NFL, NBA, and MLB - Competitive Balance

[Yavin4]

AFC Champions since 2000-2001 Season:

Ravens
Pats
Raiders
Pats
Pats
Steelers
Colts
Pats
Steelers
Colts
Steelers

NBA Western Conference Champions since 2000-2001 Season:

Lakers
Lakers
Lakers
Spurs
Lakers
Spurs
Mavericks
Spurs
Lakers
Lakers
Lakers




AL Champions since 2000 Season:

Yankees
Yankees
Angels
Yankees
Red Sox
White Sox
Tigers
Red Sox
Rays
Yankees
Rangers

And MLB has the competitive balance problem because it has no salary cap????

[trumad]

1. One thing in common...

They have the best players.

[trotsky]

2. Why only the comparisons of a single conference/league?

Curious what the NFC, Eastern Conf, and NL champs lists look like.

[Yavin4]

3. Okay, Comparing the Other Conferences

NFC Champions since 2000-2001

NY Giants
St Louis Rams
Bucs
Panthers
Eagles
Seahawks
Bears
NY Giants
Cardinals
Saints
Packers

NBA Eastern Conference Champions 2000-2001

Pacers
76ers
Nets
Nets
Pistons
Pistons
Heat
Cavs
Celtics
Magic
Celtics




MLB NL Champions since 2000

Mets
Diamondbacks
Giants
Marlins
Cardinals
Astros
Cardinals
Rockies
Phillies
Phillies
Giants


We see that all three leagues have almost the same exact level of different teams winning their conference, with the NFL being slightly more balanced with only one team repeating as champs. MLB had three teams repeat, and the NBA had 3 teams repeat.

Thus, even when comparing the other conference, we can see that MLB's competitive balance is on par with the other major sports leagues that have strict salary caps.

Hence, salary caps DO NOT make a league more competitively balanced.

[trotsky]

4. I think the problem comes in what you consider "competitively balanced".

How many teams have a legit shot, not necessarily how many teams win.

How about a comparison of teams making the playoffs each year in each sport? Or, easier to graph, how many teams are the same in every year's playoffs? Maybe a graph of the delta every year. Of course it would have to be a percentage comparison since MLB only has 8 teams in the playoffs vs. 12 in the NFL and 4000 in the NBA.

[Yavin4]

5. My Point Is Centered on whether a Salary Cap Determines Outcome

To most people, the presence of a salary cap makes the leagues more competitively balanced. Looking at the number of teams that participate in the finals for each sport over the past ten years shows that the presence nor absence of a salary cap does not determine who participates in the finals of each sport.

Because MLB has no salary cap, we should expect that the number of teams that participate in the finals of its sport should be less than the leagues with a salary cap. But, that's not the case.

The strictly capped NBA's Western conference has the most skewed results. Just two teams have won the conference for 10 out of the last 11 years. If a salary cap determines balance, should we not see multiple teams win from the West over a 10 year period?

Since the inception of MLB's Wild Card in 1995, 26 out of the 30 MLB teams have made the playoffs (86%) with 17 out of the 30 teams reaching the World Series at least once (56%). Given that MLB has no salary cap, should not these numbers be skewed towards only those teams that spend the most money?

[trotsky]

12. 10 Years, 10 Different NFC Champs.

Green Bay victory set a record for parity in all sports
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2011/01/nfl-packers-pete-rozelle-parity-record/1

Green Bay's victory meant the NFC championship game has now had 10 different winners over the last 10 years. Such a string of diversity at the top has never happened before, in any of the major professional sports in America.

Not in the NL in baseball, and surely not in the AL, where you get double vision reading all the Yankee championships.

Not in the NBA's Western Conference or Eastern Conference, where the Lakers and Celtics win often enough to prevent such a streak all by themselves.

And also not in the Eastern or Western halves of the NHL.

[HuckleB]

9. Indeed.

This OP is worthless, as it uses extremely selective data points, and it seems to be a case where someone with a preconceived notion began to look for data to support that notion.

It's a poor investigation, all they way around.

