Reply All: MLB vs. NBA parity

Every now and again, we’ll steal post an email from a noted sports philosopher. This week, it’s King Kaufman from Salon.com, writing about parity and its discontents.

Re: On parity, sent by King

Baseball doesn’t have parity. There’s obviously a correlation — though hardly 1:1  – between payroll and winning. As you would expect. There’s a correlation between salaries and success in most business, I would gather. Look at the top newspapers, for example. The NY Times pays a lot more than the Oakland Tribune. The problem in baseball is the differing ability of different teams to afford a high payroll over an extended period. That’s an issue that needs to be addressed, but the problem it contributes to — competitive imbalance — is vastly overstated. And it was way, way overstated during the labor wars of the late ’90s early ’00s, when Bud Selig would talk about little else but how unfair baseball’s system was, and the steno pool known as the baseball press dutifully wrote it all down and repeated it. I’m guessing the height of this, around the turn of the century, is roughly when you turned away from baseball because it’s so unfair.

As I showed in this piece, baseball’s competitive balance is roughly on par with the other major sports. Part of that is that the other sports seem more balanced than they are because of the big playoffs. Your team gets a reward fairly often, even if, especially in the NBA, it has virtually no chance of a championship. And what’s funny is the NBA NEVER gets heat about this, the fact that only a small handful of teams, maybe five at the most, have a shot at the championship on opening day, and that pool of teams rarely changes.

Look at the last 10 years in the NBA: Five teams have won the championship. In the last 20 years, only seven teams have. The Lakers, Spurs and Bulls have won 15 of the last 20 titles.

In baseball, eight teams have won the World Series in the last 10 years, and 13 teams have in the last 20. The Yankees have 5 titles, and nobody else has more than 2. Whenever people are arguing for a salary cap, or railing against baseball’s competitive imbalance generally, they run out Selig’s turn of the century line about how fans can *no longer* have any hope of seeing their team win the World Series. The argument was/is that baseball is in some kind of crisis because some teams have no chance. This implies, even when it’s not stated outright, that there was some earlier time when this was not true. But in earlier times, it was way worse. You know the Yankees won 29 pennants in 44 years from 1921-64? They won 14 in 16 years in 1949-64. I could go on at some length about this. The Giants, Cardinals and Dodgers, serially, ruled the NL in similar fashion from 1905-1966, each winning about half the pennants in their two-decade period of dominance. It’s better than it’s ever been to be a fan of everybody that’s not this handful of teams, and still pretty good to be a fan of those four.

The tweet conversation (that sparked this email exchange) started with my friend Patrick saying there was no point rooting for his Cleveland Indians because of the unfair system. The Indians are in a rough period. They’ve only been to the playoffs once in the last nine years. But before their mid’90s run — coinciding with the period when “competitive balance” supposedly became a problem — they hadn’t been to the playoffs in 41 years. Meanwhile, the Cavaliers went 33 years without winning their division, though they went to the playoffs 15 of those years so everything seemed OK. Before the LeBron improvement kicked in, they went 12 years never finishing higher than third, usually lower. But they made the playoffs four times so it didn’t seem so bad till the seven years when they sank to the very bottom. And yet this guy’s talking about how baseball’s too screwed up to follow in Cleveland.

So why don’t the rich teams just rig it? Well, poor management comes into play at times, witness the current Mets and Orioles and, until the last few years, the Phillies. And good management by some teams that are less rich, such as the Twins and even the middle-class Cardinals, who for a long time managed themselves into looking like a rich team. Also, it’s much harder to project performance in baseball. Players in the NBA/NFL drafts are ready to go, and there’s a lot of correlation between the top of the draft and professional success, though even that’s imperfect. In baseball, these guys are years away. Even Buster Posey, a polished college player, took two years to get to the bigs, and everyone’s surprised at how quickly he’s succeeded once there. The top of the baseball draft is littered with failures. There’s a Sam Bowie/Michael Jordan story every year. Several of them. Buster Posey was the 5th overall pick. The top guy that year is stuck in A ball. That’s not at all uncommon. Add in injuries and off years and fluke years and the relative similarity of good and bad teams in the majors — .400 and .600 winning percentages are the rough boundaries, much closer than in the other sports — and there’s a lot of variance. It’s why a team like the Padres can make a run like they did this year. A lot of fun.

No related posts.

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest

  NFL players are all members of a union called the National Football League Players Association (NFLPA). The NFLPA negotiates the general minimum contract for all players in the league. This contract is called the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), and it is the central document that governs the negotiation of individual player contracts for all of the league's players. The current CBA has been in place since 1993, and was amended in 1998 and again in 2006. The NFL has not had any labor-related work stoppages since the 1987 season, which is longer than Major League Baseball (1994 and beginning of 1995 seasons), the NBA (1998-99 season) or the NHL (2004-05 season canceled). The current CBA was originally scheduled to expire at the end of the 2012 season, but in 2008 the owners exercised their right to opt out of the agreement two years early.With the development ,the nfl jerseys ,mlb jerseys ,nhl jerseys are all very popular now!

