirates, Orioles and Nationals would still be on the list if 12 teams made the playoffs. However, after this season, that list would probably be down to just the Royals.
Perhaps. My understanding of parity was that more teams are able to win at elite levels some of the time. So to me the Tigers' and Nationals' recent successes are more indicative of improved parity than the Cardinals' lucky run.
I think this is the key. Luck plays a bigger role in MLB than NFL. So it's more possible for a single good season in MLB to come out of nowhere (like the Nationals/Pirates/Orioles this year) - but sustaining it is virtually impossible in MLB. And the luck factor creates more different champions once a team makes the playoffs. In the NFL, there might be less different champions because it's harder to just get lucky and win a Superbowl. But once you build a good team, it's more financially possible to keep it together for several years. So each has it's own merits in terms of parity in different ways - I would argue baseball's parity is more luck, while the NFL's is more skill. Both dwarf the NBA.
I haven't looked at the Rangers' and Rays' payroll, but I wouldn't argue that it was luck. I see where you're coming from with regard to teams like the Pirates who flash in the pan, though. There are also MLB teams who spend like crazy--or spent like crazy--and still sucked because of buffoonery in management.
