Parity In Baseball - A Blessing or a Curse?

[DonRocks]

Who watched the game last night! Wow, what a thriller!

Someone definitely proved their werth!

"Werth, LaRoche Rally Nats For Walk-Off Win Vs. Halos" by Bill Ladson on mlb.com

And then today they fall to the Padres, 4-2.

I've been trying to stay silent to avoid jinxing the Nats. 

Dammit, as much as I've always loved baseball, and always will, there's something fundamentally wrong with a sport that has so much built-in parity.

I get it: it maximizes round-the-league revenue and interest in smaller markets, but it isn't right.

The Yankees are all the more impressive for having won so many damned World Series. 

As in: 1923, 1927, 1928, 1932, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939, 1941, 1943, 1947, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1956, 1958, 1961, 1962, 1977, 1978, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2009 (and even here, they had cold streaks of 15 and 18 years without a championship).

To be precise:

1920s: 3 championships

1930s: 5

1940s: 4

1950s: 6

1960s: 2

1970s: 2

1980s: 0

1990s: 3

2000s: 2

Do you see how free agency (which began in 1975), expansion (1969), and the mighty Orioles (1960s, 1970s) killed them? (Sorry - had to get that one in, but the mighty Yankees were the team you *loved* to hate, and what's so wrong with that?)

Best post-live-ball records in baseball history, and whether or not they won the World Series:

1954 Cleveland Indians: 111-43, Lost (season shifted from 154 games to 162 games in 1961 (American) and 1962 (National)

2001 Seattle Mariners: 116-46, Lost (you've got to win the series to be in the discussion for GOAT - unfair, but true)

1927 New York Yankees 110-44, Won (featuring the legendary Murderer's Row, and batting .308 as a team)

1998 New York Yankeees 114-48, Won (must be included in any serious discussion of greatest team of all time)

1931 Philadelphia Athletics, 107-45, Lost

1939 New York Yankees, 106-45, Won

Of these, since the 1969 expansion, only the 1998 Yankees has ever had the best regular-season record, and won the World Series.

There's something about a sport where a team (the 1972 Miami Dolphins) can win the Super Bowl by going 17-0. Complete, total, dominance. *That* is truly memorable.

Or the 1995-1996 Chicago Bulls going 72-10.

In baseball, when your teams goes 110-52, you're considered one of the very greatest teams of all time, and even then, you've only won less than 68% of your games - hardly dominance - and there's probably only about a 30% chance of becoming World Series Champions (just a guess on that latter point).

I am not a fan of parity in sports. Yes, in drafts, it's fair I suppose, but salary caps annoy me. Let the rich get richer, and let us hate the Yankees, dammit. It's fun! (We don't really hate them by the way; but we can't actually *admit* that we respect them!)

"‹I have *always* had this problem with baseball, and yet, it's what makes it so damnably lovable. I think.

It would help things, in my mind, if we didn't have so much free agency resulting in "Musical Players." It kills the love for a city's team, at least it does for me.

Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. Parity, my eye. Let the best win.

[tentimesodds]

Perhaps your frustration with the Nats is less that the inherent parity of baseball reduces their talent advantage, and more that the Nats are just not as good as you thought they would be?

Also, it's April.