Not sure if this will add anything to the discussion, but here's one simple fans pov. How many baseball games did I watch this season? All of the Braves playoff games plus about the last five of the Braves games. How many Hawks games did I watch last season and plan on watching this season? Every single one possible. Why? Well, the quick answer is simply taste as I prefer the actual watching of a basketball game than a baseball game, but more importantly, I believe that the 162 game regular season of baseball is ridiculously long and aftr a certain point it's diminishing returns. Early on there is no point in watching because the real races don't start until July and August. By that point though, some of the races, and more than likely your team, are already done and over with so why both watching all but the most intriguing games. Now, one could argue the same about basketball since the NBA regular season is 82 games long, but I would counter that the amount of teams that could make the playoffs makes the regular season games more relevant for longer. That line of thought seems to counter many people's opinion regarding playoffs and regular season relevance and I think that is exactly what is really the key to it all. It all boils down to one's opinion of post season structure. I'm not sure there is a right or wrong answer because it really is up to each individual to decide for themselves what they value and what they want to get from their sporting entertainment. Some want bigger playoffs, some want just the two best. To each his own I suppose.

Matt, I understand. Yes, I think we're talking about differences in taste and opinion. I don't know what can be done about the baseball playoffs being essentially a series of coin flips or, as it's sometimes stated, a crapshoot. That's the nature of the game. That's what makes the season so interesting. It's long enough to make the variability much less important. It still plays a role. A "true" 75-win team sometimes wins 90+ games or vice versa, but 162 games is a pretty solid sample size. The more baseball expands the playoffs, the more meaningless the regular season becomes, and the more randomized its champion becomes. Now, as this was a conversation about parity, I would say that people making the argument that started the conversation -- "Why should I follow Team X, because Team X has no chance to win a championship?" -- would be in favor of expanded playoffs. But what I tried to show in the linked piece is that, while baseball is often criticized for lacking parity and basketball is virtually never criticized in that way, baseball has much more parity than basketball, and basketball merely has the illusion of parity because it has absurdly expanded playoffs. But, as you point out, most of the teams in those playoffs have no real chance to win the championship -- unlike any team in the baseball playoffs, no matter how far they expand them. All I'm arguing is that the argument "baseball lacks the parity of the other sports" is bogus. I'm not saying anyone has to like baseball better than basketball, or dislike basketball's relatively narrow range of champs and potential champs. That's personal choice. You just can't accurately say that baseball is worse than basketball at giving the fans of any given team a legitimate shot at cheering a champion. It's not true.

Hmm, I didn't mean to say that it was only the playoff randomness that allowed the parity, but I completely understand that being unclear. I'm talking about in general, there's so much randomness in baseball, that that makes it possible to achieve some parity not by actually regressing talent level to the mean, but limiting volition in the process. So yes, the regular season in baseball isn't less competitive than basketball (more competitive depending on your definition really), but that's necessarily all that enticing. If I'm watching a two game series, eliminating home field advantage from consideration, no matter who the teams are, odds are most likely the series gets split simply because the difference in team ability is small compared to the randomness. It makes it hard for me to get hyped up for any particular game when I know that the winning team isn't necessarily doing anything more right than the losing team. Now, if that doesn't bother you, that's fine. For me though, when the process of crowning a champions begins to look too much like roshambo, it's a turn off. (To come full circle - that is a criticism primarily of the MLB playoffs, not the solidly sample sized regular season) I also understand someone being bothered by the relative predictability of the NBA. For me though, when lack of parity comes simply from star players being so good at their sport, and when getting those star players isn't something that only the big market clubs can do, it doesn't bother me very much.

Matt, Thanks for the kind words. I would argue with your contention that baseball's parity is a result of the randomness of the playoffs. Only half as many teams make the playoffs in baseball, so to even qualify for the randomness, you have to be good, better than you have to be in the NBA. I'd like to invite you to read the piece that's linked on the words "this piece," which looked at a 10-year period (1993-2003) and found that if baseball had 16 teams making the playoffs the way the NBA and NHL did and do, the distribution of playoff appearances would look very similar in baseball to the way it looks in basketball/hockey. That is: "There were about the same number of teams in each sport hardly ever making the playoffs, making it almost every year or falling somewhere in the middle." I got similar results when I went the other way and listed who would have made the NBA/NHL playoffs over the period if those leagues sent 8 teams instead of 16.

Where's the confusion of correlation with causation? And without any sort of data to back WHAT up?

King first off, it's good to see your writing again. I always enjoyed you Salon column, and hadn't realized you'd gone to focus on your own blog. Your statement that the MLB does indeed have as much parity as the NBA is not incorrect. Am I the only one though who finds baseball's form of parity less than satisfying? Basically, baseball achieves the parity simply by having a ton of randomness thrown in. Personally, I like my sports deterministic. I love a good upset, but when the weaker team wins simply because in baseball, the weaker team wins almost half the time, that's doesn't carry the same meaning for me. Aall things considered though, given the amount of randomness inherently involved, allowing big market teams to spend up to their heart's content doesn't really bother me very much. Having perennial powers for everyone else to target and hate is a good thing. What leads me to rant and rave is Selig wistfully invoking "fairness" as a reason to expand the playoffs, and up the randomness even more.

Never, ever, ever confuse correlation with causation. Without any sort of data to back this up besides a non-existent correlation analysis, this is all speculation, and it would have been better to leave out the word "correlation".

Just a quick note to say that this e-mail, which was part of a much longer conversation, obviously, was written before the 2010 World Series concluded, so this: "In baseball, eight teams have won the World Series in the last 10 years, and 13 teams have in the last 20" is no longer accurate. It's now nine teams winning the World Series in the last 10 years, though it's still 13 in the last 20. And by years I mean years in which a World Series was played, so 1990-2010, inclusive.

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes