Jayson Stark doing comedy now...
by bosten7 on Feb 3, 2012 1:54 AM EST
Email
PrintJayson Stark has a, in my opinion, ridiculous article up now comparing the parity between the NFL and MLB. But don't take my word for it...have a look for yourself here. He seems to forget that parity is about opportunity, not relative to a particular set of random good/poor choices by a franchise. The teams that compete year in and year out in the NFL do so because they make good decisions. The teams that compete year in and year out in the MLB do so because they can afford to.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of the managing editor (Charlie) or SB Nation. FanPosts are written by Bucs Dugout readers.
25 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
FWIW
The teams that compete year in and year out in the NFL do so because they make good decisions. The teams that compete year in and year out in the MLB do so because they can afford to.
A few thoughts from my perspective::
- Your last two sentences (quoted above) are dead on, if a bit over-simplified.
- However, Stark’s article has merit, nevertheless. The numbers don’t lie. For whatever reason, there has been more parity in MLB than in the NFL.
- The relative FINANCIAL parity in the NFL leads to the lack of PERFORMANCE parity. That is, the better managed teams win consistently (because they don’t have vast financial differences to overcome). That’s not true in MLB, where good management can sometimes overcome the financial disadvantages of small-market franchises….. and compete successfully (at least for a time).
- Some (me included) believe that, any advantages exploited by small market teams will disappear over time, as those strategies are adopted by large market franchises. (On the other hand, it would be fair to point out that such a trend has been predicted for quite a few years, but hasn’t materialized yet.)
it's obnoxious to compare playoff appearances between leagues with different numbers of playoff teams
The NFL has 12/32 teams make the playoffs, MLB only has 8/30. Stark says the Giants have made the playoffs four of the past six years, but they were wild-cards two of those years. If the NFL had as few playoff teams as MLB, they’d only have made the playoffs two of six years. The Ravens would also have been in the playoffs three of the past six years, not five. I’d be interested in what an apples-to-apples comparison shows, but this ain’t it.
He might also want to look at teams getting shut out of the playoffs. The same proviso applies (the new-look Browns have been wild-cards but not division champions), but I don’t think you have as many teams with long playoff droughts in the NFL as you do in MLB.
All that said, I think magnumo is right too; when teams have the same payrolls (and the payroll never fluctuates much), dominant management tends to win out. Though I would amend that last bit to “as those strategies are adopted or banned by large market franchises.”
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
next he'll be writing how small market teams would be doa without the luxury tax check.
we all know the teams do not get a penny.
Stark
is a baseball writer, and those guys have a vested interest in promoting the status quo. It’s more difficult and less exciting to write articles about the flawed system, or how the decrease in competitive balance coincided with the reduced popularity of the sport. The decline in postseason ratings in baseball coincided with the growing gap in payroll nearly 20 years ago. Even the Yankees-Phillies series had poor ratings when compared with smaller market matchups years ago. By contrast, ratings for NFL postseason games are outstanding, regardless of the teams involved for decades.
I would agree, there were some NFL teams who did not take advantage of their system, and poor management resulted in losing seasons. However, in baseball, even superb management will only result in short run of success. Stark forgot to mention teams like the Steelers and Packers have been serious contenders for many years, and that just doesn’t happen in MLB. The Rays deserve huge credit for building a winner in the rugged AL East, with a poor stadium, bad attendance, and lack of tradition. In three of the last four years, they have a pennant, and two opening round playoff defeats. Impressive, but nowhere near the achievement of smaller market teams from the 70s. The A’s and Twins previously built winners before Tampa, but were destroyed in the playoffs, failing to reach even one World Series.
The potential of long term contention by all teams is the true meaning of competitive balance. It also means everyone, with good management, has the capability to sign any free agent. This is something the NFL understood a long time ago. Competitive balance is what the NFL learned back in the 1960s, when the owner of the Giants met with Pete Rozelle, and they decided to reject a huge TV contract which would have benefited the Giants exclusively.
Stark and others like him, pull out this stale argument every year at this time. They just dislike all the buzz the Super Bowl receives as opposed to the World Series.
Winning is the problem
I disagree that in the NFL “everyone, with good management, has the capability to sign any free agent”. It is not true. Free agents will take less money to sign with the Patriots, and the Bengals and Browns and Rams never get big name free agents because Free Agency does not ensure competitive balance. Neither does a salary cap. People want to win. Thus, we ought to expect people to flock to teams that win or are seen as having a chance to win thus removing true balance. The Yankees do over pay sometimes, but they often can get players when other teams might pay more because players want a ring.
Take Miguel Sano as an example. The Pirates made real offers, and almost surely would have matched what he got from the Twins. However, The Twins are constantly winning. The Pirates are not. Thus, he signed with the Twins, not because he got more money, but because he chose a team that he thought he would win.
