Sunday, February 17, 2008

Parity Is Great and J.A. Adande Is an Asshat

There are two kinds of articles I bitch about on this blog. First, you've got articles that are just plain wrong. These are the Eckstein-is-greats, the ARod-is-bads, and the Bonds-is-innocents. They should make you cry. Second, you've got articles that don't contain any objectively incorrect information, but are still very wrong. They should merely make you whimper. This, by J.A. Adande, is one such article.

Superstar trades put emphasis back on the games

Let's hear it for big, fat contracts. Money-money-money-monnn-ey -- MON-ayy. Dollar-dollar bills, y'all. Those salary-cap-killing, luxury-tax-inducing contracts -- envied by fans, cursed by owners with buyer's remorse -- are saving the NBA.

You can't wait for the playoffs to start. You have no idea who's going to win it all. And it's all thanks to economics.

In the past eight months, four All-Stars have switched teams and reconfigured three of the marquee brands in the NBA. In order, Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett, Pau Gasol and Shaquille O'Neal were traded to the Celtics, Lakers and Suns because their old teams were tired of paying star salaries for scrub results.

Let us count the ways in which this article is wrong, so far.

1. Expensive contracts are not "saving the league," neither in the way Adande implies here nor in any other way. Sure, their existence has recently facilitated a flow of high-paid stars to popular/good teams. (As you'll see, his premise is basically that the league is better off when said teams have all the talent and "under the radar" teams, like their former teams, disappear into the background.) On the other hand, popular/good teams are just as susceptible to horrible contracts as anyone else. Why do the Knicks blow right now? Because (among at least fifty other horrible gaffes) a few years back they gave the untradeable and unplayable Jerome James an 11 year deal worth $290 million. What's wrong with the Bulls? Well, for one thing, they signed Ben Wallace to a disastrous contract two summers ago. For every Memphis who gives a Pau Gasol a monster deal and then has to send him away so they can look towards the future, there's a marquee/popular team that makes a devastatingly bad decision.

2. "You can't wait for the playoffs to start." If you didn't feel that way before these trades, you weren't an NBA fan in the first place. Douche. "You have no idea who's going to win it all!" This has been the case each and every year since Jordan retired the second time. So, for a decade or so.

3. These stars' old teams were "tired of paying star salaries for scrub results?" Maybe in Shaq's case. As for the other three- well, if you call their most recent seasons/half seasons with their old teams "scrubby," I'd like to hear what adjectives you'd assign to the 97% of the players in the league that aren't as good as these guys.

OK. *Deep breath* Good. This is going okay so far.

Their former squads aren't better off today. In fact, Seattle, Minnesota, Memphis and Miami have the four worst records in the league.

Let me introduce you, J.A., to some of the finer points of the "trade." You see, very few "trades" are made between teams that expect the same results from the deal in the same time frame. You alomst never see two teams trade players that are current stars. Same goes for swapping young players that have the potential to be stars somewhere down the road. Although they do happen in rare circumstances, trades like these don't make a ton of sense on the surface. Right? You see why, don't you? Unless it's a positional or change-of-scenery issue, why would a team trade a guy who's really good right now... for another guy who's really good right now? And why would they trade young guys with potential... for young guys with potential? That would be like trading eggs for eggs, or shoes for shoes. You make "trades" in order to acquire something you don't already have.

I'm wasting everyone's time. I know. Let's just leave it at this: despite being a professional journalist who primarily covers the NBA, J.A. Adande apparently has yet to grasp the idea that teams often deal current stars for young players. This is the basic format of the vast majority of significant trades to take place during the salary cap era.

I am slightly frustrated.

This wasn't about them trying to stay in the hunt for a championship. It's about them trying to stay out of the red in the Excel files.

It's about them acknowledging they were not going to win a championship in the next couple of years, and building for the future beyond that timeframe. Welcome to the wonderful world of professional sports franchises.

Top-to-bottom competitive balance is right where it belongs: in the trash can, next to the short shorts.

And here we have the main premise of the article, the main reason I am forced to conclude that J.A. Andande should be attached to a weather balloon and released into the atmosphere. I've read some bullshit in my life, but this sentence might take the cake. Let's see- which major pro sports league has the most year-to-year parity? That's right, those jolly fat fucks in the NFL, who have more money than they know what to do with right now. And how do people tend to respond to underdog success stories? My inside sources say they like them, and that there's a direct relationship between the amount of competitive balance in a league and the likelihood of such a story playing out. Why do salary caps exist in three out of the four major sports? Because otherwise we'd have four times as many Yankees and Red Sox running around, which would not be "good for the league(s)" no matter what anybody says. And finally, why does the NCAA limit the number of athletic scholarships schools can give out? Because having the Boise States of the world occasionally dance with the big boys is more exciting than having USC, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, and Alabama grab 150 out of the top 200 recruits every year like they did in the 40s/50s/60s/70s.

The league is better off with several superpowers battling it out among themselves, not with some unknown upstarts crashing the party.

Let's focus. I'll limit discussion to the NBA alone. Boy, I sure don't remember anyone being excited about Golden State's first round win over Dallas last year. Boring. Who likes an upstart, anyways? I find life more fulfilling when everything is extremely even-keeled and goes exactly according to plan all the time. Keeps my blood pressure down. Here is my ideal 2008 NBA playoffs: Don't even play the first round in the West or the first two rounds in the East. Celtics sweep Pistons in the Eastern finals. Lakers sweep Spurs and Mavs sweep Suns in the Western semis. Lakers sweep Mavs in the Western finals. Celtics and Lakers agree to split the championship and instead play 7 exhibition games against each other. Immediately following the playoffs, every team in the league has to send its top scorer and rebounder to one of the six teams I named here to make 2008-2009 even more exciting! I mean, exciting in an even-keeled kind of way.

Supreme teams are compelling and draw big ratings, as the New England Patriots just showed.

This is partially true, but I would argue that the pursuit of perfection angle was much more important than just the simple fact that the Patriots were a dominant team. If they had somehow dropped their week 1 game (farfetched, I know, considering they were cheating during it), and gone through the whole season without that magical zero in the "L" column, I'm willing to bet ratings would have been much lower. Still outrageously high compared to anything the NBA puts up, but relatively lower.

If the success of the rich must come at the expense of the struggling poor, so be it. Call it de facto contraction.

Apparently J.A. has a little Rush Limbaugh in him.

"There are too many teams," one All-Star said. "There needs to be, like, 20 teams."

That guy probably just said that because he hates road trips.

But because the owners won't give up that additional revenue and the players won't give up the extra jobs, we're stuck at 30. The best we can do is have the best players concentrated among a few elite teams.

Nevermind, you know, the fans of those teams. Are there millions of rabid Bobcats fans out there? No. Are you going to get stabbed if you tell someone in a bar in Memphis that you don't really give a shit about the Grizzlies? Probably not. But that doesn't mean those teams are irrelevant or not useful assets for the league and their home cities. I really don't give a deuce if Adande thinks the Sonics or T-Wolves or Hawks shouldn't be competing with the traditional powerhouses. I steadfastly refuse to believe it's harmful to the sport in any fashion when parity exists and when non-traditional teams see a little success from time to time. I know ratings suffer and the blogosphere erupts with contempt when something like the 2007 NLCS happens. You know what? If people are too fucking stupid to be interested in a given sport's playoffs unless a team with a lot of history is winning them, that's not my problem. Those kind of people can go play in traffic.

"The trades seem to have piqued interest," commissioner David Stern said.

This doesn't support your point, tinydick. These trades would have piqued interest no matter where the marquee players landed.

There's anticipation and unpredictability, the two things that make sports such compelling TV content.

If Ray Allen goes to New Orleans and KG somehow ends up on the Clippers? No anticipation or unpredictability whatsoever, I guess.

Anticipation and unpredictability sound a lot better than cynicism and skepticism, which was the general attitude toward the NBA last summer.

Hmmmm... let's jog our memories... why was there a lot of cynicism and skepticism aimed at the NBA by fans and analysts last summer? I was going to link the funniest looking Tim Donaghy and Isiah Thomas pictures I could find, but J.A. actually goes through the trouble of answering his own question in the next paragraph. How thoughtful. OK, fine, fuck it. I'll link the pictures anyways.

Those dark days seem so long ago they might as well be in black-and-white. A referee was found to have bet on NBA games and shared inside info with gamblers. A troubled young player had a fatal car crash. The No. 1 overall pick had season-ending surgery before he even played a game. The SuperSonics gassed up the moving vans. The Knicks went through a sordid sexual harassment lawsuit. It was all gloom and doom.

Not on this list:
Too much parity in league
Too many upstart teams having success
Elite players too spread out
Fans bored by lack of traditional dynasty
Too long since Lakers or Celtics have won title
Shawn Bradley no longer available to be hilariously dunked on

Although that last one damn well should be included.

Last year was one of the hardest years from a public relations standpoint," said former All-Star David Robinson. "To see how well the NBA has bounced back from some of that stuff last year … I don't know any league that could deal with that kind of stuff. Wow.

"The energy level is still great. Everybody is looking forward to the playoffs. It's still so much excitement."

So what happened? Sports happened.

What does that mean? How does it justify your point?

We should know by now that all it takes to restore faith and interest in a league is to play games. Make that, play games on relevant networks (two points lost on the NHL).


Apparently the NHL is no longer playing games. No wonder I haven't heard much about them recently. And apparently they willingly chose to take their games off NBC and ESPN. "Hey," Gary Bettman said to a board of league executives, "I heard this 'Versus' is the next big thing. Call up our current networks and tell them to stick their thumbs up their own asses. We're riding the wave of the future, baby."

Bring out the balls, blow the whistle and the problems go away.

And- make sure all the best players in the league end up on just a handful of teams. You forgot that part.

All they had to do was keep playing and wait for the emergence of a dominant team or two. There's nothing wrong with a little healthy hegemony. In the league's glory days in the 1980s, there was a nine-year stretch when the Lakers and Celtics won eight of the titles. So much for sharing the wealth.

Those were the "glory days" because of the kind of people I earlier said should go play in traffic. Ratings were up. Everyone talked about the Celtics and Lakers. Great. But was the level of play in the league and higher? Was there something more inherently interesting about the games? The NBA has and always will market its superstars ahead of its teams. And it just so happened that two of the biggest superstars of the 80s happened to play for two otherwise excellent teams in opposite conferences. But just because everyone back then said "Oh man, Lakers/Celtics ftw, kewlest yizz evr" doesn't mean things were any better. Having both the Yankees and Red Sox playing very well at the same time these days sure generates ratings and hype for MLB. But can you really say the sport is better because of it? Really? Look, I already said it, but if you need shit like this to get interested in a sport then you weren't really a fan in the first place.

There are more good teams now. At the current pace, a Western Conference team could win 50 games and still miss the playoffs.

This will not happen. I promise. And it doesn't prove at all that there are more good teams now. The Lakers and Suns were already going to win 50 games before their moves. Denver, Utah, Portland, and Houston have basically the same rosters they did in November. As long as "now" is referring to "since these big trades," which I'm pretty certain it is.

Before the All-Star Sunday the arena was buzzing with the renewed possibility of a Dallas-New Jersey deal. It turned this weekend's All-Star Game into exactly what it should be: an afterthought. An interlude. People are obsessed with trade talk, and with the state of Kobe's injured pinkie. (One way or another, it always comes back to Kobe). But that's where the focus should be. There's no sense wasting time wondering whether the East All-Stars can beat the West. Who cares? You don't want the exhibtions overshadowing the main event.

Most confusing paragraph in the whole article. The All-Star Game should be an afterthought to what? Trade talk? Injury speculation? Are those "the main event?" I sure hope not. But I thought the only thing the league had to do in order to make everyone happy was just get out there on the damn court and play with their balls while whistling. Now you're telling me we should be more focused on gossip and rumors. And does anyone else see the irony in Adande knocking the All-Star Game after forming a whole article around the idea that concentrating the elite players onto as few teams as possible is a good thing?

This game won't be more entertaining than that Suns-Warriors game Wednesday. There's no way it will be more tension-filled than Shaq's anticipated Suns debut this Wednesday.

Thank you for helping us make the connection that Shaq's debut this Wednesday is for the Suns during a Wednesday game this Wednesday which will be his first game with his new team.

It was telling that, for the first time in memory, Stern opened a news conference talking about basketball. Not collective bargaining negotiations, not television ratings, not legal proceedings. "We're awful pleased about the state of our game," Stern said Saturday night.

"The game looks terrific. It's open, it's fluid, there's more movement. And there are more shots. The fact that the shots go in is also good.

"People feel good about the state of the game and the way it is being played and coached and reffed."

The league rediscovered what matters most, the one thing the fans really care about.

"It's the game, it's the game, it's the game," Stern said.

I thought it was trade rumors, injuries, and Kobe.

Not all the league's problems have magically disappeared. What should be a full-fledged celebration of the hosting Hornets, the team atop the Western Conference, is tempered by the possibility they could leave town without increased fan support. And the Sonics are locked in litigation with the city of Seattle, doing their best to bolt for Oklahoma City.

The last time an NBA team left the Pacific Northwest for the South, it was Vancouver to Memphis … and look how that turned out. The Grizzlies are playing in a half-filled arena, having just dumped their best player in exchange for No. 1 pick bust and a rookie.

But why weep for the Grizzlies when you can wonder how far the Lakers will go with Gasol?

But why wonder about the Lakers when you can be interested in whichever team is your favorite? I realize my well documented anti-Yankees/Red Sox bias is dripping into the article, but it's doing so for good reason. It's comments like this that make me hate every single nationally popular team out there and sometimes make it difficult to cheer for my hyperexposed alma mater.

As J.A. suggests, I'm not weeping for the Grizzlies. It's their own fault they put together a shitty team and had to basically give away Gasol. But at the same time... I know this is hard to hear if you're an elitist fan of a big-market team that thinks because they're on TV more often than everyone else that they're special... I also couldn't give two craps about the Lakers. To wit, with my baseball comparison- do you think Joba Chamberlain should start 2008 in the bullpen or the rotation? If you're not a fan of an AL East team or a keeper league fantasy owner, the answer is "Who fucking cares?" Honestly. Your team has a rich history and a larger than average fan base. I get it. Now stop bothering me so I can learn about other stuff.

Sorry, Memphis. Sorry, Minnesota. Your losses are better for the league as a whole.

I think you mean, your losses are good for the Lakers and Celtics.

The on-court action is as good as you could ask for.

If you're a Laker or Celtic fan.

It's All-Star Weekend in New Orleans. Might as well grab a go cup and celebrate the good times.

You sound like you're drunk already.

J.A. Adande is the author of "The Best Los Angeles Sports Arguments."

1. What's the best way to enjoy a Dodger game- by showing up in the 3rd, leaving in the 6th, or both?
2. Which riot was more violent and unnecessary- the one after UCLA basketball's championship in 1995, or the one after the Lakers won the NBA finals in 2000?
3. Why the fuck don't we have an NFL team?
4. Who's going to end up as a bigger bust- Matt Leinart or Reggie Bush?
5. How fucking lame are the Angels and their fans for that "Rally Monkey" shit?
6. Why doesn't anyone think USC football qualifies as a "dynasty" this decade, even though they've grabbed a whole one national championships?
7. How do we get the Clippers to go back to San Diego?
8. What's the best object to throw on the field for no reason when you're drunk at a Dodger game?
9. No, seriously, why does the country's second largest city not have an NFL team?
10. Tommy LaSorda- fat or pregnant?

Much love to any LA-based fans or readers if they made it this far. You know I'm just messing with you. I pretty much hate everyone equally. Except Boston.

26 comments:

Chris W said...

The NFL has the most parity right now?

You mean the league where one conference is woefully lousier than the other, the same 3 teams (Chargers, Pats, Colts) have been runaway favorites year in and year out, and the same four or five teams (49ers, Cardinals, Dolphins, Raiders, Lions) have been lousy?

I would say the NBA has shown much more ability for upward and downward mobility over a shorter period of time...(even though that def'n, though usually used to epitomize parity isn't really what parity is)

Can you imagine a team like the Raiders ( the 2007 equivalent of the 2006-2007 Celtics) becoming arguably one of the best 5 teams in the NFL next year no matter what trades/drafts they make?

HARDLY

^^^NFL HATING RANT OVER

no I lied.

FUCK PAUL TAGLIABUE THAT LITTLE WIENER

Chris W said...

also, to rip on JA Adande some:

if there were less teams in the NBA, that would make parity MORE LIKELY since the talent pool would grow relatively larger and teams wouldn't have to round out their rosters with scrubs

Look at baseball in the 50's and 60's compared to baseball in the 90's to see how expansion HURTS parity, not helpps it

dan-bob said...

And yet baseball in the 1950's had a limited number of champions - the Yankees alone won eight pennants out of the ten in that decade, and the Giants and Dodgers dominated on the NL side.

larry b said...

I understand year-to-year parity is not parity in the truest sense, but the NFL definitely has it in spades. Sure, certain franchises have been consistently great/terrible for the past X years. But it's by their own fault, not the fault of the system. The the Lions to make intelligent draft choices and they can't prevent the Patriots from turning other teams' castoffs (like Vrabel or Moss) into stars.

Excepting the Cardinals, Browns, Vikings, and Texans, (49ers are on the fringe of this list) every single team in the NFL has had at least one very good season since 2001. That's a pretty good track record. The corresponding lists for the NBA and MLB are slightly longer, and year-to-year changes are much more difficult to make. Worst to first stories happen all the time in the NFL (just look at the NFC South the past few years), while they're fairly uncommon in the other leagues.

Chris W said...

Look--in the past few years, here are teams that have not made the playoffs once:

Browns, Raiders, Niners, Buzzsaw, Texans, Dolphins, Falcons, Vikings, Lions, Bills, Rams

(11 total)

Here are teams that have made the playoffs each of the past three years:

Seahawks, Chargers, Cowboys, Colts, Steelers, Patriots

(6 total)

That's 17 teams out of 32 who have either been always in or always out of the playoffs in the past 3 years.

When you consider that football has 12 playoff spots to baseball's 8 playoff spots, it doesn't seem like football has much more parity than baseball...especially when you consider that though teams like Tampa Bay and Jacksonville and such CAN every now and then scrounge together a playoff run, they are almost always hugely overmatched by the top teams.

Compare that to baseball, where Wild Card winners often make it to the WS and sometimes win it....

Chris W said...

that is to say, though worst to first stories often happen in the NFL, that's because of weak scheduling and the "worst to first" regular season record almost NEVER leads to playoff success.

mary said...