[Yavin4]

11. How So? I Chose the Past 10 Seasons or So

However, if you want to go back to the 1995 season when MLB started the Wild Card, the results are not too disimilar.

Can you offer a factual rebuttal to my post? I'd like to hear it.

[HuckleB]

13. "A factual rebuttal?"

You would have to offer something factual to support your assertion in the first place. You failed to do that.

[Yavin4]

18. What Facts Did I Not Show?

Did I get the number of championship teams incorrect? The years in the playoffs? What? Please show me what facts that I failed to present.

[Renew Deal]

6. I think MLB has had 10 different World Series winners in the last 11 years.

[Yavin4]

7. They've Had 17 out of 30 Teams in the World Series Since 1995

Since the advent of the Wild Card which added teams to their playoffs. If the league is competitively unbalanced because it has no salary cap, then how can this be explained?

[HuckleB]

8. How many years have the Yankees been in the playoffs since 1995?

Me thinks your agenda is a bit too easily understood.

[Yavin4]

10. The Yankees Have Been in the playoffs 15 out of the 16 Years

Also, during that time span, so have the Orioles, Red Sox, and Rays from their division.

What's your point?

[HuckleB]

14. Your post makes no sense.

My point is that you used selective evidence to support a stance that supports the status quo, which allows the Yankees to make the playoffs almost every year. That means you have no credibility whatsoever.

[Yavin4]

16. The Lakers, Spurs, Colts, Patriots, and Steelers

Also make the playoffs in their leagues with the same frequency as the Yankees have for the past 15 years. Yet, they're in supposed competively balanced capped leagues.

If salary caps make the leagues more balance and disrupts "the status quo", then how can this be?

[BulletproofLandshark]

22. Those teams are dominant because of smart coaching and good team chemistry.

But every team still has the same chance be competitive because of the salary caps in their respective leagues. Do you think smaller market teams like the Packers and Jaguars could even exist if the NFL did things the MLB way?

[Yavin4]

27. This is about competitive balance and salary caps.

Now, if you're saying that smart coaching and good team chemistry are more important to being dominant, then do you admit that it's not about salary caps then? Correct?

Also, the Packers exist largely because of their legacy. If the NFL was just starting today, no way would they put a team in Green Bay, Wisc. As for the Jags, they're having all kinds of financial problems, and they may be on the move. Several of their games are blacked out.

[BulletproofLandshark]

30. I admit no such thing about the caps, so quit putting words in my mouth.

They allow a team to quickly go from a cellar dweller to a contender when teams play their cards right. Since the 2000 season, the Bills and Texans are the ONLY two NFL teams to not make the playoffs at least once. That is a level of competitive balance that could never exist if a big market team could go and buy up all the big name free agents the way the Red Sox and the NY teams do in baseball. The Yankees and Red Sox could never be as dominant on a year-to-year basis if their big-market status didn't allow them to carry a payroll 4 or 5 times that of the teams at the bottom.

[Yavin4]

32. My Rebuttal

"Since the 2000 season, the Bills and Texans are the ONLY two NFL teams to not make the playoffs at least once. "

That is incorrect. The Lions also have not made the playoffs since 2000. Even more, making the playoffs in the NFL is a lot easier than MLB because of the extra division and the extra wild card. So just making the playoffs does not prove competitive balance.

"The Yankees and Red Sox could never be as dominant on a year-to-year basis if their big-market status didn't allow them to carry a payroll 4 or 5 times that of the teams at the bottom. "

And yet, the most dominant team in any sport are the LA Lakers who have made the NBA finals 50% of the time for the past 30 years in a league with the most restrictive salary cap. If a salary cap guarantees competitive balance, wouldn't we see more diversity of NBA teams in the finals?

No one has yet answered that question.

[Broken_Hero]

34. Go back 1yr and the Lions made the playoffs, 1999, nt

[BulletproofLandshark]

37. I'll give you the Lions thing. Don't know how I missed them.

But it's just plain wrong to say that the NBA has the most restrictive cap. First of all, the salary cap has only existed in the NBA since the '84-'85 season. Second, their cap is a soft cap, with all kinds of exceptions that allow a team to exceed the cap. In fact, the so-called "Larry Bird Exception" is what allowed the Bird Celtics to stay together and win all those titles.

