The myth of NFL parity

[squire12]

59 minutes ago, StLunatic88 said:

You really are just running through the Rolodex of bad argument strategies.

No one here is saying we need a dissertation, but you didnt set up a question and then try to solve it. From the jump in the OP you clearly had a point you were trying to prove, attempted to hide it as a question ('where is all this parity people keep talking about?') and have been trying to bully your way to people agreeing with you ever since.

You were the one who claimed that parity is equal talent distribution (again, I and most everyone here disagree with that), so his question to qualify what that is, is really the only logical response to that; How do we define equal talent?

Im sorry that you dont like it, but your definition of Parity and the measure you are using to disprove its existence do not correlate. Because according to you, if all talent is equal, then we shouldnt see any differentiation in record across the league, everyone should be 8-8, 41-41, 81-81 (man we have too many games in these sports). So the proposed metric of comparing teams that fall into that range (using some number of standard deviations from .500) will get you the actual answer to your question, given the perimeters of how you defined 'Parity'

It seems the real question you wanted to disprove, and call out the NFL and their fans for, is really "does everyone actually have a chance to win the Super Bowl?" because that is what they sell to fans every year at the draft, everyone is 0-0 today and all it takes is that great draft to get you there. Unfortunately for that question, most of the NFL Playoffs this year prove against your argument there as well. Small sample size I know, but their was a 2/3 turnover in the playoffs, and the NFC playoff teams who averaged 11.5 wins this year, average 7 wins in 2016. Two of this years Playoff teams were picking* in the Top 5 last April.

Well stated. 

[youngosu]

1 hour ago, StLunatic88 said:

 

You were the one who claimed that parity is equal talent distribution (again, I and most everyone here disagree with that), so his question to qualify what that is, is really the only logical response to that; How do we define equal talent?

Im sorry that you dont like it, but your definition of Parity and the measure you are using to disprove its existence do not correlate. Because according to you, if all talent is equal, then we shouldnt see any differentiation in record across the league, everyone should be 8-8, 41-41, 81-81 (man we have too many games in these sports). So the proposed metric of comparing teams that fall into that range (using some number of standard deviations from .500) will get you the actual answer to your question, given the perimeters of how you defined 'Parity'

 

I want to focus on my definition of parity apparently being wrong. I've literally never heard of any other definition for sports parity other than mine prior to this thread. 

I've never heard parity defined as "equal opportunity" until this thread. Literally never. If you google "sports parity" you will not find "equal opportunity" in any definition of your search results.

So you and "most everyone" disagreeing with that definition is limited to this thread because "equal talent distribution" is the commonly held definition of sports parity. 

I googled "sports parity" these are the top 8 links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parity_(sports)

http://www.sloansportsconference.com/mit_news/exploring-consistency-in-professional-sports-how-the-nfls-parity-is-somewhat-of-a-hoax/

http://harvardsportsanalysis.org/2016/12/which-sports-league-has-the-most-parity/

https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2017/10/17/16488320/parity-myth-dynasty-roger-goodell-collective-bargaining-agreement

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/celtics/2017/06/10/the-nba-has-never-been-about-parity-this-league-business-usual/YCYkkCACY5IDNoPt96KWcK/story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2017/12/19/rams-and-jaguars-showcase-nfl-parity-just-how-the-league-likes-it/?utm_term=.a90fcce6cc96

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/the-nfl-is-a-league-of-parity-but-so-is-major-league-baseball/

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/14713796/super-bowl-50-mlb-greater-parity-nfl

 

All of them share my definition but yeah I am the one that has the wrong definition. Fair enough. 

 

And FYI, if you use the standard deviations from .500 you will find same results to just counting playoff appearances. You will find that MLB has the less deviation than the NFL so even using that metric you still have to conclude that MLB has as much or more parity (at least the common definition of parity outside this thread). 

And if you use playoff turnover you will again find that MLB has more than the NFL.

As for bullying people, I don't care if people disagree with me or not. I fully expected everyone to disagree. People don't change their mind about virtually anything regardless of the evidence presented (its how the human brain works) so why would I waste my time finding standard deviations when people would just ignore that data too?

My mistake was claiming parity was a myth in the NFL. It has parity, it just doesn't have more parity than the other sports leagues (other than the NBA) so its claim to be the league of parity setting it apart from the other major leagues is the myth. 

[youngosu]

2 hours ago, tom cody said:

I think of all the 4 main sports leagues the NFL has the most parity. Sure the Patriots have been dominant over the past few yrs. but other than that there's been plenty of parity in the league. 

This is a patently false statement. 

[StLunatic88]

6 minutes ago, youngosu said:

All of them share my definition but yeah I am the one that has the wrong definition. Fair enough. 

Ad populum . . . Im glad you are determined to hit every bad argument tactic just in this thread

Not to mention I got through like 3 of those articles and they all suffer from what you do, No true definition of what they are calling "Parity", which is why you have imposed your idea of it into those articles. Yes you can have different definitions of it. Consistency, Equality, Gap from top to bottom of the league, these are just a few ways to interpret (and some of your sources have).

Once again, I conceded your definition, even though I dont agree with it. For the sake of this discussion, I said lets go with that as the measuring stick. But the problem then is what  you are measuring does not correlate. Because even in your perfect world of "parity" who makes the playoffs doesnt really matter, those would be decided by basically coin flips and tie-breakers. What is more important to your thesis is how close are all of these teams to each other.

So the same 12 teams could ALWAYS make the playoffs for a decade, only those teams representing playoff appearances. But if they are only getting 8-9-10 wins to make it, while the rest of the league is getting 6-7-8 wins and a few outliers with only 4 wins or less each year, that is an EXTREMELY high level of Parity according to your definition.

But if we are seeing 75% turnover in the playoffs every single year, and those playoff teams are getting 12-13-14 wins, while the rest of the league is sitting around 4-5-6 wins, that means we have No parity in your definition.

These are clearly extreme scenarios, but those are the things you have to ask when making these statements. Which is why your criteria needs to be more defined, in order to guard against these easy deflating arguments.

 

No league is every going to be at parity in the way you have defined it. It just doesnt work like that. But the NFL has done just about everything possible that doesnt turn it totalitarian in order to set up the most equal playing field for every single team. That is why people say the NFL has the most parity. And yes, the best run franchises take better advantage of that system in place, but that is what happens when you introduce the human element into these playgrounds.

[youngosu]

24 minutes ago, StLunatic88 said:

 

So the same 12 teams could ALWAYS make the playoffs for a decade, only those teams representing playoff appearances. But if they are only getting 8-9-10 wins to make it, while the rest of the league is getting 6-7-8 wins and a few outliers with only 4 wins or less each year, that is an EXTREMELY high level of Parity according to your definition.

 

And again, if you want to use this metric you will still find that MLB beats the NFL. I have no interest in compiling said data but you are welcome to do so if you think I am incorrect. 

As for my definition, I stand by my definition being the common definition outside of this thread. You are welcome to disagree with that as well. 

I also 100% say that anyone that claims the NFL has the most parity is factually incorrect. I don't care what definition you use. 

[StLunatic88]

13 minutes ago, youngosu said:

And again, if you want to use this metric you will still find that MLB beats the NFL. I have no interest in compiling said data but you are welcome to do so if you think I am incorrect. 

You are making a claim about the two leagues, calling it fact, but also refuse to actually make the effort to backup that statement?

13 minutes ago, youngosu said:

As for my definition, I stand by my definition being the common definition outside of this thread. You are welcome to disagree with that as well. 

Calling it the "Common Definition" because that what the Wikipedia blurb you found says is quite indicative of your entire argument.

13 minutes ago, youngosu said:

I also 100% say that anyone that claims the NFL has the most parity is factually incorrect. I don't care what definition you use. 

You have yet to provide a single FACT to prove any of those people wrong

 

You have yet to even attempt to address a single one of my concerns, even though I came to your side of the chess board and let you play by your rules. it is fine that you want to have this opinion, you clearly are not the only one. But to then try to slap us in the face and tell us we are wrong when we have pointed out things from concerns with your thesis to straight up fallacies to your argument. Gotta do a better job than that.