Surprise teams often win the World Series because of the nature of baseball. Even the worst teams will win a third of their games and even the best will lose a third. In football, however, it's not uncommon for the worst teams to win 10% or less while the best teams only lose 10%. And yet still, there are worst to first stories. The unbalanced scheduling matters but not as much as you imply. It's a whole 2 games a year. Can those two games be the difference between 8-8 and 10-6? Absolutely. But it's not like some teams have an absolute cakewalk while others are comparatively screwed week in and week out. And I don't like your list that only goes back "a few years." The Raiders were in a Super Bowl 5 years ago. That certainly counts for something. Atlanta won 11 games in 2004. St. Louis was in the playoffs in 2003 and 2004. Minnesota was there in 2004. A three year window is just too narrow. Some of those other teams you listed are on the verge of becoming playoff teams, like the Vikings, Bills, and Browns. I would say the only "hopeless" franchises on that list, which have no reason to believe they'll be competitive anytime in the next couple of years, are probably the Falcons and Niners. Even they could make a couple good draft picks and sneak into the playoffs in 2009. Meanwhile, look at baseball- when's the next time the Rangers, Pirates, Royals, Orioles, Nationals, Marlins, or Devil Rays are likely to have a shot at winning 90 games? 2010? 2011? Having a 12 team playoff field would make baseball appear to be more top-to-bottom competitive, but the year-to-year parity still sucks. When you're bad, you're often stuck being bad for a while.

mary said...

And don't use "the Buzzsaw," Will Leitch is annoying.

Chris W said...

So what does this idea of parity mean?

Does it mean that a team like San Fran can come out with a good draft class and win 8 games instead of 3? Absolutely.

However that doesn't make San Fran a good team and the "rich" teams (metaphorically) continue to be "rich" while the "poor" continue to be poor.

It's not like that upward mobility is impossible in baseball. Look at the Marlins, for an example of how redoubling farm-system effort can lead to competetive teams on a scale no less recursive than NFL's "awesome" parity scale.

There are teams in football that are run well, and though they have down years, are almost always competitive (Green Bay, Washington, Dallas, NE, etc.) and there are teams that are run poorly and though they have solid years are almost always lousy (Oakland...who got raped in that SB, THE BUZZSAW, Miami, Atlanta...who also got raped in their one SB).

Ever thus to baseball. Minnesota, Cleveland, Oakland, Colorado, and Florida are teams that show that a team in baseball can reapportion their priorities and easily compete as quickly as they can lose competitiveness.

Teams like Toronto, The Scrubs, The Mets, Baltimore and even to a lesser extent the Yankees show that the supposed "BUY YOUR WAY INTO THE PLAYOFFS AND STAY THERE AS LONG AS YOU SPEND MONEY" bullshit is just that.

I'm not convinced at all that the NFL has more parity than MLB, and these tired talking points aren't doing much to convince me

So an NFL team can more easily and more quickly go from 3-13 to 8-8, especially since a 3-13 schedule is a cake walk?

Whoop-de-fucking do.

Teams that get better for prolonged periods of time in either sport do it the same way--quality scouting, drafting, development, and scheming.

Parity is a bullshit talking point and a bullshit argument why an adequate league (the NFL) is somehow a superpower.

The NFL is successful not because of parity but because there are 16 games rather than 162, because there are 17 weeks rather than 5 months, and because nearly 1/3 the teams make the playoffs, and because Tagliabue pandered to the fans with his rule changes.

Big fucking whoop.

Derpsauce said...

And here I thought J.A. Adande was the lone non-retard that appears on "Around the Horn". Noles was megawrong.....

Nice to know they really are all idiot blowhards like I said in the last post. I felt a little bad including J.A. in that before now.

mary said...

Here's a tip- stop not reading my comments, and start reading my comments.

A 3-13 schedule is not a cakewalk. It's two games different than a 13-3 schedule from the same division.

Your point about how "it's easy to go from 3-13 to 8-8, big whoop," is a gigantic red herring. I never said that. I was referring to teams that go from 3-13/5-11 to the verge of a Super Bowl, like the 2006 Saints/2005 Bears. I was referring to teams that go from 6-10 to 15-1, like the 2004 Steelers. How about 4-12 to 12-4, like the 2004 Chargers? Save for the last example, all those teams found success in the postseason, too.