[Yavin4]

39. Do You Know How Many Western Conference Teams Have Won The NBA Title Since 1984?

Wanna know?

[BulletproofLandshark]

41. Thanks for totally dodging my answer. n/t

[madinmaryland]

40. Thats an interesting comment, Yankin4...

In the NBA it really does take only one great player to make a great team. LA has had Magic Johnson and the Kobe Bryant. How about where-ever Shaq Oneill has been.

Look at what LeBron did for Cleveland (ONE PLAYER), and then when he left?

One Player makes a team in the NBA. Imagine throwing Barroid into the mix in Pittsburgh in 2002. He would have walked 400 times and Pittsburgh would still have had 81+ losses.

Sheesh.

[JonLP24]

43. Those one players still need talented players around them to win

Kobe recently has Pau Gasol (better offensive big man than Dwight Howard), one of the best defensive players in Ron Artest. 6th man of the year Lamar Odom. Shaq won titles with very talented guards in Bryant and Wade. When he went to the title game in Orlando he had Penny Hardaway in his prime who has an All-Star that year.

Cleveland is a good example but they also lost Ilgauskas and Shaq. Though not great players at this point in there careers but Shaq is still very good on offense compared to most centers. Plus two of their most talented players are injured this season in Moe Williams and Anderson Varejao. I'm not saying if they still had those two players and those others were healthy they would have a winning record, just saying there problems are much larger than it appears(Lebron gone).

I don't totally disagree with you though, look at the Knicks this year with Amare Stoudamire. Just saying you need other talented players around you to win titles or make it to the title game. There are plenty of great players out there who finished their careers without rings. :)

[madinmaryland]

44. The point that I am trying to get at, is that in basketball, it is really

possible to build a winning team around one player. It is not nearly as easy to do that in MLB or the NFL.

[JonLP24]

45. Of course.

That is because in those sports you need more players and they are played differently.

[Auggie]

15. Yavin4: your MLB examples are minus (mostly) small-market teams

[Yavin4]

17. The Lakers Are A Small Market Team?

The Pats are a small market team?

Also, the Rays and the Rangers are on the MLB list, and their market size are on par with the Colts and the Spurs.

Finally, the Lakers and the Yankees have each participated in the finals of their leagues an equal number of times. Both represent the biggest media markets in the country. Yet, one is in a capped league, and the other one is not. Which shows that salary caps do not make the leagues more competitive nor put small market teams on equal footing with large market teams.

[Auggie]

19. MLB = Major League Baseball...

not basketball.

And I said "mostly", taking into account the Rays (even though the team draws from the greater Tampa Bay metro area population of about 4 million).* The Rays are an exception.

The Rangers play in the Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington Metropolitan Area, and draws from a population of over 6.8 million.**

Hardly a small market.

By comparison, the population of the Cleveland-Akron-Elyria Combined Metro Area is just under 3 million.***

The Cincinnati-Northern Kentucky metropolitan area checks in at just over 2 million.****

The Kansas City Metropolitan Area at about 2 million.*****

How often have the Reds, Royals or Cleveland baseball club won their respective leagues in the last 10 years?

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa,_Florida
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas-Fort_Worth_Metroplex
*** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Ohio
**** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati_–_Northern_Kentucky_metropolitan_area
*****http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_City_Metro_Area

[Yavin4]

20. "How often have the Reds, Royals or Cleveland baseball club won their respective leagues in the last

10 years?"

The same number of times that the Bengals, Chiefs, and Browns won their league titles in the salary capped league of the NFL over the past 10 years.

Additionally, if you go back 20 years to 1991, in MLB, the Indians won their league title twice, and yet the Bengals, Chiefs, and Browns have not won anything.

[Auggie]

23. You left out the Pittsburgh Steelers,

who draw from a metro population of about 2.35 million*, The Colts at 1.7 million,** New Orleans–Metairie–Kenner at 1.7 million,*** and the Green Bay Metropolitan Area at 302,935!**** They've been doing pretty damn well, I'd say.