[jebrick]

Quote

In sports, parity is when participating teams have roughly equivalent levels of talent. In such a league, the "best" team is not significantly better than the "worst" team. This leads to more competitive contests where the winner cannot be easily predicted in advance. The opposite condition, which could be considered "disparity" between teams, is a condition where the elite teams are so much more talented that the lesser teams are hopelessly outmatched.^[1]

Different major governing organizations attempt to achieve parity in different ways. For example, the NFL in America has established the shared revenue plan, in which all teams equally benefit from television revenue and sales of NFL franchised goods.

Many consider the NFL to be the most "fair" or competitive league, with many different teams having a chance to win each year. In the NFL, complete parity would be a state where on any given Sunday, any given team can win any given game. The illusion of parity in the NFL may be somewhat of a misconception, given that several teams such as the New England Patriots, Pittsburgh Steelers, and Green Bay Packers have appeared in the playoffs in almost all of the past ten years, while a team such as the Cleveland Browns has a playoff drought that is currently over a decade long. The most important thing to remember is that a franchise can be struggling and the reason for it can be due to the team's ineptitude when it comes evaluating talent, coaching strategies, developing players, having a good organizational structure, and overall team and player operations.

I find it humorous that the first link for a definition of parity (sports) given above accounts all of the arguments that everyone has been giving.    Parity by the above definition is only achieved in elementary school volleyball and that is even a stretch.  There are no leagues with perfect parity.  I would guess the NFL is much better than European Soccer leagues.

[youngosu]

8 minutes ago, StLunatic88 said:

You are making a claim about the two leagues, calling it fact, but also refuse to actually make the effort to backup that statement?

Calling it the "Common Definition" because that what the Wikipedia blurb you found says is quite indicative of your entire argument.

You have yet to provide a single FACT to prove any of those people wrong

 

You have yet to even attempt to address a single one of my concerns, even though I came to your side of the chess board and let you play by your rules. it is fine that you want to have this opinion, you clearly are not the only one. But to then try to slap us in the face and tell us we are wrong when we have pointed out things from concerns with your thesis to straight up fallacies to your argument. Gotta do a better job than that.

No, it was the common definition according to literally any human I have ever discussed said topic with prior to posting in this thread. I've literally never heard the definition people have come up with in this thread prior to starting this thread (which I fully regret doing)

As for why I am not going to go compile that other data you demand. Frankly, I don't want too. Its not worth my time to compile more data that I know will only demonstrate the same argument no one will accept. 

[youngosu]

14 minutes ago, jebrick said:

I find it humorous that the first link for a definition of parity (sports) given above accounts all of the arguments that everyone has been giving.    Parity by the above definition is only achieved in elementary school volleyball and that is even a stretch.  There are no leagues with perfect parity.  I would guess the NFL is much better than European Soccer leagues.

I never said anything about the NFL (or any league) needing perfect parity. 

I already admitted I was wrong to claim parity was a myth, the NFL has parity. It simply does not have more parity than MLB or the NHL. If I could go back in time that would have been in the first post. Its what I meant but I was not clear. The NFL claim of having the most parity is the myth. 

[jebrick]

34 minutes ago, youngosu said:

I never said anything about the NFL (or any league) needing perfect parity. 

I already admitted I was wrong to claim parity was a myth, the NFL has parity. It simply does not have more parity than MLB or the NHL. If I could go back in time that would have been in the first post. Its what I meant but I was not clear. The NFL claim of having the most parity is the myth. 

If you look at the way the professional leagues strive for parity you would find that the NFL is the best.

Worst team getting the best draft prospects - NFL - yes, NBA - No MLB - yes, any premium soccer league-no

Teams have equal access to free agents  - NFL yes, MLB - yes, NBA - yes*, any premium soccer league-no

League has salary cap - NFL yes, MLB- Not hard, NBA-no not hard, any premium soccer league-no

Leagues have revenue sharing so clubs are near the same resource level NFL yes, MLB yes**, NBA no, any premium soccer league-no

I am sure I am missing other ways that sport leagues strive for parity. Bottom line is that a team's FO is more important for teams to achieve parity than not.  For example.  The Steelers have not drafted in the top 10 of the draft in 2000.  The Jags have drafted top ten, 10 times in the last 10 years.  The flip side is the Pittsburgh Pirates that had 20 years without a winning record.  Meaning they drafted in the top part of the MLB draft for 20 years and that has produced no playoff wins and 3 appearances.