Does spending tons of money guarantee success for an MLB team? No, but it sure gives them a significant edge and a large margin for error. You say the Yankees are "to an extent" an example that serves to disprove the validity of spending lots of money to get to the playoffs and stay there. This might be the craziest thing I have ever heard you say. In what way are they disproving it? By not winning the WS every single year? They've been in the playoffs for 14 straight years. Let's see the Twins, A's, Rockies, or Indians pull that off. Just because the Yankees have "only" won 4 World Series and 6 pennants over that span doesn't make them some kind of cautionary tale against breaking the bank (if you can afford it).

If having 1/3 of the teams in a league make the playoffs is a good way to generate popularity, how come the NBA and NHL are lagging behind baseball? Baseball has more games and a regular season that's identical in length to those two. I'll grant that football's scheduling tactics help it become popular, but you're blind if you refuse to acknowledge that the fact everyone's favorite team is always just a year or two away from a playoff run is also a factor. Slice it any way you want, and deny the obvious all you want, but that's simply not the case in baseball. Therefore, baseball has less year-to-year parity.

Just because these talking points are tired and cliched doesn't mean they're wrong.

larry b said...

Huh. Looks like I posted that last comment from someone else's account. As I'm sure you can tell, it was me.

Chris W said...

"A 3-13 schedule is not a cakewalk. It's two games different than a 13-3 schedule from the same division.

Your point about how "it's easy to go from 3-13 to 8-8, big whoop," is a gigantic red herring. I never said that. I was referring to teams that go from 3-13/5-11 to the verge of a Super Bowl, like the 2006 Saints/2005 Bears. I was referring to teams that go from 6-10 to 15-1, like the 2004 Steelers. How about 4-12 to 12-4, like the 2004 Chargers? Save for the last example, all those teams found success in the postseason, too."

The saints were such a huge story because they were one of the first teams in recent memory to go from the cellar to the Conference championship.

Notice

a.) The 2004 Bears made the playoffs you dumb piece of shit

b.) The 2004 Chargers got bounced in the playoffs pretty easily

c.) The 2004 Steelers were just 2 games under .500 in 2003

"Does spending tons of money guarantee success for an MLB team? No, but it sure gives them a significant edge and a large margin for error. You say the Yankees are "to an extent" an example that serves to disprove the validity of spending lots of money to get to the playoffs and stay there. This might be the craziest thing I have ever heard you say. In what way are they disproving it? By not winning the WS every single year? They've been in the playoffs for 14 straight years. Let's see the Twins, A's, Rockies, or Indians pull that off. Just because the Yankees have "only" won 4 World Series and 6 pennants over that span doesn't make them some kind of cautionary tale against breaking the bank (if you can afford it)."

That's why I said the Yankees as my outlier. The Yankees spend far and away the most money in baseball and have almost nothing to show for it. FAR AND AWAY.

Yes spending more money gets you a better team, but teams like the Braves, Dodgers, Mets, Mariners, Blue Jays, Cubs, and Orioles have very little to show for their high spending. Meanwhile teams like the Twins, Padres and A's with much smaller payrolls have enjoyed similar, if not greater success.

Yes the Yankees made it to the playoffs by spending 2x the money of everyone else, but if spending really made that big a difference their 2x salary line would probably have led to some sort of postseason success instead of having low rent teams like the d-backs, marlins, and white sox all win world serieses during the yankees reign of overspending worthlessness.

"If having 1/3 of the teams in a league make the playoffs is a good way to generate popularity, how come the NBA and NHL are lagging behind baseball? Baseball has more games and a regular season that's identical in length to those two. I'll grant that football's scheduling tactics help it become popular, but you're blind if you refuse to acknowledge that the fact everyone's favorite team is always just a year or two away from a playoff run is also a factor. Slice it any way you want, and deny the obvious all you want, but that's simply not the case in baseball. Therefore, baseball has less year-to-year parity."

Because we're comparing the two most popular (by far) sports in the US (not counting golf and nascar b/c they aren't applicable). Basketball and Hockey just don't have the fan base.