BTW, it's been hinted that the NFL salary cap was instituted in 1994 by owners mainly to stop the unparalleled spending of Eddie DeBartolo and end San Francisco's domination of the NFC (and it worked after team President Carmen Policy had exhausted every legal maneuver around it).*****

I don't agree with your argument, Yavin4. And comparing football economics to baseball economics is the apples-to-orange thing -- too many intangibles and other influences.

:)


*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_metropolitan_area
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indianapolis
***http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Orleans_metropolitan_area
****http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bay,_Wisconsin
*****http://www.seattlepi.com/archives/1995/9501260001.asp

[Yavin4]

28. You Stated In Another Post

That "good coaching" and "good team chemistry" make teams dominant and that throws off the competitive balance, and I agree with that. I would go even further and say that all dominant teams in the leagues share the same common trait, good General Managing. Having a good GM who drafts well, trades well, and signs good free agents does more to throw off the competitive balance of a league than the absence of a salary cap.

[Auggie]

31. BulletproofLandshark said that

I stand pat in my opinion regarding the salary cap and baseball.

[madinmaryland]

21. A Yankees fan trying to argue that there is parity in MLB!!

Too funny!

[Yavin4]

25. No. I'm Arguing That There's Also No Parity in Salary Capped Leagues Either

In the past 30 years, the Lakers have won 15 NBA Western Conference titles in a salary capped league. How is that so? Doesn't the presence of a salary automatically make the leagues competitive?

Do you have an answer to that question or are you going to parrot conventional wisdom because thinking on your own is too difficult for you. If so, then that would explain how you are a Cowboys fan.

[madinmaryland]

29. Dude! You are trying to justify that there IS parity in MLB and you are failing.

As some here have pointed out, how many playoff games have the Cowboys won in the NFL with an owner that is willing to spend money.

So you are trying to compare one LARGE market team with another? Why aren't you whining about the Celtics and now the Miami Heat?

[Yavin4]

33. Dude, You Are Inserting An Argument That I Am Not Making

I've never said that MLB has parity. Now, please read the next paragraphs very carefully:

I am saying that ALL sports leagues have roughly the same amount of parity, salary cap or no salary cap. Each league has a relatively small collection of franchises that win multiple championships and participate in their league finals over a period of time, regardless of whether their leagues have a salary cap or not.

I used as an example, the LA Lakers, who have been in the NBA Finals 50% of the time since 1980, a percentage that's far greater than the Red Sox and the Yankees combined, 36%. Yet,the Lakers are in the most restrictive salary cap league.

Now, if you still are experiencing reading comprehension problems, there is help available.

[Broken_Hero]

24. At first I thought it was April Fools day...

damn, then I realized it was Jan 25th....woe is me.

[Yavin4]

26. Yet Another Non-Rebuttal

My argument is simple. If a salary cap makes a league more competitively balanced, then how do you explain how certain teams in all three major repeatedly participate in their league's final game/series?

For example, how do you explain how the LA Lakers, in the strict salary cap of the NBA, have made it to their league's finals 15 times in the past 30 years (50% of the time), yet, the Yankees made their finals 9 out 30 times or 30%.

How can this be?

I await your intelligent response.

[TZ]

35. Why don't you post the ranking in MLB of how much each of those AL Champions

spent respective to the rest of the League. Otherwise you've just made a completely POINTLESS comparison since Baseball is unlike Basketball and Football in that manner. Apples and Oranges. Meaningless.

[TZ]

36. Tell me, are the NO Saints and KC Royals the same types of franchises?

Both have the same number of wins in the past 30 years. Washington Redskins and Boston Redsoxs? Almost the same amount of title contends. Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the SF Giants? Do you see how silly these comparisons are?

[Yavin4]

38. That Proves My Point

Does it not?

[MrCoffee]

42. If it's competitive balance you seek, look no further than MLS

[ironman14]

46. Lakers

Nice! Lakers won in western conference since 2000-2001 7 times! Thanks for sharing! I like this..