Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 73
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    14,638
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Don't we sort of have to define parody though?

    For instance, is this or is this not parity?

    The Heat and the Cavs have both recently made the NBA Finals from the East. Another way to say that is: LeBron James' led teams have made the NBA Finals from the East.

    So do we count that as parity because it's 2 teams or do we acknowledge it's 1 player simply changing teams?
    parity has little to do with outcomes... it is more about the potential for multiple teams (say 6-7) to have a legitimate shot at the finals...

    when there is no parity at all (2017) the product is extremely boring and can be made even worse by injuries (SA)

    I think this is where people lose site of what proponents of greater parity are looking for... not different outcomes but rather the potential for a better product.

    If KD stays in OKC last year I still think that the GSW win the chip... I just think it is harder with Barnes and they then would have potentially had to have gone through OKC if he stayed there...

    no matter the outcome ... it would have been a better product

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    6,601
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffy25 View Post
    Not even close on the MLB, every team will eventually win a chip (took the Cubs a long time, but they were just horribly ran for literally a century).

    Baseball easily has the best parity of each sport. It's too much of a team sport, and no salary cap keeps things balanced.

    Right now, there are still 8 teams that haven't won a championship.
    Rangers, created in 61 are the oldest, but they've been to the World Series twice.
    And two teams haven't been to World Series (Nationals, formerly the Expo's, and if we didn't have the strike in 94, they probably go to the Series that year - and they were horribly ran over their eras) and the Mariners.
    Of these 8 teams, at least 3 of them will be in the playoffs this year.

    The NFL only has 6 franchises haven't won their so called championship, but 13 teams haven't won a Super Bowl.
    4 teams have never won their conference



    What I find more interesting is this:
    The greatest winning percentage all time in the NFL is the Cowboys - .573. 4 other teams top .550.
    The Buccaneers have an all time winning percentage of .389, another 5 teams are under .450

    The Spurs are one of 3 teams with a winning percentage all time over .550 (.603) (Lakers and Celtics, as you can guess are the other two).

    And there are 6 teams with under a .450 winning percentage, the lowest being the Wolves at .391


    In baseball. The Yankees are the only franchise with a winning percentage over .550 (.568). Giants are second at .537.
    The Padres and Rays have the worst winning percentage of .463


    Nobody has the level of parity of baseball.


    Also, hockey has 13 franchises without a SC.
    How much of that is a function of time, though. What we essentially see in basketball is a small sample size compared to baseball. Several teams only have a decade or so of history to work with. The NBA spent quite a chunk of it's history as like an 8 team league.

    Especially with how much NBA ownership changes, which teams are good or contenders is constantly in flux, from a decades long perspective. The NBA just doesn't have that many decades to work with

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,257
    Nets will win a title before the Knickerbockers.
    World Championships



    New York Mets: 1969, 1986
    Miracle Mets


    New York Jets: 1968
    Super Bowl III


    Brooklyn Nets: 1974, 1976
    Dr. J (ABA)


    New York Islanders: 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983
    Potvin's Cups

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    20,779
    Quote Originally Posted by Vinylman View Post
    parity has little to do with outcomes... it is more about the potential for multiple teams (say 6-7) to have a legitimate shot at the finals...

    when there is no parity at all (2017) the product is extremely boring and can be made even worse by injuries (SA)

    I think this is where people lose site of what proponents of greater parity are looking for... not different outcomes but rather the potential for a better product.

    If KD stays in OKC last year I still think that the GSW win the chip... I just think it is harder with Barnes and they then would have potentially had to have gone through OKC if he stayed there...

    no matter the outcome ... it would have been a better product
    But what is the definition of better in this context? I assume you mean a more competitive product. But is that true?

    Many consider the 70's a terrible era and it was the most competitive in terms of parity and every team having the ability to win. The 80's and 90's are consider a golden era by many and that featured the Celtics/Lakers 80's teams and the Bulls in the 90's.

    If the NBA defines better product, they will undoubtedly go with what makes them the most money and gets the highest ratings. Well, the highest ratings generally tend to occur when a team is incredibly dominant, whether that was the 80's Lakers, 90's Bulls, 00's Lakers or todays Warriors.

    In fact, what fans consider a better product in terms of competitiveness and play generally get far lower ratings (such as the Pistons vs Spurs finals).

    I hate the NBA right now too. It's boring knowing the Warriors will win until some calamity strikes their team. But I don't know how we fix it.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    49,573
    Quote Originally Posted by Vinylman View Post
    parity has little to do with outcomes... it is more about the potential for multiple teams (say 6-7) to have a legitimate shot at the finals...

    when there is no parity at all (2017) the product is extremely boring and can be made even worse by injuries (SA)

    I think this is where people lose site of what proponents of greater parity are looking for... not different outcomes but rather the potential for a better product.

    If KD stays in OKC last year I still think that the GSW win the chip... I just think it is harder with Barnes and they then would have potentially had to have gone through OKC if he stayed there...

    no matter the outcome ... it would have been a better product
    Then baseball continues to reign supreme

    There will be 10 teams in the playoffs next month in baseball. After the single game wild card, the 8 remaining teams all have an equal shot, and nobody is ever really considered a high favorite. Because in baseball, anything can happen and it's a total crapshoot. Underdogs win regularly.

    In the NBA, there are what.....1 super team, likely to win the chip. Another 2-3 teams that could surprise (Cle, Bos, SAS?) and then 20 teams that are either trying for a shot to make the playoffs, or playing for a top pick the next year, while waiting for GSW to no longer be a super team.


    I would say the NFL has decent parity in that every year, the winner can be a surprise (decent guess).


    The problem with baseball is that you can pretty well tell who the division winners will be in the pre-season.....with some degree of accuracy any way. Every once in awhile, there is a surprise. But the best players in the sport miss the playoffs all the time, and two of the best to ever play the game never won a ring (Bonds and Williams).

    You can't say that about basketball (top player missing finals). But we can pretty easily rank the teams that should win their conferences this year, and we'll be close (baring injuries or surprise trades).

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Bushwood Country Club
    Posts
    71,597
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffy25 View Post
    Then baseball continues to reign supreme

    There will be 10 teams in the playoffs next month in baseball. After the single game wild card, the 8 remaining teams all have an equal shot, and nobody is ever really considered a high favorite. Because in baseball, anything can happen and it's a total crapshoot. Underdogs win regularly.

    In the NBA, there are what.....1 super team, likely to win the chip. Another 2-3 teams that could surprise (Cle, Bos, SAS?) and then 20 teams that are either trying for a shot to make the playoffs, or playing for a top pick the next year, while waiting for GSW to no longer be a super team.


    I would say the NFL has decent parity in that every year, the winner can be a surprise (decent guess).


    The problem with baseball is that you can pretty well tell who the division winners will be in the pre-season.....with some degree of accuracy any way. Every once in awhile, there is a surprise. But the best players in the sport miss the playoffs all the time, and two of the best to ever play the game never won a ring (Bonds and Williams).

    You can't say that about basketball (top player missing finals). But we can pretty easily rank the teams that should win their conferences this year, and we'll be close (baring injuries or surprise trades).
    baseball, and football, are FAR less dependent on a single player is why there is more of a chance for all teams.

    In basketball, 1 player can turn a crappy team into a great team. Not that it happens often, that would be describing only a few players ever, but in baseball, if you suck and add Barry Bonds, you still suck. Baseball also has thousands of individual matchup advantages, and disadvantages, where you just don't see that in basketball. Football is straight up due to injuries, and player peaks lasting only a short time.