Next point. Oh you don't have any left, Mary Bailey?

Chris W said...

any rate I also want to point this out:

"but you're blind if you refuse to acknowledge that the fact everyone's favorite team is always just a year or two away from a playoff run is also a factor."

Bullshit. The Browns didn't sell tickets any better this year than they did in years past. The Cardinals sell tickets as well, as do the Dolphins.

The reason why? Football games are an event. Tailgating, spectacular, once a week events. The fact that there are 8 home games a year means it's hard to get tickets so everyone makes sure they go, especially for the 3 games a year when the divisional teams are in town.

Are you this blind?

I mean, yes, I know Mary Bailey, ESPN the magazine has been telling us for years that the NFL is successful because Jets fans think "THIS COULD BE THE YEAR" but that's retarded

NFL teams sell tickets for the same reason the Cubs sell tickets.

Chris W said...

ALSO: ANSWER MY PHONE CALLS. I HAD TO ASK YOU A QUESTION ABOUT THE TIME YOU AND D BOB GGOT ARRESTED OUTSIDE LAFAYETTE APTS

dan-bob said...

I've enjoyed this catfight.

"Welcome to South Bend"

Anonymous said...

"1. What's the best way to enjoy a Dodger game- by showing up in the 3rd, leaving in the 6th, or both?"

Also, Rosie O'Donnell is FAT!

And how about that AIRPLANE FOOD? Also: 7-11s!

larry b said...

Chris W- It's not about ticket sales, numbnuts. It's about general fan interest and subsequent TV ratings. And to answer your question about that incident, yes, we all laughed extremely hard through its duration.

Jones- OK, it's not exactly uncharted comedic territory, but at least give me some credit for the other nine. OK, the other 8 besides that one and the Rally Monkey one.

Chris W said...

It's not like the reasoning behind fan interest and TV ratings are much different.

One game a week (on Sundays no less) mean increased significance of individual games and 4 days for ESPN the tabloid network to end all tabloid networks to manufacture interest in the game.

larry b said...

Chris-

Notice

a.) The 2004 Bears made the playoffs you dumb piece of shit


You must be referring to a different 2004 Bears team. The one that I'm referring to, the Chicago Bears NFL team located in Chicago, Illinois, United States, went 5-11 in that year.


b.) The 2004 Chargers got bounced in the playoffs pretty easily

I mean, if you count losing in overtime after missing your own 40 yard field goal that would have won the game getting bounced "easily," then yeah.

c.) The 2004 Steelers were just 2 games under .500 in 2003

My super advanced ultra powerful computer says winning 6 games and losing 10 puts you at 4 games under .500.

You dumb piece of shit.

Derpsauce said...

Chris:

You must post twice per week, else your opinion does not count.

:p

Tonus said...

"Parity" doesn't save dumb owners from hiring bad GMs and clueless scouts.

Jim said...

I don't read this site for 1 day and i miss all this excitement.. damn.

larry b said...

My inventory is a little low because I just moved back to DC. Sorry. Next time I plan to pass though East Buttfuck Arkansas I'll be sure to grab one for you in advance.

Chris W said...

Hey Corey Dillhole: I live in Northwest Buttfuck Arkansas

Alfreed Siang said...

Hello everyone, my name is ALFREED SIANG i am here to say a big thank you to my doctor DR OLU who helped me enlarge my penis.i have never had a happy relationship in my life because of my inability to perform well due to my small penis, due to frustration,i went online in search of solution to ending my predicament and than i came across testimony on how DR OLU has helped them, so i contacted him and he promised to help me with penis enlargement,i doubted at first but i gave him a trial and he sent me the product which i used according to his prescription and in less than a week,i saw changes in my penis and it grow to the size i wanted and since then,i am now a happy man and no lady complains again about my penis.if you also need the services of my doctor,you can also contact him on his email..drolusolutionhome@gmail.com or his whataspp is +2348140654426