Comments on: The Dissolution of the NBA Playoffs’ Ruling Class

By: yariv

yariv — Wed, 11 May 2011 18:30:25 +0000

I would say that in soccer (in Europe, I don't follow the MLS) the main reasons for the dominance of some teams are:
A) No (or very weak) equalizing mechanisms. There is no draft, no salary cap, no maximum wage, etc.
B) No play-offs. The championships in the national leagues are decided by a double-round-robin competition. The European title is decided by a play-off style competition, and no team has won consecutive titles in 20 years.

By: BSK

BSK — Wed, 11 May 2011 03:17:26 +0000

Oh really, Neil? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m43sRhRZUWI

By: Matt, Colombia

Matt, Colombia — Tue, 10 May 2011 23:36:47 +0000

@24 First off, great posts. I agree with what you say about high level soccer except there are two main problems: the same teams always win their leagues because they have far superior players, yet those same teams will lose to those others and even some from inferior leagues.

If you put the best 2 or 3 NBA teams against a D-league team, they would never lose. Ever. In Soccer, those teams that dominate their league will still lose every once in a while to teams from a lower league. That means there is some element of randomness.

Also, when the league champs play every year in the UEFA cup, it is again very random who wins. Those champs crush their league teams sometimes 5-0, but the best teams are probably the 2 from Spain every year, but they don't always win. Finally, teams that don't win their league still win that cup.

By: Neil Paine

Neil Paine — Tue, 10 May 2011 17:56:06 +0000

Which just goes to show that 10 feet of air is just not a very effective goaltender.

By: aweb

aweb — Tue, 10 May 2011 17:46:07 +0000

I should note that each sport of the big four likely contains a similar number of potential scoring plays - every pitch in baseball (~250-300/game), every snap in football including special teams (~200-300 a game?) and every puck directed toward the net in hockey (50-80 shots on goal, maybe 3x that that don't result in an offical shot) - to basketball, with ~200 shots a game (counting free throws). It might be more technically correct to call basketball a "high probability of success" game, rather than a large sample game, as it's really the large sample of success that matters when reducing the randomness of the outcomes. Complete success (a made shot is the best possible outcome, essentially) is frequent in basketball for the offense, but is rare in other sports where successes tend to be more partial (taking a walk, getting a first down, cycling the puck and drawing a penalty). Anyway, the main point stands, but I felt the need to nitpick my own post some more...

By: BSK

BSK — Tue, 10 May 2011 17:19:35 +0000

Aweb-

Thanks! I tried to touch on that in my original post, noting that hockey had lower scores and thus more randomness, but I didn't explain it nearly as well as you did here.

By: aweb

aweb — Tue, 10 May 2011 15:37:04 +0000

Thanks, sorry for the typos. I should note the exception to the "low scoring means more upsets" rule - Soccer. Scoring is so hard to do in soccer, that the best teams often win by simply shutting out the other team, and 2-0 becomes a "blowout" win. Because of the offsides rules and the huge advantage the goalies have (using their hands...), and lots of other game dynamics I don't quite understand, it's almost impossible to score in a flukey way in high level soccer. Unlike hockey's basic scoring play - throw it at the net and hope it takes a funny bounce (I love hockey, but it can be pretty annoying sometimes).

By: Neil Paine

Neil Paine — Tue, 10 May 2011 14:37:04 +0000

#22 - Great comment.

By: aweb

aweb — Tue, 10 May 2011 11:57:55 +0000

Basketball tends to have the top teams win more because it is a large sample game with 100-150 scoring plays (FG, FT) every game. Baseball has 1-20, hockey 1-15, football 1-20, each with a huge variance compared to basketball. The best teams are only about 5-10% better, like most major sports, but in each game, the actually has a chance to be borne out to a large extent. In any of the other major sports, putting together 4-5 consecutive scores makes victory very likely. In basketball, this happens for both teams several times a game, and is easily overcome. I like that basketball is like this, and it is very hard for an inferior team to pull off upsets.

In general, the higher scoring the sport, the less likely upsets are. The NHL had dynasties in the late 70s and early 80s (Islanders, Oilers) in part because the game was higher scoring. Baseball depends too much on the starting pitcher, a factor no other sport has - it would be similar to NHL teams having a 5 goalie rotation, or NFL teams using different quarterbacks each week.

By: Jason J

Jason J — Tue, 10 May 2011 04:31:44 +0000

SynicFan - Too true. Kenny Smith outright admitted that it was all about matchups in the mid-90s West. His Rockets always beat the Suns, and Barkley's Suns always beat the Sonics, and Gary's Sonics always beat the Rockets (until Houston picked up Charles that is).