Welcome to PatsFans.com

Is there really more parity in the NFL....

Discussion in 'NFL Football Forum' started by TheGodInAGreyHoodie, Nov 16, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TheGodInAGreyHoodie

    TheGodInAGreyHoodie Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2007
    Messages:
    6,631
    Likes Received:
    25
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -0

    For the last complete season in the

    NFL 2010
    The best team (NEP) had a W-L% of .875 the worst team had .125 (Carolina) : difference .650

    MLB 2010
    Best (Philly) .630 -- worst .346 (Houston): difference .284

    NBA 10-11
    Best (Bulls) .756 -- worst .207 (Minn) difference .549

    NHL 10-11 (they don't do W-L % persay, but

    Best was Van at 54-19 117 points which could be considered a W-L of .740
    Worst Edmon 25-45 62 points which could be considered .357
    difference .383

    Seems like baseball than hockey have the most parity....with Basketball and Football having the least.
  2. Observer

    Observer Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2011
    Messages:
    1,596
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    Did you just claim to come to a statistical conclusion by cherry-picking only the extreme values of the data set?
  3. RIpats88

    RIpats88 Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    1,303
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    I think theres parity in the NFL in the fact that your team can be a doormat one year and in a couple years be a playoff team.

    look at the Detroit Lions, San Francisco 49r's, Bengals.....I wouldve laughed if anyone told me those teams would be good this year and the Eagles would be horrid
  4. Ron Sellers

    Ron Sellers Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2010
    Messages:
    1,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    When I think of the parity in the NFL (and the league's desire for parity) I think of a few things. First, rules being set up to put teams on an equal playing field: a hard salary cap, true free agency, and the draft in inverse order of standings. These things all work to make it very difficult for a team to dominate for a long time, and help to make it possible for a bad team to become good relatively quickly.

    The second thing I think of is a narrow difference between a good team and a bad team. There's really no such thing as an automatic win, as we see not only multiple upsets every week, but also huge upsets over the course of every season.

    Third, the net result is a very large portion of the league's teams being within a game or two of .500. This is smart business for the NFL because it results in about 75% of the league's teams being in contention for a playoff spot for almost the entire season, which keeps interest in those fan bases high.

    For fifteen straight years there have been at least five teams make the playoffs that did not make the post season the previous year. I know that there are studies that show baseball has more annual change in champions over the last ten or twenty years than football does, but it does not have the wholesale shift of good to bad that the NFL does in my opinion. Also because draftees can come in and contribute right away as opposed to playing in the minor leagues for several years like most do in MLB and the NHL, an NFL team can turn things around more rapidly.

    So overall I would say that yes, there is more parity in the NFL than there is in the three other major pro sports.
  5. vuudu

    vuudu Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2009
    Messages:
    2,563
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Developmental Statistics.
  6. ALP

    ALP Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2007
    Messages:
    7,403
    Likes Received:
    9
    Ratings:
    +12 / 0 / -0

    didn't realize we had so many statistics die hards on the forum

    :rolleyes:
  7. KontradictioN

    KontradictioN Do you even lift? PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    26,497
    Likes Received:
    350
    Ratings:
    +885 / 16 / -24

    No Jersey Selected

    I think he did. :eek:
  8. TheGodInAGreyHoodie

    TheGodInAGreyHoodie Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2007
    Messages:
    6,631
    Likes Received:
    25
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -0

    Not really. Being the point is that the very best NFL team has considerable greater superior over the worst NFL team than the very best MLB team has over the worst MLB team.
  9. RIpats88

    RIpats88 Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    1,303
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    I think basketball has to be the worst with parity. before the season starts you can basically name the playoff teams....and the bottom 8playoff teams are usually such a step below the top 8 you know who generally are going to lose in the 1st round.
  10. mvrabel50

    mvrabel50 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    tough to compare 16 games to 162 games.
  11. sbpatfan

    sbpatfan Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2008
    Messages:
    1,930
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    That's some fine 5th grade statistic work right there.
  12. TBradyOwnsYou

    TBradyOwnsYou Rookie

    Joined:
    May 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,586
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Ok, first I guess I'll explain that parity in the NFL is generally referred to as the year to year change over, not the difference between the top and bottom teams in a single season. Second, well, no, no second. Just understand the first thing, then think about it, then you should be able to figure out why you're incorrect.
  13. denverpatsfan

    denverpatsfan PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,140
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Packers will be 16-10 or 15-1 at the worst this season.
    I would say that there is no parity in 2011.
  14. lamafist

    lamafist Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2008
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    That's not really the case.

    First of all, there's the difference between a 16 game season and a 162 game season. Even with total parity in all leagues -- i.e. as if every game were decided by a coin toss -- you would expect a greater differential between top teams after 16 iterations that would gradually normalize by 162.

    Also, baseball has a structural irregularity built into it -- the overall quality of the team on the field varies greatly from game to game depending on the starting pitcher. That really screws with how you define the "better team" in baseball. One team can be better constructed to win more regular season games -- deep bullpen, comparatively strong 3, 4, 5 starters -- than another that is built to win once it gets to the postseason -- two aces and relatively weak 3, 4 and 5 starters, and a shallower bullpen with one or two lights-out relievers.
  15. BradyFTW!

    BradyFTW! PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2007
    Messages:
    16,374
    Likes Received:
    33
    Ratings:
    +97 / 2 / -1

    #12 Jersey

    Law of Large Numbers in action, for starters. If there were 160 football games per season, you wouldn't see anyone winning 140 of them.

    Parity doesn't really mean "the difference between the two most extreme outliers", anyways.
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2011
  16. dsr

    dsr Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2011
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    In football, both teams play their best team every game. In baseball, they don't.

    If the Packers had to play 160 games with 5 different quarterbacks in the rotation, they wouldn't be sitting at 90-0 right now.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>