I don't disagree with you, but the cap works in the NFL for one reason: while it doesn't (as evidenced) increase the number of 'champions', it does make the battles for #2-10 more exciting year-to-year because those teams (for the most part) change ever [sic] year!
I assume by Nos. 2-10 you mean teams that make the playoffs...so I guess that would be teams 2 through 12. Ok, let's look at that. I went back and took a look at the last 5 years (since that's the year the Bobcats entered the NBA; all three leagues have been unchanged since then). I looked at playoff teams in each league and counted each year's number of teams that had missed the playoffs the previous year. Here's the NBA:
|
The NBA is by far the worst; only 25% of teams in the playoffs each year are new. So let's toss them out and compare the Mighty NFL with Lowly MLB. Here's the MLB chart:
|
So from this chart, it's clear that MLB, each year, averages 56.3% new teams in the playoffs. They have had a low of 25% and a high of 87.5% new teams. So let's compare that with that Paragon of Parity, the National Football League:
|
Great googly moogly! The NFL averages exactly the same percentage of new teams in the playoffs each year as MLB does! But...I thought...the NFL...but they...YEAH RIGHT! Parity my hindparts! Tell me again where this illusion of parity comes from, please. Oh, wait, I think this gets addressed later on.
Look at Arizona...that team mostly sucked for the last few years, but the cap has allowed them to build a good team despite their terrible ownership and (at times) apathetic fan base.
Yep, and then they hired a competent coach and drafted well. They picked up some bargain-basement castoffs from other teams and had the fortune of playing in the NFC West.
This applies (somewhat less significantly) to the NBA as well...where did Orlando come from; and how about the flip-flop of the Pacific division over the last decade.
Orlando drafted Jameer Nelson and Dwight Howard, signed Turkeyglue on the cheaps, and signed Rashard Lewis to a huge contract. I don't know what you mean about the flip-flop of the Pacific Division.
I agree with the 'singular' champions argument, but that doesn't speak to the whole truth of the cap argument. Now, in baseball, I suppose you could argue the Rays and Rockies as small markets success that has come somewhat overnight, but for the most part, baseball experts pick the same 8-10 teams to win divisions and wildcards every year.
Wait..."experts"? What the hell do so-called "experts" have to do with real-life success? I mean, besides...absolutely nothing. Of course the experts pick the same teams every year; they're the same people who spout this nonsense about parity! If we relied on the "experts" to tell us who was good, there really wouldn't be any reason to play the games, would there? It'd be more like the BCS, where the preseason rankings determine what happens the rest of the year. In most sports, they actually have to win before they're ranked.
I think the real problem is GMs and Owners buying in to the thought of 'I can't afford this high-priced player because of our market', when everyone knows that fans respond to players who help the team win, and will subsequently pay for the right to watch/follow/own parts of players like that.
That's my argument! Owners cry poor because of their markets despite being multi-millionaires!
Kudos to the Nationals for overpaying for Strasburg...that's a player their fan base will get behind, and will eventually pay for.
How did they overpay for Strasburg? They paid over slot, but slot has nothing to do with actual value. I agree that they absolutely made the right decision, but 4/$15.1? I'm pretty sure that's less than he would have gotten if he had been a free agent. The draft allowed Washington to negotiate exclusively and underpay for Strasburg.
Oh yeah...and as an addendum to the above charts. I also looked at how many total MLB and NFL teams made the playoffs over that same 5 year period. Here's how they compare:
| MLB | 20 of 30 | 0.667 |
| AL | 9 of 14 | 0.643 |
| NL | 11 of 16 | 0.688 |
| NFL | 26 of 32 | 0.813 |
| AFC | 12 of 16 | 0.750 |
| NFC | 14 of 16 | 0.875 |
Now there's an advantage for the NFL; over five years, a higher percentage of teams have made the playoffs. However, there are more playoff spots available in the NFL; 50% more each year. Over five years, we're talking about 10 additional playoff spots. So let's see what would happen if MLB had three wild cards for a total of six playoff teams:
| MLB | 23 of 30 | 0.767 |
| AL | 11 of 14 | 0.786 |
| NL | 12 of 16 | 0.750 |
And if the NFL allowed only eight playoff teams?
| NFL | 21 of 32 | 0.656 |
| AFC | 9 of 16 | 0.563 |
| NFC | 12 of 16 | 0.750 |
So if they were both operating with the NFL's current system of twelve playoff teams, the NFL would have a slight advantage: 81.3% of NFL teams would have made the playoffs at least once over the last five years, and MLB would have put 76.7 percent of teams in at least once.
MLB, with eight playoff teams per year, had 66.7% of its teams qualify for the playoffs at least once. Had the NFL only taken its eight division winners, only 65.6% would have made the playoffs.
Facts don't lie, number don't lie. The much-beloved NFL is not really any different from MLB in terms of parity, and the salary-capped NBA is significantly worse than both. Tell me again how the salary cap creates parity in sports?
No comments:
Post a Comment