At the beginning of each season, fans have an honest belief that their team has a chance to win the championship. This is the year!! We will overcome the curse of the goat which Steve Bartman single handedly kept going, we will show the world that defense wins championships (i.e. we have no offense), or this is the year our prospects become superstars. Not to be the bearer of bad news, all but one of you are wrong.
Championships matter. So to argue that competitive balance exists can be an argument that every team has a chance to win the championship. And if this is true, you should see different teams win the championship each year. Using this measure which sport would you think has the most competitive balance?
| | Won a championship | Played for Championship |
| MLB | 63 | 86 |
| NBA | 28 | 60 |
| NFL | 47 | 78 |
My prior belief was that baseball has the least competitive balance, at least that is what I hear from my television and read on my computer. But it is clear that baseball has had a higher fraction of their teams win a championship in the past 31 years.
What about recent history. Let’s look at the past 11 years
| | Won a championship | Played for Championship |
| MLB | 30 | 50 |
| NBA | 19 | 37 |
| NFL | 25 | 50 |
Story does not change; baseball has the most competitive balance. Basketball has a much lower fraction of teams that win the championship.
While these numbers show how championships can measure competitive balance, they do not make the case that this constitutes a “problem.” Is it problematic if the Lakers, Celtics, Heat, and Spurs win the championship every year?
Because one player matters more in basketball than any other sport, IMHO. And conversely, one player matters least in baseball, after all, no matter how good you are you can only bat about 11% of the time. Also, this would be interesting to look at in EPL and La Liga, I bet it is even smaller.
ReplyDelete