    If you want the ultimate, you've got to be willing to pay the ultimate price. It's not tragic to die doing what you love.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    6,601
    Quote Originally Posted by MJNetsIsles View Post
    Nets will win a title before the Knickerbockers.
    Knicks have already won two.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    14,912
    Quote Originally Posted by Philly Hammer:31834577
    Raptors and Nets are gonna be on that list permanently lmfao!!!!
    Why? Because they play in Canada?
    “It’s about winning,” Stoudemire said. “You win, you’re going to get on national TV. Simple. In Phoenix, we won — Western Conference finals three, four years, playoffs every year. We won. If you don’t win, nobody really wants to see you.”

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    49,573
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkeye15 View Post
    baseball, and football, are FAR less dependent on a single player is why there is more of a chance for all teams.

    In basketball, 1 player can turn a crappy team into a great team. Not that it happens often, that would be describing only a few players ever, but in baseball, if you suck and add Barry Bonds, you still suck. Baseball also has thousands of individual matchup advantages, and disadvantages, where you just don't see that in basketball. Football is straight up due to injuries, and player peaks lasting only a short time.
    I absolutely agree with you.

    Nature of the beast.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Windsor, Earth's Rectum (as reported by Stephen Colbert).
    Posts
    10,896
    Quote Originally Posted by Vinylman View Post
    except that is not what you said... you said the lakers got calls and the Celtics didn't... go watch the game where rambis gets taken out... it was a fcukng joke and the play that turned that game and series around...

    back then the league only had one goal... extend the playoffs as long as possible... even if it meant killing guys on the court....
    The Lakers, Kobe's Lakers specifically, got a lot of calls. A disgusting amount of calls. Jordan's Bulls got crazy calls for the officials.


    I watched a lot of games in the 80's. I was a Pistons fan, and saw the team I rooted for get beat by the Celtics and the Lakers, and I never felt like 'Wow... the Pistons got robbed.' And the Pistons were notoriously brutal and aggressive.

    I never watched Magic's Lakers or Bird's Celtics and felt "Those guys are being handed a series." I felt like that often when I watched Kobe's Lakers and Jordan's Bulls.

    Sure... established teams got favourable calls by officials when things were unclear in the 80's. When the league exploded and it became Jordan's brand, and the Bulls made up over 60% of the league's revenue, I felt like the officiating got really bad. Like they had a product they needed to protect. Like high ratings in the finals (guaranteed by Jordan) were more important than letting teams play it out. I felt like in 92, the Knicks beat the Bulls. I felt like the Pacers had them in 97. But I felt like officials were consciously working to give the Bulls an advantage. And the Kobe/Shaq show was the same thing.

    I don't feel like the Celtics ever got an advantage like we've seen the Bulls and Kobe Lakers get. Perhaps I should have been more specific about that. But I feel like the Celtics have earned all of their titles. As have the Spurs. And the Laker's title prior to the Jordan era were likewise earned.

    You can agree or disagree with that. But I think it is an issue in this league, and a lot of fans are turned off by that.

    It's why the Mavs win, and the Pistons' win in recent years were so refreshing. It's why I love watching the Spurs win, because nobody ever complains that they 'get calls' (if anything, they get screwed by officials). And it's why I have no problem with the Warrior's dynasty, because I don't feel like they get an unfair advantage from the officials: they are simply dominant. They are a true team where players share the ball to help the team win.


    But watching Kobe and Jordan get babied by officials ruins the the game for me, and likely for a lot of fans who'd like to see their teams get a legit shot at actually competing. It's frustrating when your teams (say, the Pacers or Mavs) out plays a team (say the Heat) only to have officials hand the big market team with the marquee player the series.
    Why did the chicken cross the basketball court?
    Because he heard the refs were blowing fowls.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    14,638
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    But what is the definition of better in this context? I assume you mean a more competitive product. But is that true?

    Many consider the 70's a terrible era and it was the most competitive in terms of parity and every team having the ability to win. The 80's and 90's are consider a golden era by many and that featured the Celtics/Lakers 80's teams and the Bulls in the 90's.

    If the NBA defines better product, they will undoubtedly go with what makes them the most money and gets the highest ratings. Well, the highest ratings generally tend to occur when a team is incredibly dominant, whether that was the 80's Lakers, 90's Bulls, 00's Lakers or todays Warriors.

