NFL Parity Myth

Got this

Mismanagement is the reason why some teams have done poorly in the NFL, and why teams such as the Steelers have stayed near the top for so long. The Lions drafted poorly, they signed bad players, they had a bad coach…and they did badly. What a surprise! Same with the Chargers post-Stan The Man and pre-Brees. GMing wasn’t good, coaching wasn’t good, therefore the team did badly. Same with the Browns since….ever.

Think of an NFL team who has spent lots of unheard-of money on free agents and have won stuff shortly thereafter…how has Albert Haynesworth and the Redskins been doing?

Now look at the MLB….how many of those title winners have been “big market”? Now lets ask about players who have spent unheard-of money and won stuff shortly thereafter. I can think of at least half of those Series being that way. The NFL has a league of parity on finances, which creates (or should supposedly create) parity on the field.

by TheFan09 on Dec 16, 2010 9:25 PM PST reply actions

winning championships comes from many factors

Luck, players, management, skill, etc

It is just in baseball that the spending disparities allow larger market teams to gain an advantage. Both large/small market teams try to draft and develop talent; it is just when that strategy creates holes, large market teams can fill them with higher quality players than smaller market through free agency. look at the phillies.

the nfl eliminates financial disparities. there will still be disparities in franchise success. look at last year’s superbowl. two small markets playing each other. there is no structural impediment to other teams’ imulating their success. the constraint is identifying coaching and player talent better than the other guys, which seems fair.

NE and Bellichick seem really, really good at it, and figuring out how to maximize that talent. So they win more often, but there is nothing stopping other teams from trying to emulate them, and they do, by trying to get their coaching and management.

In baseball, if the Padres thought, hmmm, I would like to emulate the Yankees who are competitive almost every year, what should I do? Can they spend $200m+. No. That is the difference.

by jayman66 on Dec 16, 2010 11:20 PM PST reply actions

uhhh...

Your point is what exactly?

Football is much less balanced and has far lower parity. And everything you have said is also true in football, the difference is that in football the only high-value players are exceptional exceptional defensive players (very few), the QB, the RB (if exceptionally good), and WR’s… and your occasional TE.

However, with the exception of QB, most football players don’t last that long. By the time they are 30 their bodies are largely breaking down. Football also has franchise player-tags and the entire nature of contract signing is different.

In the end, if you have a good QB, your team will tend to win. If you don’t, your team will tend to struggle. I realize this is a gross over simplification, but it is largely true. Baseball is completely different and teams with lots of money can attempt to buy up the important talent to field a complete team…

AND YET, baseball still has more parity… far more parity. This is largely because it is almost impossible to buy up 8 everyday players, 5 starters, a bullpen, and decent bench.

People need to stop complaining about payroll discrepancies until there is clear evidence that only the big money teams are winning any more.

by Zen Blade on Dec 17, 2010 4:57 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs

payroll trends

From ’88 to ’08 payrolls increased 10x, or ~9% per year compounded. what is interesting is as the money has increased, so has the correlation to market size. it is as though the big markets realized that winning was profitable and could out spend most of the other teams, so started really spending.

http://stokes-analysis.blogspot.com/2010/02/mlb-payroll.html

I looked at the 2002-08 playoff participation to spending and market size. Big spenders get to the playoffs more often and big spenders are in big markets.

http://stokes-analysis.blogspot.com/2010/02/playoff-odds-vs-spending-habits.html

by jayman66 on Dec 16, 2010 11:28 PM PST reply actions

Here is my post from Dec 8th.

"BASEBALL SUCKS WHY CAN’T WE BE LIKE… [NFL] [NBA] [SOCCER] [ANY OTHER LEAGUE"

Here, World Series participants since 1995:

1995 Atlanta Braves 4–2 Cleveland Indians
1996 New York Yankees 4–2 Atlanta Braves
1997 Florida Marlins 4–3 Cleveland Indians
1998 New York Yankees 4–0 San Diego Padres
1999 New York Yankees 4–0 Atlanta Braves
2000 New York Yankees 4–1 New York Mets
2001 Arizona Diamondbacks 4–3 New York Yankees
2002 Anaheim Angels 4–3 San Francisco Giants
2003 Florida Marlins 4–2 New York Yankees
2004 Boston Red Sox 4–0 St. Louis Cardinals
2005 Chicago White Sox 4–0 Houston Astros
2006 St. Louis Cardinals 4–1 Detroit Tigers
2007 Boston Red Sox 4–0 Colorado Rockies
2008 Philadelphia Phillies 4–1 Tampa Bay Rays
2009 New York Yankees 4–2 Philadelphia Phillies
2010 San Francisco Giants 4–1 Texas Rangers

Notice that I included the Yankees days of damnation. Even with that, 18 EIGHTEEEEEEEEENNNNN different teams made a World Series appearance over 16 years.
That’s about ONE new team every year, and this includes the time period where the Yankees were THE unquestioned dominant force in baseball.
Looking at 2000+, 15 different teams appeared in a total of 11 different world series.

Part of the reason this parity appears is that teams realized that if you produce good, young players, you retain control of them for at least 4 VERY affordable years. And you can then trade them away for new young players.
It took a while for this system/model to be developed, but it has, and it IS STILL WORKING.
With the exception of the Yankees and Red Sox, virtual every other team on that list made it to the World Series because they learned how to develop GOOD YOUNG players. The Giants pitching staff (the good pitchers) are a perfect example of this. The same goes for just about every other team on that list.

Now, what about the teams that have not made the World Series since 1995?

AL:
Toronto Blue Jays
Baltimore Orioles
Minnesota Twins
Kansas City Royals
Seattle Mariners
Oakland A’s
NL:
Washington Nationals
Cincinnati Reds
Milwaukee Brewers
Pittsburgh Pirates
Chicago Cubs
Los Angeles Dodgers

Okay, out of those 12 teams all but 5 have made the playoffs since 2000.
Those five: Nationals, Royals, Pirates, Blue Jays, Orioles.
Four of those five teams have had or do have VERY VERY bad ownership/GM issues… The exception being the Blue Jays, but I would be willing to hear arguments about how bad their ownership/GM has been. The Blue Jays have finished above .500 a lot over the last 10 years, but they play in a really difficult division.

Of the 7 teams that have made the playoffs, but not the world series:
The Twins are perennial winners of the AL central… so, they are a good team.
The A’s were winning 80+ games as recently as 2006.
The Dodgers/Mariners/CUBS make REALLLLLY stupid money decisions… so, that’s their problem.
The Reds have clued into developing young talent (finally). The Brewers were really poorly run for a number of years, had a brief peak, and are looking (potentially) bad again.

As for the other 18 teams… you made the world series (since 1995). You may not have won or been there more than once, but you were competitive. In 16 world series, if we LITERALLY forced parity on the league, each team would only make ONE world series appearance. So, guess what… Your team is doing average. Good Job! And you are doing better than teams like the Cubs and Dodgers who spend tons of money.

Now, what about the NFL or the NBA??? Well, I don’t know. My guess though is that far fewer teams made their respective finals during this same time period post 1995 or 2000+
So, let me look…. searching…. searching…. searching….

MLB:

Since 1995- 18 teams (out of 30 teams, but 8 make playoffs)
Since 2000- 15 teams

NFL:
Since 1995- 21 teams (out of 32 teams, but 12 make playoffs—only need to win 1 game)
Since 2000- 16 teams

NBA:
Since 1995- 15 teams (out of 30 teams, but 16 make playoffs)
Since 2000- 11 teams

So… baseball does perfectly fine relative to the NFL or NBA.
When you consider the quality of the team during an entire season baseball runs away from the competition. In baseball, very few teams make the playoffs, which means far fewer teams have the chance to reach a championship game. In football and basketball many more teams (50% more in football and 100% more in basketball) are eligible to make the championship game after the season. This means you can be sub .500 in basketball and have a decent chance of making the playoffs every year.

If we were to do a complete analysis, comparing winning % of the various teams in and out of the playoffs and the frequency of playoff appearances relative to playoff spots available and the number of teams in the league, I think it would be clearer that MLB is really very good in terms of parity and teams having solid chances to make the playoffs and win titles. However, this is difficult to do considering the various formats and number of teams involved in the post season.

In baseball, it is very hard to be an "okay" team and make the world series because you have to play 162 games AND you have to be capable of winning a 7 game series against other very good teams. Therefore, I don’t think the NFL numbers are nearly as robust as the MLB numbers (if a QB has one bad game, that’s your entire playoffs down the drain). And if you watch the NBA, even casually, I think it is clear that they have serious dynasty issues every decade.

So, my point is not that baseball is fair or perfect, but rather that we have a system that works pretty well right now. Perhaps in a couple of years that will change. But the way things are structured right now, big money teams will always be tempted to buy up the big name talent… paying exorbitant prices for players that will often have serious regression. Smaller teams avoid these pitfalls because they cannot pay $100 million for a single player. AND yet, teams with small payrolls win division titles and pennants all the same.
Honestly, the Padres have been competitive more years than not since 2002, including two years in which we were eliminated from the playoffs in the last game of the season (2007 and 2010).

that’s my two cents (and like $1000 more)

by Zen Blade on Dec 17, 2010 5:05 AM PST up reply actions

I remember this post

and thought it was very good. My one gripe would be that 1995 neatly includes the Yankees string of titles, while chopping off Toronto, Minnesota, the Reds, Atlanta, and Oakland who had just won prior to that. That’s why I went back 35 years to the beginning of FA.

As I stated above, I can include the losing WS teams as well. I will try to post them later. With the expanded playoff system however, I think the results get too watered down if every team that makes the postseason is included. Even some teams that are barely trying make it in once in a while, and weaker divisions are not neccessarily a sign of competitive balance. I’m not sure that proves anything.

by strummer on Dec 17, 2010 6:19 AM PST up reply actions

I chose 1995 to point out that exact fact

The Yankees were THE DOMINANT force (and the Braves) and yet… there were still a large number of teams that made it to the World Series.

Regarding playoffs, we are far more strict in baseball than in football or the NBA. I think there are always 4 decent teams in the playoffs, regardless. And there are often one or two teams that don’t make the playoffs that also had very good years. The Padres this year for example; the Red Sox this year for example…

The question is how much competitive balance do you want? Winning 95 vs 90 games? Winning 85 vs 90 games? Rarely does a team win 100 games. There is a lot of balance. The Giants and Rangers were in the World Series this year. Almost every team has made the playoffs since 2000… except for teams in the AL east and REALLLY BADLY run teams.
And the NL east is more a factor of having three really awesome teams than anything else. Granted, you can argue big spending in the AL east is THE problem… but that does not affect the other divisions nearly as much… and where it does the big spenders tend to suck… Dodgers, Cubs for example… the Mariners…

by Zen Blade on Dec 17, 2010 7:46 AM PST up reply actions

Sure,...I agree with most of that

The other thing i would add is that 15 years (believe it or not) is IMO too short a time. Every team, even good organizations will have a bad decade-and-a-half. The Red Sox were bad in the 1950’s and early ’60’s. The Cardinals were not bad, but very mediocre in the 1950’s and ’70’s. The Yankees were awful in the late ’60’s and early ’90’s; they went 15 years between WS appearances from 1981-1996. Plus, if a team goes to a WS or two, then goes again 20 years later, a 15 year time frame misses that.

It happens in football too. You start to rebuild, then those players are a bust and you have to start over again 5-6 years later, then you make a bad trade or your best players get hurt. Steelers were pretty bland in the 1980’s and early ’90’s, and the Giants were lousy from the late ’60’s through the early ’80’s.

by strummer on Dec 17, 2010 12:21 PM PST up reply actions

I remember this post

and thought it was very good.

TWSS

www.FriarsOnCardboard.blogspot.com
"jbox does not drink coffee, as it makes him clean house big time." ~Kev

by TheThinGwynn on Dec 17, 2010 1:00 PM PST up reply actions

i kind of responded other places

but my points are that there is always going to be variation in franchise performance. some are run well, making good decisions, others poorly.

it is just that money does affect playoff participation. i can expand my data set, but i did what was easy to pull from web sites, but from 2002-08 (8 years), the top spenders went to the playoffs ~60% of the time, mid-spenders ~25% and low spenders ~15% of the time.

In the NFL, you do not see market size affecting franchise quality. Think of some of the perennially solid NFL teams in recent history: SD, Pittsburgh, Boston, Indy, NYG, PHL. Some are from big markets, some are not. Because of the cap, money is not a big factor. Picking the right players and coaching staff is (along with some luck), as it should be. Those that do that well are rewarded, and those that fail are slammed, fairly.

As a side note, I am not in favor of the labor balance in the NFL, where I think it favors the teams too much. You can get spending balance and revenue sharing and have a fair labor deal in baseball.

by jayman66 on Dec 17, 2010 7:22 AM PST up reply actions

But does the size of a baseball team's market

necessarily correlate with the size of a football team’s market in the same town/city?

I think this is a legitimate question. If the answer is “no”, then… the comparison cannot be SD padres vs SD chargers…
and btw, the Padres have been just as competitive as the Chargers during much of the 2000’s.

If the answer is “no”, then you need to compare the big spenders in one league with the big spenders in another league.

by Zen Blade on Dec 17, 2010 7:41 AM PST up reply actions

Excellent point!

In many cases the answer is no.
The Redskins have a bigger market than the Nationals, while the Orioles have a bigger market than the Ravens.
The Bears have Chicago to themselves and probably have more fans in southern Illinois than the Cubs/White Sox, who lose those fans to the Cardinals. Cubs and Cardinals have more of a national following than the Bears and Rams. The Chiefs probably keep a lot more of the Missouri fanbase than the Royals do, who lose it to the Cardinals.
The Braves have most of the SE states (including northern Florida) to themselves. The Falcons share the region with the Panthers, Titans, and Jaguars.
The Cowboys, Steelers, Raiders have a national following while the Rangers, Pirates, and A’s do not.

The Yankees have a bigger market than the NY Giants, but the Giants have a strong New England following which is obviously Red Sox country. Not sure why. Might be that the Patriots are an expansion team. Also, the Giants have often had their summer camps in VT and western MA. They also played their home games at Yale in the mid-1970’s.

by strummer on Dec 17, 2010 10:08 AM PST up reply actions

tl;dr

"I suggest more bike" ~KSK

drinkerswithawritingproblem.blogspot.com

by justdave on Dec 17, 2010 5:27 PM PST up reply actions

Teams that win tend to have good players

And good players tend to earn more money.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that.

Also, 9% a year compounded does not provide a 10x increase over 20 years.

by strummer on Dec 17, 2010 6:58 AM PST up reply actions

i screwed up my excel

It is more like 12.5%. I just double checked. Anyway, the higher the number, the more of an impact money is having. My correlation analysis shows that the money is flowing in disproportionately from larger markets, pushing up the correlation to market size.

Also, if money does not matter that much, why are those major markets spending so much of it? If you can field a perennially competitive team for $100m vs. $200m, would you rather not pocket the $100m? Yes, you might get some heat in the press, but that goes away if you are competitive and win.

by jayman66 on Dec 17, 2010 7:11 AM PST up reply actions

Who said "money does not matter"?

That is a strawman argument if I ever heard one.
Let’s try this one more time:

Teams that win tend to have good players And good players tend to earn more money.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that.

I started this thread to show that the NFL does not have the parity it often gets credit for when compared to MLB.

by strummer on Dec 17, 2010 7:40 AM PST up reply actions

i am saying money in baseball comes from market size not success

yes, there a variances, but the mets have spent their money horribly and still have a revenue stream much larger than smaller markets

money comes most from market size, not franchise success
yes, franchise success helps, but it is a secondary driver than market size

the nfl playoff participation are a function of variables that the teams can control (coaching skill, player selection, execution)

mlb playoff participation is a function of those same things AND disparities is market size that translate to payroll capacity. i other analyses I have built models that suggest 1/2 of the variance in team winning pct comes from spending; so 1/2 is factors outside of control, and 1/2 factors that they can control

football franchises have 100% control

that some teams do better consistently than others suggests those franchise are doing a better job but there is nothing one can say is “unfair” or imbalanced

not true in baseball

by jayman66 on Dec 18, 2010 12:04 PM PST up reply actions

BTW, I had a post on this not more than two weeks ago...

You should not just look at WS champions. You should look at either teams that make the WS or teams that make the playoffs.

The latter is probably a much better judge of parity in baseball. If you are in 1st place after 162 games, that is all that really matters. Yes, we all want a pennant and a championship (I do), but April—October is all about the 162 games. Then there are a couple of weeks in October where you care about the world series.
In football, it is a bit more difficult to determine what demonstrates parity since the season is so short and you only play one game per playoff “series”.

In addition, I think you have to look more at different eras in baseball. Parity pre/post-WC for example. Or pre/post-revenue sharing.

by Zen Blade on Dec 17, 2010 5:02 AM PST reply actions

that is what i thought i did here:

http://stokes-analysis.blogspot.com/2010/02/playoff-odds-vs-spending-habits.html

Playoff participation vs. market size, and it shows a strong relationship. Yes, not every single major market makes it every year (Boston, this year), and smaller markets build and become competitive for periods of time (San Diego, Tampa, Minnesota, Oakland). But, on average, bigger market, bigger spending teams go the playoffs more than smaller teams. And a true small spending team has not won the WS in over 10 years.

Money helps. It is not everything, but it sure helps. You can spend the money intelligently or poorly, but it helps. My main point is that better balancing would eliminate that variable across franchise performance. There were still remain variation in performance, but those would be factors that can be controlled by the franchise. Some will do better than others, but there is nothing structural.

Imagine you play FFL. Would you really want the guys who earn the most money to get the top pick of every round, and a few extra picks as well? Would those guys win every time? No. But they would tend to win more often than the guys forced to pick lower.

by jayman66 on Dec 17, 2010 7:01 AM PST up reply actions

It's a nice post...

but I would take out the teams that are considered to be failure. Especially the “low spending” failures who attempt to profit rather than put a competitive team on the field.

Eliminate: Royals, Nationals, Pirates, and Baltimore from 2002-2010. See if the numbers change much.

Also, you need to consider your numbers in terms of expected values.

If there are only 6 teams in the top bracket… what percentage of time would those teams be expected to make the playoffs based off of random probability… (8 spots each year out of 30 teams… so, based on % those six teams should only make up ~1.5 playoff spots per year… this isn’t perfect, but it begins to highlight the true statistical anomalies that may exist… but I would also perform that analysis with the “small market teams”)

When you take the expected values into account, that’s where your argument gets stronger. The problem though is that there is a chicken and an egg issue. Many teams can afford to spend more once they have a loyal fan base…. How much were some teams helped by having a strong group of players, that then allowed the team to have more revenue, etc…
How many teams have been helped by being the only decent sports team in town?

Anyways, I think the current system works very well.

by Zen Blade on Dec 17, 2010 8:34 AM PST up reply actions

a few thoughts

I don’t think you can eliminate “failures”. That is subjective. I am looking at spending vs. outcomes. At the top, you could eliminate NY Mets for spending horribly, a failure of management. But then it gets very subjective.

On the chicken vs. egg thing, that is a reasonable argument. The thing that jumps out to me, though, is the strength of correlation between DMA and team spending (.90). So it is either a strong coincidence that strong teams are in big DMAs or that DMA’s are reallyt the driver of team spending.

by jayman66 on Dec 17, 2010 9:12 AM PST up reply actions

DMA?

by Zen Blade on Dec 17, 2010 11:01 AM PST up reply actions

marketing speak

demographic marketing area

Basically lumps cities into metropolitan regions used in television.

Instead of San Francisco and San Jose separately, they decide both are in the San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose demographic area. Lumps suburbs and city cores together.

It is also how television markets are defined, so advertiser spending is tied to DMAs.

by jayman66 on Dec 17, 2010 11:27 AM PST up reply actions

Wait a minute Jayman

I see what you are doing. You are bouncing back and forth in your argument between big/small markets and big/small spending. You list small market teams like the Padres and Rays, but you disqualify a small market team like the Marlins who won a WS. Winning a WS gets a team bumped from the list, because they added payroll that year. You also list Oakland as a small market team, but the Giants are considered big market despite the fact that they share the same TV market. Same market, but the Giants are considered big because they won, and the A’s are considered small since they haven’t won.

I realize the Giants are a bigger draw in the Bay Area than the A’s, but you are shifting your argument around too much between market and spending. By your definition, the A’s were not small when they had Rickey Henderson and Eckersley and went to 3 straight WS, but they are now.

If a small or lower middle market team makes a spending push and wins the WS, they are no longer considered small spending. Using that trick, the 1998 Padres would not meet your definition of a “true small spending team”. If the Twins win a WS, they won’t meet the criteria either because they signed Mauer. So long as they don’t win, you can keep on calling them small market.

And a true small spending team has not won the WS in over 10 years

by strummer on Dec 17, 2010 11:40 AM PST up reply actions

that was a mistake

I consider Miami a small market.