I believe that this is the biggest problem faced by the Pirates. They have to change the perception of the team more than they have to change the finances.
by SojourningPirate on Feb 3, 2012 6:56 PM EST up reply actions
If you are going to pose that argument, at least give a good example. From everything I have read and seen, Sano wanted to sign with the Pirates. He signed with the Twins due to his agent being a dick and getting upset with the Pirates. Someone correct me if I’m wrong here, but that is how I remember it happening.
Don't believe it
I guess I never believed the “I wanted to, but my agent wouldn’t let me” comment. Sounded like PR to me. I don’t think Sano wanted to sign with the Pirates.
But maybe Cliff Lee last year signing for less to be in Philly rather than stay with the Rangers is a better example.
by SojourningPirate on Feb 3, 2012 11:09 PM EST up reply actions
From Kovacevic’s PPG write-up:
Rob Plummer (Sano’s agent):
“Sano could have been a Pirate. And when the fans see the figure Miguel signs for, they’ll know that.”
“I think contracts are made entirely of relationships, that people should have a comfort level,” Plummer said. “Things fell apart because Pittsburgh never believed I had other teams interested in Miguel. I gave Neal every opportunity to sign Miguel for a reasonable amount, but he was afraid he was bidding against himself. When he sees the signing, he’ll see that.”
Plummer said last night he promised to call Huntington when he was ready to negotiate, but not necessarily when he had an offer he liked.
Plummer said early yesterday that, even if the Pirates had come back with more money, he would not have signed with them because of his agreement with Minnesota and because he appreciated how the Twins dealt with him.
And a direct NH quote (courtesy of Vlad)
From East Liverpool, OH, The Review
“We made another aggressive offer, bidding against ourselves, increasing our offer significantly. Once again, the agent said, ’I’m not ready to negotiate. When I am ready to negotiate, I’ll come back to you.’ I got a call with the team in Chicago that he had signed somewhere else. We never got a chance to offer our highest bid.”
And the PPG link that I didn’t include in the last reply, for some reason.
I’ve done a bit of Sano research in the past two weeks and it really seems like he actually wanted to be a Pirate; his agent, Rob Plummer, didn’t want that. He has since fired Plummer.
From this article
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/sports/dominican-ballplayers.htm
“Plummer told people he aspired to be the “Scott Boras of the Dominican”"
It’s about halfway down. It’s an interesting read.
From this one
PPG:
Rob Plummer, Sano’s agent who has signed seven of the 12 richest bonuses in Dominican history
He might already be.
Stark is one of the worst baseball writers on the internet.
Should the Pirates keep Neal Huntington?
http://www.bucsdugout.com/2011/5/16/2174135/poll-should-huntington-be-retained
Agreed, but
Stark is not wrong. The problem here is not that MLB really has parity, but that people think the NFL does. It does not. Stark’s facts are right. The SuperBowl is dominated by a few teams. As a Bengal’s fan I can tell you that it feels a lot like being a Pirates fan. Even in years like this year when they actually make the playoffs, they had not chance of making the Superbowl. None.
by SojourningPirate on Feb 3, 2012 6:48 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, but
The future is bright for the Bengals. They’re a young team, that should be better next season. They’re on the rise, finally, while both the Steelers and Ravens are getting older.
So, while the Bengals didn’t have much of a shot last season, that won’t be true over the next few years. It might take a year or 2 yet, but the Bengals could rule the AFC North, in the not-too-distant future.
Wheras, the Pirates might be good in a few years, but the spectre of the Cubs and/or Cards, and to a lesser extent, the Brewers, buying the players the feel they need always looms.
by Midnight Moose on Feb 3, 2012 7:18 PM EST up reply actions
Gotta Agree
with Midnight Moose, here. The Bengals, with good management, will have the ability to remain a contender in the future and reach a super bowl. New Orleans did it, and they were once considered the worst franchise across all sports. That’s the huge difference between the NFL and MLB, the system is set up in the NFL for the Bengals to keep their core players and attempt to build around them. In MLB, the reverse is true. The system usually results in the young stars moving on to bigger market teams. The Rays are an incredibly rare story, but the bad economic system in MLB is playing a role in the possibility of relocation of that franchise. A salary cap and floor would be of great benefit for the sport in general.
Like to clarify my comments about good management and free agency. True, winners like the Steelers and Patriots are more attractive than other teams, and occasionally, you see players taking less money. But another big difference is the reality that hall of fame players in the NFL will go to small market teams, because the system provides those teams the opportunity to make a competitive offer. For example, Reggie White was the Pujols of the early 1990s, but Green Bay snatched him away from Philadelphia. That’s something you just don’t see in MLB.
Also, we can’t get too caught up in the teams that reach the super bowl. Yes, New England and the Giants have made several appearances, but so have Pittsburgh and Green Bay. In fact, the Steelers and Packers have been serious title threats for most of the past 18 or so years, and that’s a great testament to the NFL economic model. In MLB, no small market team has come anywhere close to those standards.
At the end of the day, everyone in the NFL has the potential to build a long term, serious contender. By contrast, in MLB, only several cities have that ability for long term contention.
I think there are two issues here
One is parity in the regular season, the other is parity in the playoffs. I get the idea that baseball’s playoffs are generally more random than football’s (though how the hell are the Giants in the Super Bowl again if that’s true?), which would mean that you see lots of different teams in the World Series even if there are a few teams that almost have a guaranteed playoff ticket every year. Whereas in the NFL the teams that lag a little are more likely to make the playoffs but also more likely to exit early.
The Bengals are kind of like the Blue Jays of the NFL in that they’re in a division with two teams that have been pretty consistently dominant over the last decade or so. But even so they’ve won the division twice in the last seven years. The problem is that, without a bye and without being one of the elite teams in the conference, they couldn’t go deep in the playoffs. Whereas the baseball Cardinals have managed to win the World Series twice after just scraping by into the playoffs.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Feb 3, 2012 9:17 PM EST up reply actions
I completely agree with you
I think that the talent level of teams in the NFL is much closer than the same gap in MLB. That’s what allows for teams like San Francisco to improve from 6-10 to 13-3 with a coaching change, but very little roster turnover. The NFL’s economic model also allows to build and address needs through both the draft and free agency with nothing resembling the developmental time of MLB; even the once-in-a-generation talents (Prior, Strasburg) need a little bit of seasoning before they can fairly compete at the MLB level (Clemens and Olerud are ridiculous outliers). Fewer games can also account for some of the randomness; Green Bay went 15-1 this year and we’ll NEVER see a MLB team go 150-12.
It seems to me that, with a one-game playoffs and an extra round, the NFL should be more random than MLB. Fewer teams in the MLB playoffs means closer talent levels, too. I mentioned that before, but I think that #‘s 5-20 in the NFL are much closer than #’s 5-20 in MLB (arbitrary numbers, but it excludes the top crust and the dregs; it’s clear that the Packers are more talented than the Browns, but how far apart are the Bengals and Panthers?)
I think MLB is also closer to parity than they ever have been or ever will be: the top big market teams have been ravaged by poor management of players/assets/budgeting (Yankees, Red Sox) and/or financial scandal (Dodgers, Mets) and/or are the Cubs. As iconic players who would cause PR riots if they were discarded retire (Jeter, A-Rod, Papi), I think the big money teams will flex their financial muscle and dominate the game again.
mostly agree
I think it’s not just the economic model that allows for a quick turnaround time, but also a difference in the sport itself. It’s very rare that you’ll find a baseball player come out of college and immediately produce at a high level in MLB, but it happens in the NFL all the time. It’s not just that NCAA football is a minor league for the NFL, either; even MLB high school draftees who make it through the minors usually aren’t producing at an all-star level at age 22.
But the relatively shorter NFL careers and the lack of guaranteed contracts also helps with quick turnarounds. Also, it seems as though one player can make a bigger difference in the NFL. (There’s a comment here about how the Colts rebuilt: “‘In the NFL, no rebuild should ever take more than two seasons.’ Caveat: In year one of rebuild, you draft Peyton Manning.”)
As for the extra randomness, it’s just my hunch that talent will win out more in the NFL than in MLB, even with the mutliple-game playoff series. “Any Given Sunday” is much more true in baseball than the NFL, at least on Sundays. The Pirates managed to win three of Yoslan Herrera’s five starts (admittedly, mostly against pretty bad teams, and with the ’27 Yankees in the outfield).
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Feb 4, 2012 12:19 PM EST up reply actions
Even the Bengals, though
have had the financial ability to sign several “star” players in recent years. Regardless of how well the signings worked out, they were able to keep guys like Palmer, OchoCinco, and Corey Dillon in black and orange until the team decided they didn’t want them anymore.
by KentuckyPirate on Feb 4, 2012 12:14 PM EST up reply actions
Or got a Godfather off for them
How ridiculous is that Carson Palmer trade? Potentially 2 1st rounders for a guy that you’re neither playing nor paying? That would be like Pittsburgh trading the rights to negotiate Derek Lee out of retirement for Bryce Harper and Anthony Rendon. And I know that Lee is older than Palmer; but they’re equally removed from being effective starters.
Some other random "facts"
Since the current division/playoff format in 2002, an NFL team has gone from worst to first in EVERY SINGLE YEAR. Sometimes it is 2 or 3. It has happened 4 times total in MLB with the 2011 Diamondbacks being the most recent.
There are only 3 teams in the NFL that haven’t finished in last place since 2002; the Steelers, Patriots and Seahawks. Two of the best run franchises in the league and one team surrounded by ineptitude.
In the MLB, there isn’t a single division where every team has finished last. There also is not a single division where every team has finished first (though the Rockies did make the wild card twice, which would make it 1).
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