    In fact, what fans consider a better product in terms of competitiveness and play generally get far lower ratings (such as the Pistons vs Spurs finals).

    I hate the NBA right now too. It's boring knowing the Warriors will win until some calamity strikes their team. But I don't know how we fix it.
    I said it above 6-7 teams with a shot at the FINALS not to win it but with a shot

    the parity you are describing is like having 15-20 teams competing... that will never happen in a talent heavy league...

    Additionally, the thing you are ignoring about the 70s is that the talent was thin due to the ABA which lead to crappy team parity

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    14,638
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonJohnHorn View Post
    The Lakers, Kobe's Lakers specifically, got a lot of calls. A disgusting amount of calls. Jordan's Bulls got crazy calls for the officials.


    I watched a lot of games in the 80's. I was a Pistons fan, and saw the team I rooted for get beat by the Celtics and the Lakers, and I never felt like 'Wow... the Pistons got robbed.' And the Pistons were notoriously brutal and aggressive.

    I never watched Magic's Lakers or Bird's Celtics and felt "Those guys are being handed a series." I felt like that often when I watched Kobe's Lakers and Jordan's Bulls.

    Sure... established teams got favourable calls by officials when things were unclear in the 80's. When the league exploded and it became Jordan's brand, and the Bulls made up over 60% of the league's revenue, I felt like the officiating got really bad. Like they had a product they needed to protect. Like high ratings in the finals (guaranteed by Jordan) were more important than letting teams play it out. I felt like in 92, the Knicks beat the Bulls. I felt like the Pacers had them in 97. But I felt like officials were consciously working to give the Bulls an advantage. And the Kobe/Shaq show was the same thing.

    I don't feel like the Celtics ever got an advantage like we've seen the Bulls and Kobe Lakers get. Perhaps I should have been more specific about that. But I feel like the Celtics have earned all of their titles. As have the Spurs. And the Laker's title prior to the Jordan era were likewise earned.

    You can agree or disagree with that. But I think it is an issue in this league, and a lot of fans are turned off by that.

    It's why the Mavs win, and the Pistons' win in recent years were so refreshing. It's why I love watching the Spurs win, because nobody ever complains that they 'get calls' (if anything, they get screwed by officials). And it's why I have no problem with the Warrior's dynasty, because I don't feel like they get an unfair advantage from the officials: they are simply dominant. They are a true team where players share the ball to help the team win.


    But watching Kobe and Jordan get babied by officials ruins the the game for me, and likely for a lot of fans who'd like to see their teams get a legit shot at actually competing. It's frustrating when your teams (say, the Pacers or Mavs) out plays a team (say the Heat) only to have officials hand the big market team with the marquee player the series.
    your memory is unbelievably selective and your biases couldn't be more apparent

    you obviously didn't watch the lakers get mugged in the 80s and then again in 2007 (worse officiated finals ever).

    The spurs? jesus Christ dude one of their championships can be attributed to the officiating in the Suns series.

    see what you want to see...

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    41,583
    OK, so I did my own research on this going back 67 years in the other major sports -

    MLB:
    Yankees 15, Giants 4, Dodgers 6, Braves 2, Pirates 3, Cardinals 5, Orioles 3, Tigers 2, Mets 2, Athletics 4, Reds 3, Phillies 2, Royals 2, Twins 2, Blue Jays 2, Marlins 2, Diamondbacks 1, Angels 1, Red Sox 3, White Sox 1, Cubs 1

    1 year there was no champion thanks to a Strike. 67 years, 21 different champions. Only 4 1 time winners.