 

*I am less sure about the NBA because I do not like the league.

** To a point.  Teams have their own TV revenues that are not shared.

[Non-Issue]

14 hours ago, youngosu said:

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. 

Fair enough. I will avoid getting into why I think that's a sort of dubious measure of parity. At least we have a definition nailed down. I will be interested to see if the NFL has seen an increase in parity since the time frame you mentioned.

 

14 hours ago, youngosu said:

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) 

And, conversely, if you reduce the number of playoff teams in the NFL to 8-10, what are the results? Does the NFL have more parity or less?

[Non-Issue]

14 hours ago, youngosu said:

I'd argue that a league with true parity wouldn't need decades of data to prove such parity.

I would argue that, no matter what you are studying, the larger data sets are almost invariably going to be more reliable and the smaller data sets are almost invariably going to be less reliable. I would argue that a league with "true parity" (as amorphous as that concept is) can still appear to lack "true parity" over a relatively small time span.

So I mean, I wouldn't dismiss an 8 year study out of hand. I would be interested in the results. But I would hardly consider it anything more than a study that begs for a larger, more in depth study to see if the results are an outlier.

 

[Packerraymond]

You're telling me as a Brewers fan that my team has the same opportunities to build a roster that the Dodgers, Cubs and Yankees do? 

I can tell you for a fact that my Packers ( the smallest market for all US pro sports teams) have every bit the resources the Cowboys, Redskins and Giants do.

You're mistaking a lack parity for the fact that there have been NFL franchises like Cleveland, Jacksonville, the entire AFC East minus NE, Detroit, etc that have been stuck in long periods of total inept management, whereas the Packers, Colts, Steelers, Patriots enjoyed long stretches of strong QB play and consistent high end management for the last 15 years. 

The Rams, Eagles, Vikings and Jaguars are all proof of the parity that exists in the NFL. Those were franchises middling with poor coaching/FO's that moved on, got the right people, hit on some draft picks and all were division champs.

My Brewers have a very good management/coaching regime right now, and the prevailing thought around the city is the hope that we can make a Royals like run for 3 years and win a championship, all while knowing our team success will look like waves in an ocean, not the steady line of above average success the Packers have enjoyed in a system that allows them to remain successful, but only for as long as they continue to make smart decisions in personnel and management.

[Non-Issue]

14 hours ago, youngosu said:

If a superstar can "tip the balance" than the talent level is nowhere near equal in your league and therefore you don't have parity. 

Show me a sport where a superstar can't "tip the balance." I think that might actually make for an interesting discussion as well.

And I think the fact that a superstar can "tip the balance", if it has anything to do with league parity at all, could probably just as easily be argued supports the notion of league parity. If one player can tip the balance, that sounds like parity of a sort.

You could also argue that a superstar tipping the balance could have nothing to do with league parity and everything to do with positional parity (or a lack thereof).

[youngosu]

1 hour ago, jebrick said:

If you look at the way the professional leagues strive for parity you would find that the NFL is the best.

Worst team getting the best draft prospects - NFL - yes, NBA - No MLB - yes, any premium soccer league-no

Teams have equal access to free agents  - NFL yes, MLB - yes, NBA - yes*, any premium soccer league-no

League has salary cap - NFL yes, MLB- Not hard, NBA-no not hard, any premium soccer league-no

Leagues have revenue sharing so clubs are near the same resource level NFL yes, MLB yes**, NBA no, any premium soccer league-no

I am sure I am missing other ways that sport leagues strive for parity. Bottom line is that a team's FO is more important for teams to achieve parity than not.  For example.  The Steelers have not drafted in the top 10 of the draft in 2000.  The Jags have drafted top ten, 10 times in the last 10 years.  The flip side is the Pittsburgh Pirates that had 20 years without a winning record.  Meaning they drafted in the top part of the MLB draft for 20 years and that has produced no playoff wins and 3 appearances.

 

*I am less sure about the NBA because I do not like the league.

** To a point.  Teams have their own TV revenues that are not shared.

Striving for parity is different than achieving parity. And the NHL should be included in the discussion as well if we are expanding beyond NFL vs. MLB. The NHL definitely has more parity than the NFL.