No announcement yet.


  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Parity

    I read on, I believe, that since we've had 6 different world champs in a row, then it is apparent that baseball has finally reached a level of parity among the teams. Of course, most people on this forum would not agree with that. I was going over all of the postseasons of 2000-2005, and there are 11 teams that haven't even been to the round of division champions: Toronto, Milwaukee, Tampa, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Detroit, Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Cincinatti, Texas, and Colorado. There are 8 teams per year that go to the postseason X 6 seasons = 48 chances for a team to go to the postseason since 2000. And 11 teams haven't done it once. On top of that, 6 teams have only done it once since 2000 (San Diego, Cleveland, Florida, the Dodgers, the Mets, and the Cubs). Of these 17 teams, fans have to feel sometimes that they have a legitimate shot at making the postseason. Florida fans felt like they had a good chance last year. Met fans feel like they have a good chance this year. Even fans in Philadelphia, Milwaukee, and Toronto have to feel some glimmer of hope this year. But for some teams, they seem perpetually doomed each and every year - at least since 2000. I always felt parity meant that each team had a legitimate chance of winning a championship. But if you're in Tampa or Kansas City or Colorado it seems like you would just become resigned every spring to your fate. I'm a Padres fan, and even last year fans in SD knew that there was very little hope of a run at the championship, even though the Padres did make the postseason.

    Any other thoughts, especially from fans of underdog teams.

  • #2
    Baseball has more parity than it ever has. With the advent of the Wild Card, more teams than ever before are making the postseason every year. If you're upset with the number of different teams that have made the postseason in the last decade, than you wouldn't be happy in most any other 10 year stretch when the number of different teams that made the playoffs and thus gave hope to their fans, was much, much smaller.


    • #3
      although parity is defined as equality, budgets, team experience, injuries, the like, including luck, dissolve that notion rather quickly when taking the word to mean that each team has a legitimate chance of winning a championship.

      would'ja settle for 20 outta the 30?
      "you don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. just get people to stop reading them." -ray bradbury


      • #4
        Originally posted by west coast orange and black
        although parity is defined as equality, budgets, team experience, injuries, the like, including luck, dissolve that notion rather quickly when taking the word to mean that each team has a legitimate chance of winning a championship.

        would'ja settle for 20 outta the 30?
        Pretty much. There are still the have and the have-nots in terms of payroll and resources, but it seems that in the past several years, teams have spent money wisely in their farm systems and have kept it. Allowing teams like Minnesota, Cleveland, and whoever else to come up to the pack. If it were a pizza, there's still a few pepperoni teams, a few doughy teams, and many more tomato paste teams than there used to be. Or so it seems :noidea Yeah, that's right, there's no cheese. Green Bay doesn't have a team


        • #5
          I believe there is a lot more parity from 2000-05 than we've seen in a long time...maybe ever. 2/3 of the teams making the playoffs in a 5 year period? That's pretty impressive, especially when you consider how harder it is to make the playoffs in baseball than in most major sports.

          There will always be teams that don't have a shot at winning in a given year, I can't think we'll ever see a year in which all 30 teams have a legitimate shot at making the playoffs. At least I hope not...that'd be really, well...dull. A lot of division champs with .512 winning percentages. Yawn.

          Of the 11 teams that haven't made the playoffs since 2005, there are some that are coming out of rebuidling periods and may be on the verge of competing (Toronto, Milwaukee, Tampa), a few low-budget/poorly managed teams (Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Cincinatti) and a few mid-to-high budget/poorly managed teams (Baltimore, Philadelphia, Detroit, Texas, Colorado). Rebuilding takes time, and no system can be made to overcome bad management.
          Visit my card site at Mike D's Baseball Card Page.


          • #6
            Parity is overrated

            Just about every season, in every sport, you have about 4 teams that look like they have a legitimate chance to win it all. Parity is for the rest. But that is really just the logistics of competition between the second (and thrid and so on) tier teams. Parity and dynasties aren't mutually exclusive, and parity is not defined by how many different World Series, or even division winners there are over a period of time. Its a general (and rather hollow, IMO) characteristic of the overall atmosphere of play.

            The "parity" problem is that, as is, KC will never be able to become one of those 3 or 4 elite teams. Just like their can be dynasties under parity, there can also be disenfranchisement within a structure that has parity in general.

            Parity is about a team's options- not what it chooses to do with them.

            It's just a word that gets thrown around and has little correlation to the fixing the "competitive imbalance problem." The problem isn't that some teams are great and others suck- its that its the same teams that fill those roles every year!

            In the avy: AZ - Doe or Die


            Ad Widget