    NFL (combining Super Bowls and NFL Championchips) -
    Browns 4, Rams 2, Lions 3, Giants 5, Colts 4, Eagles 1, Packers 7, Bears 2, Jets 1, Chiefs 1, Cowboys 5, Dolphins 2, Steelers 6, Raiders 3, 49ers 4, Redskins 3, Broncos 3, Ravens 2, Patriots 4, Buccaneers 1, Saints 1, Seahawks 1

    So in the NFL between the NFL championship (pre-merger) and Super Bowl (post merger) there has been 22 champions, 6 one time champions.

    Where the NFL thing gets interesting is if you want to count the AFL champions since they didn't play against the NFL team. In a way this would be like counting the ABA champions, but if you did suddenly the list grows to 26 different champions with 8 one time champions.

    NHL -
    Red Wings 8, Maple Leafs 5, Canadiens 18, Black Hawks 4, Bruins 3, Flyers 2, Islanders 4, Oilers 5, Flames 1, Penguins 5, Rangers 1, Devils 3, Avalanche 2, Stars 1, Lightning 1, Ducks 1, Kings 2

    NHL has had 17 different Champions with 5 different one time champions. 1 lockout season.

    And the NBA -
    Celtics 17, Lakers 16, Bulls 6, Warriors 5, Spurs 5, Nationals/Sixers 3, Pistons 3, Heat 3, Knicks 2, Rockets 2, Hawks, Bullets/Wizards, Sonics, Cavs, Blazers, Bucks, Mavs, Bullets (folded version), Royals/Kings

    So 19 Different champions, with 9 different 1 time winners.

    So I wanted to do one other thing that talks about parity here: What's the total number between the teams with the 2 most championships? I think that speaks most to parity because it shows how many times someone other than the top 2 teams won. So:

    NBA - 33
    NHL - 26
    MLB - 21
    NFL - 13

    So over a span of 67 years, 33/67 championships have been won by either the Celtics or Lakers. That's almost 50% of champions between two teams, which speaks terribly to parity IMO. NHL has had 39% of it's championship won by either the Canadians or Red Wings. MLB has had 31% of it's championships were won by the Yankees or Dodgers. In the NFL only 19% of the championships were won by the Packers or Steelers.

    No this parity in the NBA isn't something new or a problem created by the Warriors. It's a long arching problem that has existed. If you go to the top 3 most frequent winners of the championship, I think it gets worse for the NBA. That would mean in the NBA 39 (58%) were won by the top 3; NHL 31 (46%, you can count either Leafs, Oilers, Penguins) were won by the top 3; MLB 26 (39%) were won by the top 3; and in the NFL only 18 (27% with either Cowboys or Giants) were won by the top 3.

    I do find it interesting that the NBA has the most 1 time winners, but are 3rd in most different champions. Baseball had the most different champions, but the least number of 1 time champions.

    Ranking IMO worst to best long term parity:
    NHL
    NBA
    MLB
    NFL

    What's interesting for NHL having the worse parity is you go 2000 and newer you actually have better parity. Same thing for the MLB. The NFL has always had good parity throughout it's history. Having such a strong team element plays into that. The NBA's parity has actually gotten worse since 2000.

    PROCESSING

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SACRAMENTO
    Posts
    785
    Quote Originally Posted by Vinylman View Post
    parity has little to do with outcomes... it is more about the potential for multiple teams (say 6-7) to have a legitimate shot at the finals...

    when there is no parity at all (2017) the product is extremely boring and can be made even worse by injuries (SA)

    I think this is where people lose site of what proponents of greater parity are looking for... not different outcomes but rather the potential for a better product.

    If KD stays in OKC last year I still think that the GSW win the chip... I just think it is harder with Barnes and they then would have potentially had to have gone through OKC if he stayed there...

    no matter the outcome ... it would have been a better product
    by definition parity means being equal across the board. if the outcomes are consistent then parity is non existent. I think the word you are looking for is competitive.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    14,638
    Quote Originally Posted by MygirlhatesCod View Post
    by definition parity means being equal across the board. if the outcomes are consistent then parity is non existent. I think the word you are looking for is competitive.
    thanks Webster....

    my post is self explanatory...

    take the time to read past the first sentence

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •