squire12 Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 @youngosu Can you provide a definition of what is parity in your view? Thus far you have gone from playoff appearances, and now talking about monetary expenditures. Maybe you could help your stance if you defined what it is you are trying to support with a set definition. Otherwise, you are just jumping around to various points that do not correlate to the original claim made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Issue Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 Just now, youngosu said: Is revenue sharing on your list? Are you sending me loaded questions? Personally, no. I dont consider revenue sharing a vital component of parity. I think revenue sharing just results in a higher cap and players getting paid more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Issue Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 Just now, squire12 said: @youngosu Can you provide a definition of what is parity in your view? Thus far you have gone from playoff appearances, and now talking about monetary expenditures. Maybe you could help your stance if you defined what it is you are trying to support with a set definition. Otherwise, you are just jumping around to various points that do not correlate to the original claim made. I have noticed that myself. We need to really start with the basics. What is "parity" in the eyes of the OP. That way we can stick to the subject and avoid veering off course or moving goal posts mid discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Issue Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 Anyway, I am going to bed. I will look in on this tomorrow. Because I am curious where it heads from here. Also, @youngosu, are you, by any chance, an ardent MLB fan who tends to argue baseball over football? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 Just now, Non-Issue said: I have noticed that myself. We need to really start with the basics. What is "parity" in the eyes of the OP. That way we can stick to the subject and avoid veering off course or moving goal posts mid discussion. Using the end result of playoff appearances or championships discounts too many factors Luck and Schedule variations (noted in NFL vs MLB) Using salary spent in comparing a league that has a hard salary cap vs a league that has a soft cap or no cap (with luxury tax) is foolish. Maybe looking at the number of teams within a range of .400 to .600 in season winning %. OR How many teams are within a set number of standard deviations from a median team in wins in the league. Both of those would be looking at a larger sample size and bulk of the season vs the end result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 21 minutes ago, youngosu said: You might want to do some research. The Yankees most certainly are not paying the tax in 2018. They had in prior years but MLB rules have made the tax far more punitive and virtually every team is getting under it now. But keep telling me I have no idea what I am talking about. As for the Padres and Brewers, both had revenue of around 250 million in 2016 (Brewers 239, Padres 259) so while they couldn't afford to pay the luxury tax they ain't exactly on the street corners begging for change. https://www.statista.com/statistics/193645/revenue-of-major-league-baseball-teams-in-2010/ But either way, it doesn't change the fact that despite MLB allowing free market spending while the NFL using socialistic market spending both leagues have virtually identical amounts of parity so what difference is the cap making again? Ok fair enough.But that completely ignores the point that teams do and have payed the luxury tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted March 21, 2018 Author Share Posted March 21, 2018 11 minutes ago, squire12 said: @youngosu Can you provide a definition of what is parity in your view? Thus far you have gone from playoff appearances, and now talking about monetary expenditures. Maybe you could help your stance if you defined what it is you are trying to support with a set definition. Otherwise, you are just jumping around to various points that do not correlate to the original claim made. Other people brought up spending not me. I am responding to the claim that equal opportunity (which based on posts seems to ha been clarified to spending) means parity. I did provide my definition but here it is again: 'Sports parity has always meant that the talent is roughly equal.' I used playoff appearances as evidence that the talent isn't all that equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted March 21, 2018 Author Share Posted March 21, 2018 6 minutes ago, squire12 said: Using the end result of playoff appearances or championships discounts too many factors Luck and Schedule variations (noted in NFL vs MLB) Using salary spent in comparing a league that has a hard salary cap vs a league that has a soft cap or no cap (with luxury tax) is foolish. Maybe looking at the number of teams within a range of .400 to .600 in season winning %. OR How many teams are within a set number of standard deviations from a median team in wins in the league. Both of those would be looking at a larger sample size and bulk of the season vs the end result. And you are welcome to look at those definitions if you wish. I am using playoff appearances because its a quick snapshot. And as I said above I didn't bring up the salary angle, others did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted March 21, 2018 Author Share Posted March 21, 2018 6 minutes ago, lancerman said: Ok fair enough.But that completely ignores the point that teams do and have payed