|
I don't know how coherent this will sound since I ramble a lot, but I'll take a stab at this. Pick it apart as you please, this is just coming from what I've observed and not a lot of data to back it up. I think parity lies in the ability for any team under competent leadership to contend for a championship. We can use an example from each of the 4 majors: Utah Jazz, Carolina Hurricanes, Chicago Bears, and Pittsburgh Pirates. All these teams are not currently title contenders. They're different levels of markets respectively in their sports with different levels of fanbases. I wouldn't say any of them except maybe the Bears are in a horrendous situation. The Jazz just lost an all-star, the Canes put themselves in playoff contention last season and showed improvement, the Bears drafted what they hope is a franchise QB, and the Pirates have a major decision with their franchise player. Put a mythical amazing GM in each of the situations. What factors do they need to make them worthy of contending for a title? The Bears is likely the hardest given the roster size. If Mitch Trubisky is great, then they can build around him and contend because QB is by far and away the best way to contend. There's a lot of luck involved with drafting one unless you get a year where you can tank for one and there's a Luck/Manning/Newton like player coming into the league. Unlike other sports, teams will lock down franchise QBs so there's not too much movement among elite QBs. Working the cap and enticing free agents seems like its less of a concern in the NFL than it is in other sports. So the Bears big market advantage seems like it plays less of a factor. The NBA is all about the draft or having worlds align at the right time. With one exception, every team that's won the title since the 80s has had an MVP or an MVP caliber player on their team. The fastest way for Utah to be competitive is to get a top pick in a year where there's an elite level prospect coming out of college. Market size plays a much bigger role in NBA free agency as we've seen the last few years (with LeBron to Cleveland being an exception, but that's a special case). Let's be frank, the Jazz just lost the battle for Heyward and arn't enticing free agents like the Lakers, Celtics, Heat, and other big market teams are. The Spurs have gotten away with this, but they also have a legendary coach and an outstanding recent history (where the stars aligned for them to get Duncan to begin with). I'd have to say the Jazz would probably need something like a great coach combined with a superstar player. Maybe that way they can entice a couple of ring chasers, but so much for them has to go right to be at that level. Even then they risk losing that superstar the moment he hits free agency. A quality Lakers GM just has to clear some cap room and remind free agents that it's LA. The NBA is so hard to get over the cusp in because there's never really any Cinderella playoff runs. Hockey lies somewhere in between basketball and football in how market size plays into free agency. I don't think you'd see situation like Stamkos staying in Tampa in the NBA. The draft certainly plays a factor, but we've seen Edmonton spin their wheels for a number of years before the found a pick they couldn't gently caress up. If a team like Carolina can find a steady goalie and a few key pieces up front and on D, then they'll contend for the playoffs. The NHL playoffs lend themselves to improbable runs, so just making it year in and year out give someone like Carolina a decent shot at the finals. It might be one of the easier sports to turn a team around in due to the playoff size combined with the ability for teams to upset others in playoff series. Baseball doesn't have the salary cap, and it puts someone like Pittsburgh at a disadvantage if they don't want to spend for free agents like the major market teams. They draft doesn't play an immediate factor, but it's still important to build a strong farm as it builds for the future and also grants a team assets to trade for big league talent on struggling teams. The Moneyball style analytics is also harder in this day and age since pretty much every team uses analytics to some degree. It seems like the small market teams with competent management ebb and flow back and forth between contending and rebuilding. Oakland contended in the early 00s, fell back, competed again with a couple of division titles, and fell back again. Meanwhile, the Yankees have missed the playoffs 4 times since 95 and were over .500 every year they missed. This being said, the Astros are destroying it this year and really built their franchise from the ground up, but that's also a pretty unique situation where they survived years of being dreadful to pull it off. I have no idea how a league would even go about enforcing it. If a team has the right combination of coach and player(s) that are willing to give a long term commitment to a franchise like Pops/Duncan or Belichick/Brady, then what can you do? The cap that was meant to make small market teams in the NBA more competitive is now starting to do the inverse of its intent, but I'd say the NHL has had a decent variety even with Chicago, LA, and Pittsburgh having multiple titles in recent years. Unless you had 30 LeBron James to spread to each team, there's no way to enforce parity in the NBA as the cream of the talent always take over in the end. Also I don't think we want pure parity. Dynasties are interesting, and there's a joy we get out of seeing them toppled (unless we root for said dynasty). Of course with dynasties come teams getting buried. I cheered for the Devil Rays, I know exactly what it's like to have no hope for a decade while the big market teams in your division run wild with championships. It sucks, and a younger me really wanted a cap in baseball because I felt the Rays were in a perpetual hopeless situation with the Yankees throwing all sorts of money at players and us unable to re-sign Aubrey Huff. It still stinks to be honest because I know if someone like Bryce Harper were to ever be a free agent, my team would have no chance at even looking at him. The advantage is I don't have to worry about a Ryan Howard contract destroying my team. Really the goal should be to make market size not matter, but players are human beings and human beings in their prime years enjoy places like LA. So nuke LA.
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 19:53 |
|