STL is the other “small market” but their spending puts them in the upper half because of the large following outside their DMA; Atlanta is the same way

I am using DMA as proxy for TV market; yes, there are discrepancies, so it is not perfect but givent there is such a high correlation between DMA and payrolls, it looks like a pretty good proxy

I have cut my analysis two ways: looking at playoff participation by spending (oakland is a “small market” there; bad name; “small spender” would be better) but again, market size and spending are so correlated it is not such a slip

i have also done analysis of market size to playoff participation, cutting out the spending component altogether. you see very similar levels of playoff participation, but the fit is a bit less tight, and that is due to weird markets like SF where the Giants have more lucrative revenue stream.

i have heard something about TV rights being better for SF, but that does not make a lot of sense, so not totally sure why the oakland A’s have such a limited revenue stream vs. SF; i know SF has a much better ballpark location (downtown SF vs. sketchy part of oakland).

by jayman66 on Dec 18, 2010 12:13 PM PST up reply actions

But Boston doesn't have a football team

How accurate can the rest of your data really be?

by athletics68 on Dec 17, 2010 8:51 AM PST reply actions

Really?

Apparently neither does Dallas, since they are not in Dallas. I align teams with their DMA, which is how TV markets are assigned, and that is where the money comes from. New England, Foxboro = Boston. 24 miles from Foxboro to Boston. Closer than Arlington to Dallas.

by jayman66 on Dec 17, 2010 9:03 AM PST up reply actions

yeah they play in a suburb of Boston

silly argument

"I suggest more bike" ~KSK

drinkerswithawritingproblem.blogspot.com

by justdave on Dec 17, 2010 5:29 PM PST up reply actions

Foxboro isn't really a "suburb" of Boston

It’s practically in Rhode Island and is in fact closer to Providence, RI than Boston.

by athletics68 on Dec 18, 2010 9:44 PM PST up reply actions

Bostonians think all of New England is a suburb of Boston.

by Darklighter on Dec 18, 2010 10:47 PM PST up reply actions

Bostonians also think they can drive...

by athletics68 on Dec 19, 2010 8:47 AM PST up reply actions

All true...

But there is a big difference between the NFL and MLB.

Adrian Gonzalez is the face of the Padres franchise, his contract is up, and the Padres organization, rightfully, trades him before his contract ends because they do not feel they can pay him what he would be worth on the free agent market, and that kind of contract can only be afforded by a few teams in baseball.

Peyton Manning’s contract is up after this season. There is NO chance that the Indianapolis Colts trade him to get value before his contract ends because the Colts know that they can give him the biggest contract (and probably will) to keep him no matter what other big markets or free flowing owners in need of a quarterback can spend. You think Daniel Snyder in Washington wouldn’t love the chance to drop loads of money on Manning to get him to fix that mess he has in DC?

That’s the difference. The NFL give the same opportunities to all of their franchises to thrive. That’s why they can excel in places like Indianapolis, Green Bay, New Orleans, and Jacksonville. The rules are in place. If you screw it up (Detroit, Cincinnati) it’s the individual organization’s fault.

In baseball, the poorer teams are continuously losing their best players to the richer teams when they become free agents because they cannot afford them. The richer teams can scoop them up and if they don’t pan out, they can start the process all over again almost immediately. So if the poorer teams screw up, it’s not necessarily the individual organization’s fault. It can be at least partially blamed on the system.

In other words, does anyone here think that Brian Cashman is smarter than Jed Hoyer?

by charmeljun on Dec 18, 2010 1:39 PM PST reply actions

But...

in the NFL the QB IS THE TEAM…
And RB players do not last in top form for much longer than their initial signing+extension.

in MLB… who is “the team”? Yes, there is a Pujols or an A-roid… but even those players are not “the team”.

by Zen Blade on Dec 18, 2010 5:11 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

Super Bowl & World Series teams

In this list I have included both winners and losers of the World Series and Super Bowl since 1975.
Number of appearances with championships in parentheses.

Baseball
Yankees:11 (won7)
STL: 5 (won 2)
Philadelphia 5 (won2)
Atlanta: 5 (won1)
Dodgers: 4 (2)
Boston: 4 (2)
Oakland: 3 (1)
Cincinnati: 3 (3)
SF: 3 (1)
KC:2 (1)
Twins: 2 (2)
Toronto: 2 (2)
Miami:2 (2)
Baltimore: 2 (1)
Detroit: 2 (1)
NYM: 2 (1)
Cleveland: 2
Padres 2
Pittsburgh:1 (1)
Angels:1 (1)
Phoenix 1 (1)
WhiteSox: 1 (1)
Denver: 1
Tampa: 1
Rangers: 1
Brewers: 1
Houston:1

In 36 WS there have been 27 different teams, with the top 6 teams appearing 34 times out of a possible 72

by strummer on Dec 18, 2010 3:25 PM PST reply actions

NFL

Pittsburgh:7 (won6)
Dallas: 6 (won4)
Denver: 6 (won2)
Patriots:6 (won3)
SF : 5 (5)
Washington: 4 (3)
Bills 4
NYG:4 (3)
Raiders 4 (3) LA and Oakland
Rams: 3 (1) LA and STL
Chicago:2 (1)
Eagles 2
Bengals 2
Miami:2
Minnesota: 2
Colts: 2 (1)
Green Bay: 2 (1)
Ravens:1 (1)
TB: 1 (1)
Saints:1 (1)
Phoenix: 1
Seattle; 1
Carolina:1
Chargers 1
Atlanta:1
Tennessee: 1

In 36 Super Bowls there have been 26 different teams, with the top 6 teams appearing 34 times out of a possible 72.

Also there is a correction needed above:
1995 strike! Therefore there have been 35 WS with 27 different teams, and the top 6 appearing 34 times out of a possible 70

by strummer on Dec 18, 2010 3:52 PM PST up reply actions

'94 strike

by strummer on Dec 18, 2010 4:11 PM PST up reply actions

a bunch of things

First, I would focus on baseball mid-90s to today. The payrolls have really been accelerating since that time.

Second, you are focusing on parity of outcomes (champions) vs. partiy in inputs. Pretend in the NFL, there was one team who had it all figured out and won every year. They did not do it by paying guys more but they a GM and coaching staff that understood football so much better they won every year. The other franchises tried to emulate them but kept coming up short. By your definition, this would be horrible parity. You are comparing partiy of outcomes vs. parity in inputs. I would not say this hypothetical league is “unfair” (maybe a little boring).

Compare that to an exagerrated NY Yankees where they spend $1b a year, and the next closest can only afford $50m, and they win every year. That is bad parity, but unfairness in the inputs.

That is exagerrated version of what the difference is. The variation in playoff participation in baseball is correlated with market size while it is not correlated to it market size in NFL.

by jayman66 on Dec 18, 2010 7:28 PM PST up reply actions

Well said!

The NFL doesn’t depend on spending money, but doing your job and getting players to fit your philosophy.

In baseball, it’s the same, but other rich teams can benefit from your hard work by scooping the player up when poorer teams can’t afford them anymore.

Money isnt the only key to success, but to say that there’s more parity in baseball than in
football just doesn’t ring true.

by charmeljun on Dec 18, 2010 11:17 PM PST via mobile up reply actions

The NFL has not produced

more Super Bowl teams than MLB has produced World Series teams.
That is true whether you go back 10, 20 or 30 years.

by strummer on Dec 19, 2010 3:40 AM PST up reply actions

Sure,

the classic case in baseball was the Red Sox prior to 2004. They had been to 2 WS in 30 years and hadn’t won since 1918. But they were not an example of a team that can’t compete.

Second, of course I am focusing on outcomes. A variety of teams winning is precisely the point. I’m not sure why you are taking issue with that.

And your “playoff participation in baseball is correlated with market size while it is not correlated to it market size in NFL” comment ignores that the 3 biggest US markets (NY, Chicago, LA) have 6 baseball teams and only 3 football teams. 6 MLB teams out of 30 play in NY, Chicago, LA. while 3 teams out of 32 do so in the NFL.
That skews your results right there. Randomly throwing at a NFL or MLB dartboard would give the 3 big markets twice as many chances in baseball.

Finally, playoff participation is just as much a result of the format than anytthing else. The NFL takes 12 teams of 32, while MLB takes takes 8 of 30. That’s 37% vs 26%. Big difference. Comparing the two is apples and oranges. That’s why I have focused on WS and SB’s.

I will post the results for shorter time spans.

by strummer on Dec 19, 2010 3:28 AM PST up reply actions

1990 to 2010

Baseball
Yankees: 7 (won5)
Braves: 5 (won1)
Phillies: 3 (1)
Miami: 2 (2) expansion team
Toronto: 2 (2)
Boston: 2 (2)
SF: 2 (1)
STL: 2 (1)
Cleveland: 2
Minnesota: 1 (1)
Reds: 1 (1)
Phoenix: 1 (1) expansion team
Angels: 1 (1)
WhiteSox: 1 (1)
Oakland:1
Padres: 1
Houston: 1
Detroit:1
Denver: 1* expansion team
Rays: 1 *expansion team
Rangers: 1
NYM:1

In 20 WS, there have been 22 teams participating, with 8 teams not reaching the WS (Cubs, Dodgers, Brewers, Expos/Nats, Seattle, Baltimore, Pittsburgh and Royals). The top 9 teams (2 or more WS) have appeared 27 times out of a possible 40.

NFL
Patriots: 5 (won3)
Bills:4
Dallas:3 (3)
NYGiants: 3 (2)
Pittsburgh:3 (2)
Denver:3 (2)
SF: 2 (2)
STL: 2 (1)
Colts: 2 (1)
GB: 2 (1)
Washington: 1 (1)
Baltimore: 1 (1)
TB: 1 (1)
Saints:1 (1)
Chargers: 1
Atlanta:1
Titans:1
Raiders:1
Carolina:1 *expansion team
Phil:1
Chicago:1
Seattle:1
Phoenix:1

In 21 Super Bowls there have been 23 teams with 9 teams not reaching the SB ( KC, Miami, Cincinnati, Cleveland*, NYJets, Jacksonville*, Houston*, Lions, Vikings). The top ten teams (2 or more SB) have made 29 appearances out of a possible 42.

NFL:
21 SBs
23 SB teams
9 teams not appearing
10 teams have appeared twice and account for 29 of 42 possible slots

MLB:
20 WS
22 WS teams
8 teams not appearing
9 teams have appeared twice and account for 27 of possible 40 slots.

by strummer on Dec 19, 2010 5:50 AM PST reply actions

All good points Strummer...

You’ve broken this down very well here. But you have to agree that it is much harder for a team like the Royals or Pirates to make a World Series run under the MLB rules than it is for the Lions and Bengals under the rules in the NFL.

Sure, there are more playoff teams in the NFL, but there are also provisions that allow teams to keep their best players for longer times than they would in baseball. When was the last time you saw an Adrian Gonzalez like trade in the NFL? A team trading a player in his prime because they fear the inability to play that player what he might want in his next contract? That is not only prevalent in baseball, but a constant way of life for the smaller markets. And that is very hard to sell in those markets.

What your list shows is that the best teams in either sport will rise to the top due to their winning philosophy and their ability to find players to fit that philosophy. But the NFL’s weaklings are protected from raids by the bigger markets. The running joke in MLB is how much an upcoming free agent will get from the Yankees. Which is really terrible for many baseball fans in Oakland, Kansas City, San Diego, Pittsburgh…

by charmeljun on Dec 19, 2010 1:55 PM PST reply actions

No one is saying the two leagues operate under the same system.

I’ve read the posts again, and do not see anyone claiming that.

My point is simply to argue that the NFL does not have the parity it often gets credit for.
I hear all the time that the NFL produces more winners than MLB. They don’t!!!!

by strummer on Dec 21, 2010 6:13 AM PST up reply actions

you focus on the less interesting definition of parity

parity in opportunity: yes in NFL, no in MLB
parity in outcomes: varied in both, but a strong bias large markets in MLB

when the bulls were dominating the NBA, were people upset about lack of parity? no, because it was clear it was due to MJ, who they drafted, and it was fun to watch

when the NY Yankees compete year after year, not so fun because you know they bought a good portion of the skill that led to those outcomes

by jayman66 on Dec 21, 2010 2:25 PM PST up reply actions

If the outcome shows parity in both leagues

then you cannot claim that the parity in opportunity does not exist. Teams may take a different approach in reaching a championship, but the results show that just as many different teams win in MLB as in the NFL.
If your claim was true, then the Dodgers, Angels, Cubs, White Sox, and Mets would dominate baseball along with the Yankees.

Also your Yankee/Bulls comparison is poor. The Bulls brought in players like Rodman, Paxson, and Cartwright and paid them big money. They also paid Jordan $30 million in 1996/97 and $33 million in 1997/98.
When the Yankees won in the late ’90’s they had Jeter, Rivera, Williams, Pettit, Posada, plus numerous homegrown platoon and role players. They had more home grown players than the 1998 Padres did.

They have only won once in the past decade when they went the ARod, Giambi, Texiera route.

by strummer on Dec 21, 2010 3:31 PM PST up reply actions

Ah yes,

by charmeljun on Dec 21, 2010 8:22 PM PST via mobile up reply actions

Ah yes,

The Yanks do often have more homegrown talent, but they don’t depend on them as much as other teams will especially early on because they are able to surround them with established free agents players (John Wetteland, Paul O’Neill, Tino Martinez, Roger Clemens, etc.)

I remember the discussions surrounding whether the Padres were going to call up Chase Headley or not because the front office (Alderson and Towers) were concerned about putting pressure on the youngster to perform. Now whether or that is the truth or they were trying to delay his arbitration eligibility is up for debate.

As for the Bulls, again, the rules are in place in the NBA. You could even argue that Jordan was UNDERPAID considering all he had done for the Bulls and the NBA. Also, his earnings with Nike are much more than that skinflint Jerry Reinsdorf ever paid him. But the Bulls were the ones who could pay him the most.
Also, Jordan wasn’t the kind of athlete who felt “if you can’t beat Em, join Em.” He wanted to take his and beat yours. Unlike a certain douche-bag of an athlete that rhymes with “cabron”.

But you are correct in saying that the NFL
does not have as much parody as one might think. But it isn’t because one team spends more than all the others. That’s all I’m saying. In baseball, not all the teams operate under the same rules which gives many fans the viewpoint of an unequal and unfair system. And for those who watch young players develop in one organization and see them leave for greener pastures, it is.

by charmeljun on Dec 21, 2010 8:47 PM PST via mobile up reply actions

Paul O'Neil

was obtained in a trade for Roberto Kelly. He was not an established FA when he arrived; the Reds just gave up on him. Tino Martinez arrived by trade and earned $2.3 million dollars in ’96. Again, not exactly an established high priced FA.

by strummer on Dec 22, 2010 5:23 AM PST up reply actions

i think we have said all we are going to say

First, to say that there is parity of inputs in baseball when some teams have $40m in payrolls and others well over $100m, and, with NYA, over $200m, is odd. They can retain quality players they draft and fill holes with the best players. Look at PHL’s starting rotation: most are free agents Hallady, Oswalt, Lee and Hamels (they drafted him and he is not yet FA, but arbitration eligible). Compare that to SD’s options. Can they afford to do that? No. Inputs are not equal.

Second, who wins championships is somewhat random. I think playoff participation is much more useful. But I will stick with championships. My argument is that with baseball the champions (as well as playoff participation) are correlated with market size because spending is so correlated with market size. There are other factors, like skill of mgmt and luck, but money is a big one. The NFL still has skill and luck, but not the money. And you see that:

MLB Champions by Market Size Tier (1995-2010)

Top 10 Market: 12
Markets 11-20: 4
Markets 20+: 0

NFL Champions by Market Size Tier (1995-2010)
Top 10 Market: 7
Markets 11-20: 3
Markets 20+ 6

So the NFL is a bit all over the place, while MLB is heavily weighted towards the top markets.

Market size affects championships (and playoff participation) in MLB but not NFL. In both cases, skill, luck, other stuff affects it too, but the money element in MLB skews the outcomes so it is not much fun being the those bottom 21-30 markets in baseball. And those fans notice this and NFL has supplanted the MLB as the true national pasttime.

Also, as aside, 3 of those 7 SB wins from top 10 are from New England. This is all Belichick, who, as much as he seems like a total ass, is probably the best coach in football in a generation. He could have ended up in any market. New England hired but did not outbid to get him. Any team can afford him. New England has him locked up but it has nothing to do with team payroll or market size.

by jayman66 on Dec 21, 2010 9:49 PM PST up reply actions

Once again

you are just shifting around your argument and not including the Marlins as a small market team. Small market teams that win don’t get counted as small market. You are also only including WS champions and not including WS participants. But I know the reason for that, and you do too.

by strummer on Dec 22, 2010 6:36 AM PST up reply actions

Where did I say

“Parity of Input”. That is the second time on here you have put words in my mouth. I haven’t fabricated lies about what you have said, and I suggest you learn to do the same. I’m going to toss this lie in the bin with your other one that claimed I said “money doesn’t matter”. Honesty doesn’t appear to be one of your strong points!

There is certainly not parity of input with owners such as David Glass of the Royals doing his best to bring the plantation mentality and the WalMart approach to MLB. Input requires effort, and there are teams which make little to no effort. When Kaufman owned the Royals, they tried to win, with the WalMart CEO owning the team, they try to cut salaries and pocket as much profit as possible. Same goes for the different ownership in Cleveland. The 1990’s owners wanted to win; the 2000’s owners want to pocket the revenue sharing.

Also, you may want to read up on Bilichick taking the Jets job for one day and then resigning and taking the Patriots job. Forbes lists him as the second highest paid coach in professional sports.
http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/21/phil-jackson-belichick-mike-shanahan-business-sports-coaches_slide_3.html

by strummer on Dec 22, 2010 6:42 AM PST up reply actions

easy, easy

Lies in mouth? This is supposed to be an exchange of ideas, not personal grudge fest. I apologize if any of my posts suggested I bore some ill will towards you. I am not crazy about your argument, but nothing against you. Presumably you are a Padres fan, so that makes you good in my book.

I never said you said “Parity of Input”. You have made the argument that there is similar variation in WS champs vs. SB champs (your “parity”)/

I have made the counter argument that the important thing is parity, or evenness, in opportunity (my term: parity of input) is more important than partiy in outcomes. One team could win every year, but if they are doing it by being better vs. having a structural advantage (like spending capacity), then that system would be fine with me. Congrats to that team. But when you see structural (e.g. market size) influencing the outcomes, then that system is not so good. That is MLB.

I am not intentionally playing cat and mouse with Miami. I believe they are a 14th largest market, so in the second tier. I can re-do the analysis correlation to spending tiers if that makes you feel better, but the spending to market size, over the last few years, has increased to .90 as this chart shows:

http://stokes-analysis.blogspot.com/2010/02/mlb-payroll.html

So I re-tallied the MLB Tiers by Payroll
Tier 1 (top 10): 11
Tier 2 (11-20): 4
Tier 3 (20+): 1

So, yes, Florida does show up as the sole 20+ payroll team to win the WS. To me the story does not change much.

Regarding Belichick, yes, he may be well paid, but other teams could afford him. It is not as though they have the option to employ him but balk at his paycheck. That is what free agency does in MLB. Everyone would love Cliff Lee, but only a few can afford him. Or Adrian.

And I am not saying that you are saying money has no effect. I am saying it has a pernicious effect, effectively eliminating half of the league from sustainably competing.

And back to your parity metric, over the latest 16 seasons MLB has 10 champs, NFL 12. Not much difference. But When I look at the multi-year winners in football (DEN, BOS, PIT), I see well-coached teams that made some good personnel choices.

When I see NYA 5 titles in the period, yes they had some drafted talent but their salary rank for their five titles was 1,2,1,1,1. So, yes, they got some contribution from good value players, but having all those other pricey players does not seem to have hurt either.

A better counter-argument is SF this year. Their highest paid players, Zito and Rowand, contributed very little, and they got a ton from Huff, Posey and other inexpensive players. So, it can be done, but SF was lucky to be able to make those mistakes on those players, shrug, and still have funds to pay for Renteria, Sanchez, Lincecum, Cain, Wilson, Affeldt, Huff (those six ~ 45m, more than the Padres whole team), and make deals to be competitive again this year. Zito or Rowand would kill a smaller franchise for 3-5 years.

by jayman66 on Dec 22, 2010 12:50 PM PST up reply actions

This is a facinating discussion...

Both of you have made some great points here. What it seems to boil down to is that good organizations hire smart people to develop a winning philosophy and those smart people draft/trade for/sign players that fit their team needs and philosophy.

The NFL and NBA have salary caps and a better revenue sharing plan than MLB. And big MLB markets with willing owners can outspend their competitors without any real consequence. (Luxury tax accepted.) That is a big advantage for MLB teams with deep pockets. And no matter if teams raid their staffs (as NFL teams do raid winning coaching staffs) a team like the Padres cannot SUSTAIN a franchise the same way the Red Sox can despite hiring a key member away from that organization. At the very least, they can hope to BUILD one as the good teams have; through the drafts and through the farm systems. Unfortunately, it’s the ONLY way teams like the Padres can win. Teams like the Yankees and Red Sox have more options open to them.

It’s not a perfect system and it can be discouraging for some. But it is still baseball.

by charmeljun on Dec 22, 2010 4:23 PM PST via mobile up reply actions

Jaymann66

First, to say that there is parity of inputs in baseball when some teams have $40m in payrolls and others well over $100m, and, with NYA, over $200m, is odd.