This is an idea I have been kicking around for a while, and bits and pieces of this article have been posted before on other websites (notably Spurs Talk.com, as my alter ego, Reggie Miller.)
I have a bad habit. When the talking heads at ESPN all parrot the same line, I become obsessed with proving them wrong. This is usually not that difficult. For about two or three seasons now, an ESPN-mandated talking point has been that there is so much more parity in the NFL, as opposed to the NBA, MLB, and NHL.
Today, this discussion came up at ACB, so I decided to examine the issue.
Let’s make this very stark:
The Four Majors: Regular Season
MLB = 162 games
NBA = 82 games
NFL = 16 games
NHL = 82 games
My initial reaction is pretty simple. It is possible to be 17+ games out of first place in the other three sports, while it isn’t in the NFL. Therefore, the NFL’s “parity” is an illusion created by an unbalanced, short schedule.
Just for example, at the conclusion of the regular season, 9 MLB teams were at least 17 games out of first place in their league. This was nearly one third of all of MLB. No NFL team had ever gone 0-16 before the Lions accomplished the milestone this season. In contrast, MLB has had losing streaks longer than 16 games numerous times. The longest are the 1899 Cleveland Spiders (24), 1961 Philadelphia Phillies (23), and 1988 Baltimore Orioles (21).
At first, this is a sword that cuts both ways. Prior to this season, one could easily argue that the fact that no one had ever lost 16 games in a row in a single NFL season “proved” how much parity there really is in the NFL. Of course, the radically shorter season raises other related concerns. For example, is an entire NFL season even statistically significant when it is only 16 games? MLB plays over ten times as many games, and the metrics used in other sports are more or less adapted from baseball scoring and statistics. In the other major sports, almost everyone would agree that 16 games is at best a very small sample size for almost any form of analysis, and at worst, it is totally meaningless.
Due to expansion in three of the major sports, or Interleague Play in MLB’s case, no one plays a true balanced schedule anymore. However, baseball, basketball, and hockey at least come close, because of their longer seasons. Therefore, strength of schedule does play a factor, albeit a small one, in MLB, the NBA, and the NHL. However, manipulation of the short schedule is huge in the NFL.
To make this clearer, the NBA has the only thing close to a true balanced schedule. A team faces opponents in its own division four times a year (16 games), teams from the other two divisions in its conference either three or four times (36 games), and teams in the other conference twice apiece (30 games). For example, the Bulls do not play all of their Eastern Conference opponents an equal number of time at home and away, but this is done on a rotational basis and can be determined years in advance.
The NHL plays 41 games at home and 41 games away. Each team plays all other divisional opponents 8 times (4 home, 4 away), all other conference opponents 4 times (2 home, 2 away) and 10 inter-conference games (1 game against each team in two of the three divisions in the opposite conference). This rotates, much like Interleague Play in MLB. Unlike MLB, it is completely predictable and without exception (no “rivals weekend”).
For many, many decades, MLB had a true balanced schedule, since there were only 16 teams and no Interleague Play. Both the American and National Leagues consisted of eight teams. The schedule consisted of 154 games, or 22 games (11 at home and 11 away) against the other teams in the same league. Since 1969, expansion, divisional play, and Interleague play have changed this system considerably. The current system is extremely Byzantine and distorted by so-called “Rivals Weekend.” For example, the 2008 Cubs will have played 31 games against the NL East, 33 games against the NL West, 82/83* games against the NL Central, and 15 Interleague games for a total of 161/162* games. There is a defined rotational system, except for the pre-determined “rivalries.” (Can you tell I think “rivalry weekend” is bullshit?)
* The final game against Houston was not played.
At any rate, while we don’t have true balanced schedules in the MLB, NBA, and NHL, the longer seasons impose a balanced approach, and the sheer length of their seasons tend to negate the strength of schedule problem.
Turning to the NFL, we can see that the league attempts to use the short season as a “band-aid.” Each of the 32 NFL teams plays the other three teams in its division twice: once at home, and once on the road (6 games). Each team plays the four teams from another division within its own conference once on a rotating three-year cycle: two at home, and two on the road (4 games). Each team plays the four teams from a division in the other conference once on a rotating four-year cycle: two at home, and two on the road (4 games). Each team plays once against the other teams in its conference that finished in the same place in their own divisions as themselves the previous season, not counting the division they were already scheduled to play: one at home, one on the road (2 games).
In other words, not only is the schedule unbalanced, it attempts to “self-correct” with a previous sample size of just 16 games.
MLB does not have a salary cap, but the general perception is that pro baseball is still competitive. That is, there is still reasonable parity in MLB. As the discussion above should demonstrate, this “parity” may be a function of a 162 game schedule.
The general complaint with MLB is that the playoff system is “broken,” because Wild Card teams have been wildly successful since 1995. A wildcard team has made it to the World Series 9 times in the last 13 years, claiming 4 world championships including 3 of the last 6. Conventional wisdom (or more likely, conventional stupidity) attributes this to the WC team being forced to play meaningful games well into September, while the team with the best record may not have played a meaningful game in almost a month (see the 2008 Angels).
The truth is that the Emperor Wears No Clothes. People forget that the wild card team does not necessarily have the worst record. A quick look at the facts reveals an astonishing truth: the wild card teams are often just plain better.
Al and NL Wild Card League Records to Date
Tie for the best overall record = 1
Tie for or second best overall record = 9
Tie for or third best overall record = 10
Tie for or fourth best overall record = 7
Though the difference is small, it’s worth noting that more wild card teams have been the second-best team in the league than the fourth-best. At any rate, the wild card is not necessarily the true “fourth seed” of the postseason - more often than not, it isn’t. Of course, the better team has still lost a disproportionate number of postseason series, but the difference between the best team and the wild card is typically quite small. Reasonable Cubs’ fans need only look back to 2003 as an example. In retrospect, the 2003 Marlins were the better team, even on paper.
At any rate, the evidence suggests that MLB probably doesn’t need to be “fixed.”
Coming Soon: Some rudimentary analysis of parity in the NBA and NHL.
1. (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) (view all comments) — Jan 03, 2009 @ 08:22 PM
Good stuff, and I do think that sample size plays a HUGE role in the NFL’s parity. But I do think there is more of an ability to go from “worst to first,” beyond that which is allowed by small sample size. The reasons why are many: drafted players usually contribute faster in the NFL than MLB, they can cut bad contracts, and there’s the salary cap. But there’s no doubt that sample size plays a role.
As far as the MLB playoffs being “broken,” i’d argue that they are, but not based on wild card teams success. Rather, it’s the “crapshoot-ness” of the playoffs and that any team has a near 50-50 chance in a series against any other team. I don’t know what the “upset rate” is in the various sports, but i’d wager it’s higher than in the NBA and NFL, even after you account for the size of the field.