A Biased Post, Baseball is Always Better

I get into a lot of sports arguments, conargumentations is probably a better word (an argument that is wrapped around a conversation, neither party really gets too into it...most of the time) and one common one is about parity in sports. Everyone seems to marvel at how great the parity in the NFL is and how that is reason for a salary cap in baseball. Baseball on the other hand is seen as corrupt, unfair, and in need of a salary cap in order to compete with the parity that is seen in the NFL. Meanwhile the NBA has a salary cap and the Knicks have operated above that cap for what 10 years? Well, Jayson Stark recently had a nice piece talking about parity in baseball.

"Amazingly, not one reader challenged my premise last week that baseball now
has achieved better competitive balance than the NFL. And a couple of readers
even provided sensational analysis to back up that premise.

One was Trent McCotter, who made a point nobody ever seems to make:
that the biggest reason the NFL gives off the illusion that it has more
competitive balance is that football teams play one-tenth the number of games
that baseball teams play.

Consider the old coin-flip principle. The more times you flip, the
closer you should get to half heads, half tails. The fewer times you flip, the
more likely it is that heads will blow out tails, or vice-versa.

Or suppose, McCotter wrote, we "let the 2008 NFL and MLB seasons play over-and-over with the same players at the same talent level. Then we'd naturally expect the NFL teams' standings to bounce around more than the MLB ones. "

Now that is a point that I have definitely used before arguing with some friends. Maybe I didn't say it so eloquently or use the nice coin analogy but the point remains the same.

The NFL plays 16 games, the MLB 162. If you are 7-9 (.438 winning %) one year with a little luck you can win 3 more games the next year and make the playoffs at 10-6 (.625 winning %). In baseball if you are 71-91 (.438 winning %) to get to a .625 winning % the next year you need to win 30 more games, 101 wins. With a little luck you can maybe win 82, but 101? The last team to win 100 games was the 2003 Giants. It's simply much easier to improve with only 16 games compared to 162.

In baseball people use the pythagorean expectation to predict how many games a team should win based off of their runs scored and runs allowed. Sometimes a team is better than any team should be in one run games and that skews their record. But at most it can only help a handful or two of games, it can't be the reason why a team wins 30 more. In football there aren't enough games to even out the luck appropriately, or as apporpriately as in baseball. It's not really even fair then to compare baseball's parity to football's, as Stark says "the NFL has built-in competitive-balance advantages". Or is it fair to compare?

"Since 2000, baseball has had eight different champions. The NFL has had
seven. (That would go to eight if the Cardinals win the Super Bowl, obviously.)

Since 1970, baseball has had 18 different franchises win the World
Series. The NFL has had 15 win the Super Bowl. (Again, the Cardinals could make
that 16.)

Also since 1970, baseball has had 25 different franchises appear in the
World Series. The NFL has had 24 appear in the Super Bowl.

I provided lots more compelling evidence of this same trend in my previous blog. So what does this prove? That the NFL has the better propaganda machine, but not the more balanced sport. "

I'm sure you can spew off a handfull of stats that illustrate the NFL's parity but the point is baseball does not have a problem, and is not in need of a salary cap. The salary cap should not get all the credit for the parity in the NFL, the scheduling puts it at a huge advantage and yet there are still signs that baseball has better parity.

The NFL's brags about any given Sunday but I don't think the Lions got the memo. Any baseball team can beat another on any given day, all you need is a good pitching performance. Baseball should be rewarded that its best teams have proven themselves through a long season more or less void of any luck. They shouldn't be ridiculed that its teams with incompetent management aren't any good year to year, because let's face it that's what it comes down to (management, good band by the way MGMT Bonnaroo 2009 what what!!!) and no league is immune to that, I'm looking at you Detroit.