Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

Ho does fairness compare in the major sports?

Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 11:15:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I've noticed that football seems to be a lot more level in terms of fairness in competition. In Basketball, the Celtics and Lakers "have won the two highest numbers of championships, the Celtics 17, the Lakers 16; together, the two teams' 33 championships account for more than half of the 64 championships in NBA history." -Wiki

In baseball, the Yankees have gone to 40 World Series and won 27 of them, while the second, third, and fourth teams combined (Cardinals, Athletics, Red sox) have won a combined 26 World Series in 42 tries.

People where I'm at root for the Bucks and Brewers... good luck with that. Football seems like the only good sport that's fair enough to be exciting.

I know there has been salary caps keeping money out of the game, since it would certainly ruin it. As I understand these are not for certain though. The NFL draft obviously keep things even by giving the worst teams the best draft picks as well... Are these the only mechanisms keeping competition so fierce in that sport?

As I understand it, this Andrew Luck QB has a good chance of becoming the next Dan Marino or something... the type of guy that could be of huge advantage to whoever grabs him. Isn't it conceivable that teams who have blown their playoff chances early are going to want to secure the 32nd spot?
kfc
Loserboi
Posts: 1,232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 2:51:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 11:15:18 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
I've noticed that football seems to be a lot more level in terms of fairness in competition. In Basketball, the Celtics and Lakers "have won the two highest numbers of championships, the Celtics 17, the Lakers 16; together, the two teams' 33 championships account for more than half of the 64 championships in NBA history." -Wiki

In baseball, the Yankees have gone to 40 World Series and won 27 of them, while the second, third, and fourth teams combined (Cardinals, Athletics, Red sox) have won a combined 26 World Series in 42 tries.

People where I'm at root for the Bucks and Brewers... good luck with that. Football seems like the only good sport that's fair enough to be exciting.

I know there has been salary caps keeping money out of the game, since it would certainly ruin it. As I understand these are not for certain though. The NFL draft obviously keep things even by giving the worst teams the best draft picks as well... Are these the only mechanisms keeping competition so fierce in that sport?

As I understand it, this Andrew Luck QB has a good chance of becoming the next Dan Marino or something... the type of guy that could be of huge advantage to whoever grabs him. Isn't it conceivable that teams who have blown their playoff chances early are going to want to secure the 32nd spot?

Baseball is a little more even than it used to be. If you look at the last decade the winners for baseball have been mostly different. The only sport that is F'ed up is the NBA. Every year you are not surprised on who won the NBA championship. You knew every year either the 1st seed or 2nd seed was gonna win the championship. The draft is not absolute for any sport, but especially in the NBA only like 3 all star players come out of the draft every year. Some teams just suck at drafting look at the Clippers it took like 20 years for them to draft correctly.

NBA is boring they need to fix their sh1t. If Lakers, Boston, Heat or Spurs win this year it just goes to show another year where there were no surprises.
zGodMode
Posts: 825
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2011 12:03:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 2:51:55 PM, Loserboi wrote:
At 2/28/2011 11:15:18 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
I've noticed that football seems to be a lot more level in terms of fairness in competition. In Basketball, the Celtics and Lakers "have won the two highest numbers of championships, the Celtics 17, the Lakers 16; together, the two teams' 33 championships account for more than half of the 64 championships in NBA history." -Wiki

In baseball, the Yankees have gone to 40 World Series and won 27 of them, while the second, third, and fourth teams combined (Cardinals, Athletics, Red sox) have won a combined 26 World Series in 42 tries.

People where I'm at root for the Bucks and Brewers... good luck with that. Football seems like the only good sport that's fair enough to be exciting.

I know there has been salary caps keeping money out of the game, since it would certainly ruin it. As I understand these are not for certain though. The NFL draft obviously keep things even by giving the worst teams the best draft picks as well... Are these the only mechanisms keeping competition so fierce in that sport?

As I understand it, this Andrew Luck QB has a good chance of becoming the next Dan Marino or something... the type of guy that could be of huge advantage to whoever grabs him. Isn't it conceivable that teams who have blown their playoff chances early are going to want to secure the 32nd spot?

Baseball is a little more even than it used to be. If you look at the last decade the winners for baseball have been mostly different. The only sport that is F'ed up is the NBA. Every year you are not surprised on who won the NBA championship. You knew every year either the 1st seed or 2nd seed was gonna win the championship. The draft is not absolute for any sport, but especially in the NBA only like 3 all star players come out of the draft every year. Some teams just suck at drafting look at the Clippers it took like 20 years for them to draft correctly.

NBA is boring they need to fix their sh1t. If Lakers, Boston, Heat or Spurs win this year it just goes to show another year where there were no surprises.

The NBA needs dynasties.
Nobody, but Detroit fans/anti-Laker fans, wants to watch Chauncey Billups, Rip Hamilton, Tayshaun Prince, Rasheed Wallace and Ben Wallace 4-1 the Hall of Fame Lakers again.
The casual fan wants to watch the Thunder/Lakers/Mavs/Spurs/Heat/Celts/Magic play. Who cares about the little man, they want to see stars.

And Luck could just as easily flop as Joey Harrington, JaMarcus Russell, Chad Pennington, Ryan Leaf, David Carr and Andre Warr.
Teams like the Patriots can draft Tom Brady in the 6th round and he can magically turn into greatness (it's the Wolverine in him.)
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 8:35:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Loserboi I was reading your last post in the Knicks thread about "the top 3 seeds" being the only ones with any chance, and I think I figured it out. If you look at the top seed being the 'mean' in a sense, then one could predict football being more even overall, than basketball or baseball, without ever having learned about professional sports.

Baseball and basketball are played in series, not single games. When you play multiple games it is just like pulling more samples in a statistical analysis; you could pull one sample where the Patriots for example have a bad day, but then pull several where they win. - the more you pull, the more accurate you portray the statistic. So games in series will 'reveal' the better team more accurately because there is a stronger p-value (I really hope I'm not screwing that up royally).

The decreased number of players in basketball and baseball would also reduce deviations from the mean. All the extra players in football create more opportunities for one player to deviate from the mean and decide the outcome himself (positively or negatively).
kfc
zGodMode
Posts: 825
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 9:15:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/7/2011 8:35:46 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
Loserboi I was reading your last post in the Knicks thread about "the top 3 seeds" being the only ones with any chance, and I think I figured it out. If you look at the top seed being the 'mean' in a sense, then one could predict football being more even overall, than basketball or baseball, without ever having learned about professional sports.

Baseball and basketball are played in series, not single games. When you play multiple games it is just like pulling more samples in a statistical analysis; you could pull one sample where the Patriots for example have a bad day, but then pull several where they win. - the more you pull, the more accurate you portray the statistic. So games in series will 'reveal' the better team more accurately because there is a stronger p-value (I really hope I'm not screwing that up royally).

The decreased number of players in basketball and baseball would also reduce deviations from the mean. All the extra players in football create more opportunities for one player to deviate from the mean and decide the outcome himself (positively or negatively).

Are you trying to say that one player can decide a football game more than one player can decide a basketball game?
Because that's the most opposite truth.

In Football your Quarterback can be on fire, completely in the zone, but if you don't have an O-Line to block for him, your offense will stall, if your running-back fumbles the ball every time he touches it, you won't score consistently, if your wide-receiver's can't catch, than your QB's talent is worthless.

In Basketball if Kobe Bryant is on fire, Kobe is on fire. Kobe scores 81 points or 63 points in 3 Quarters when the other team has scored 62. Kevin Love can score 40+ points and pull 30+ rebounds. Isiah Thomas can score 41 points, including 20 in the third, on a painfully sprained ankle.
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 10:31:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/7/2011 9:15:33 PM, zGodMode wrote:
At 3/7/2011 8:35:46 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
Loserboi I was reading your last post in the Knicks thread about "the top 3 seeds" being the only ones with any chance, and I think I figured it out. If you look at the top seed being the 'mean' in a sense, then one could predict football being more even overall, than basketball or baseball, without ever having learned about professional sports.

Baseball and basketball are played in series, not single games. When you play multiple games it is just like pulling more samples in a statistical analysis; you could pull one sample where the Patriots for example have a bad day, but then pull several where they win. - the more you pull, the more accurate you portray the statistic. So games in series will 'reveal' the better team more accurately because there is a stronger p-value (I really hope I'm not screwing that up royally).

The decreased number of players in basketball and baseball would also reduce deviations from the mean. All the extra players in football create more opportunities for one player to deviate from the mean and decide the outcome himself (positively or negatively).

Are you trying to say that one player can decide a football game more than one player can decide a basketball game?
Because that's the most opposite truth.

In Football your Quarterback can be on fire, completely in the zone, but if you don't have an O-Line to block for him, your offense will stall, if your running-back fumbles the ball every time he touches it, you won't score consistently, if your wide-receiver's can't catch, than your QB's talent is worthless.

In Basketball if Kobe Bryant is on fire, Kobe is on fire. Kobe scores 81 points or 63 points in 3 Quarters when the other team has scored 62. Kevin Love can score 40+ points and pull 30+ rebounds. Isiah Thomas can score 41 points, including 20 in the third, on a painfully sprained ankle.

The fact that Kobe can control his team more than a QB is why BBall is more consistant than Fball. Since it's more consistent, it's not percieved as fair because us fans want to see the talent shuffled around to keep it interesting. The 1v1 standoff between a Pitcher and a Big hitter is another 'concentration' of power that leads to consistency. Does that make sense?
kfc
zGodMode
Posts: 825
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 11:30:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/7/2011 10:31:30 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 3/7/2011 9:15:33 PM, zGodMode wrote:
At 3/7/2011 8:35:46 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
Loserboi I was reading your last post in the Knicks thread about "the top 3 seeds" being the only ones with any chance, and I think I figured it out. If you look at the top seed being the 'mean' in a sense, then one could predict football being more even overall, than basketball or baseball, without ever having learned about professional sports.

Baseball and basketball are played in series, not single games. When you play multiple games it is just like pulling more samples in a statistical analysis; you could pull one sample where the Patriots for example have a bad day, but then pull several where they win. - the more you pull, the more accurate you portray the statistic. So games in series will 'reveal' the better team more accurately because there is a stronger p-value (I really hope I'm not screwing that up royally).

The decreased number of players in basketball and baseball would also reduce deviations from the mean. All the extra players in football create more opportunities for one player to deviate from the mean and decide the outcome himself (positively or negatively).

Are you trying to say that one player can decide a football game more than one player can decide a basketball game?
Because that's the most opposite truth.

In Football your Quarterback can be on fire, completely in the zone, but if you don't have an O-Line to block for him, your offense will stall, if your running-back fumbles the ball every time he touches it, you won't score consistently, if your wide-receiver's can't catch, than your QB's talent is worthless.

In Basketball if Kobe Bryant is on fire, Kobe is on fire. Kobe scores 81 points or 63 points in 3 Quarters when the other team has scored 62. Kevin Love can score 40+ points and pull 30+ rebounds. Isiah Thomas can score 41 points, including 20 in the third, on a painfully sprained ankle.

The fact that Kobe can control his team more than a QB is why BBall is more consistant than Fball. Since it's more consistent, it's not percieved as fair because us fans want to see the talent shuffled around to keep it interesting. The 1v1 standoff between a Pitcher and a Big hitter is another 'concentration' of power that leads to consistency. Does that make sense?

Inconsistency =/= more competitive.
And how is that unfair?
The most talented teams win, because they're the most talented, however the play-offs are a huge question mark this year, anything can happen, just like football and baseball.