the luxury tax. Okay, again I am not the one arguing the cap means parity. So frankly I don't really care if spending is close in MLB or not because MLB still has as much parity (if not more) as the NFL has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 1 minute ago, youngosu said: I did provide my definition but here it is again: 'Sports parity has always meant that the talent is roughly equal.' I used playoff appearances as evidence that the talent isn't all that equal. So your definition of sports parity is that the talent level is roughly equal. Who is deciding on the level of talent for a given player? What methodology or metric are you assigning a "talent value" to all 53+ players on each 32 teams in the NFL...to the 25+ players on the 30 MLB teams? How does playoff appearance equate to talent in individual players that are required to work together as a sum of the parts to achieve wins over losses to merit a playoff appearance. If you are not using a large enough sample size to allow for micro-fluctuations is the transfer of "talent" from and between teams for a variety of reasons, you will never find parity in any league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted March 21, 2018 Author Share Posted March 21, 2018 18 minutes ago, Non-Issue said: Are you sending me loaded questions? Personally, no. I dont consider revenue sharing a vital component of parity. I think revenue sharing just results in a higher cap and players getting paid more. Interesting because I'd argue revenue sharing is probably the most important part of what made the NFL what it is today and believe without it the NFL would be European soccer with only a few teams ever winning. What parity the NFL has has more to do with revenue sharing than anything else in my opinion. On to the 2nd set of data 2002-2017 Patriots 14 playoff appearances (PA), Jets 5 PA, Dolphins 2 PA, Bills 1 PA Steelers 11 PA, Ravens, 8 PA, Bengals 7 PA, Browns 1 PA Colts 12 PA, Titans 5 PA, Texans 4 PA, Jaguars 3 PA, Broncos 8 PA, Chargers 6 PA, Chiefs 4PA, Raiders 2 PA Eagles 9 PA, Giants 7 PA, Cowboys 6 PA, Redskins 4 PA Packers 12 PA, Vikings 6 PA, Lions 3 PA, Bears 3 PA Falcons 8 PA, Panthers 7 PA Saints 6 PA, Buccaneers 3 PA, Seahawks 11 PA, 49ers 4 PA, Cardinals 4 PA, Rams 3 PA 1978-1992 Patriots 4, Jets 5, Dolphins 9, Bills 7 Steelers 7, Browns 7, Bengals 4 Colts 1, Oilers 9, Broncos 8, Chargers 5, Chiefs 4, Raiders 3 Eagles 8, Giants 6, Cowboys 9, Redskins 8 Packers 1, Vikings 7, Lions 3, Bears 8 Falcons 4, Saints 4, Buccaneers 2 Seahawks 4, 49ers 10, Cardinals 1, Rams 9 When I view that data I'd argue the 15 years prior to the cap had as much if not more parity than the seasons since Houston entered the league (2002). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted March 21, 2018 Author Share Posted March 21, 2018 3 minutes ago, squire12 said: So your definition of sports parity is that the talent level is roughly equal. Who is deciding on the level of talent for a given player? What methodology or metric are you assigning a "talent value" to all 53+ players on each 32 teams in the NFL...to the 25+ players on the 30 MLB teams? How does playoff appearance equate to talent in individual players that are required to work together as a sum of the parts to achieve wins over losses to merit a playoff appearance. If you are not using a large enough sample size to allow for micro-fluctuations is the transfer of "talent" from and between teams for a variety of reasons, you will never find parity in any league. Again, playoff appearances is a quick comparison. Its a message board not a peer reviewed research paper submission. That said, I linked to one earlier in this thread (from Harvard) and they used different data than me yet they reached the same conclusion I found by simply looking at playoff appearances so take it for what its worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 5 minutes ago, youngosu said: And you are welcome to look at those definitions if you wish. I am using playoff appearances because its a quick snapshot. And as I said above I didn't bring up the salary angle, others did. I think we already went over this in your original post. From 2002 to 2017 playoff appearances NFL: AFC 16 of 16 have reached the playoffs MLB: AL 14/15 have reached the playoffs Seems that the parity is pretty equal and slightly in favor of NFL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 4 minutes ago, youngosu said: 1978-1992 Patriots 4, Jets 5, Dolphins 9, Bills 7 Steelers 7, Browns 7, Bengals 4 Colts 1, Oilers 9, Broncos 8, Chargers 5, Chiefs 4, Raiders 3 Eagles 8, Giants 6, Cowboys 9, Redskins 8 Packers 1, Vikings 7, Lions 3, Bears 8 Falcons 4, Saints 4, Buccaneers 2 Seahawks 4, 49ers 10, Cardinals 1, Rams 9 When I view that data I'd argue the 15 years prior to the cap had as much if not more parity than the seasons since Houston entered the league (2002). So 28 for 28 reached the playoffs in those previous years. Seems like the NFL has a really good track record of parity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted March 21, 2018 Author Share Posted March 21, 2018 1 minute ago, squire12 said: I think we already went over this in your original post. From 2002 to 2017 playoff appearances NFL: AFC 16 of 16 have reached the playoffs MLB: AL 14/15 have reached the playoffs Seems that the parity is pretty equal and slightly in favor of NFL Okay, cool. Of course since you are this stats guy as I already mentioned if you expand MLB to 12 playoff teams (instead of the 8-10 they've had) every MLB team makes the playoffs multiple times (the team with 0 goes up to 4) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.