NBA vs NFL competitive balance

[LooseCannon]

I just wanted to bring up some numbers I posted in a comment on one of blog posts here.

Consider the last 12 seasons for both the NFL and NBA.

A random NFL team could expect an average of about 4.5 playoff appearances, while a random NBA team could expect an average of about 6.4 playoff appearances.

Actual NFL playoff appearances had a standard deviation of 2.53. Actual NBA playoff appearances had a standard deviation of 2.81

Looking at teams more than one standard deviation away from the average number of playoff appearances.

NFL teams with fewer than 2 playoff appearances: 4 (Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, Houston)
NFL teams with more than 7 playoff appearances: 3 (Indianapolis, New England, Philadelphia)
NBA teams with fewer than 4 playoff appearances: 3 (Charlotte, Golden State, LA Clippers)
NBA teams with more than 9 playoff appearances: 3 (Dallas, LA Lakers, San Antonio)

The numbers aren't entirely accurate because of expansion teams that were not active for that entire period (and I may have made transcription errors in spending the fifteen minutes necessary to run the numbers), but they should be about right.

Now, if you want to bring up competitive balance in terms of teams that actually win a title, one explanation is that the NFL has a single-elimination playoff system, while the NBA has multiple seven-game series.  Luck becomes more of a factor.  A few bad calls by the refs can knock you out of the playoffs in the NFL.  A few bad calls may cost you the game in the NBA, but the better team can still overcome that and win the series.  The NFL (by necessity, since there are only so many games a team can play) has a playoff system where the team that is the favorite is less likely to advance to the next round of playoffs (or to win the title in the final game/round). 

To put it bluntly, if you think that NFL fans have more hope of winning a Super Bowl than NBA fans have of winning the Finals, the main reason is because it's a lot easier to get lucky in the NFL, not because of a hard cap creating more competitive balance.  The defining feature of the truly hopeless teams tends to be bad management/ownership.  No hard cap can prevent the Lions from being the Lions or the Clippers from being the Clippers.

[wdleehi]

I just wanted to bring up some numbers I posted in a comment on one of blog posts here.

Consider the last 12 seasons for both the NFL and NBA.

A random NFL team could expect an average of about 4.5 playoff appearances, while a random NBA team could expect an average of about 6.4 playoff appearances.

Actual NFL playoff appearances had a standard deviation of 2.53. Actual NBA playoff appearances had a standard deviation of 2.81

Looking at teams more than one standard deviation away from the average number of playoff appearances.

NFL teams with fewer than 2 playoff appearances: 4 (Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, Houston)
NFL teams with more than 7 playoff appearances: 3 (Indianapolis, New England, Philadelphia)
NBA teams with fewer than 4 playoff appearances: 3 (Charlotte, Golden State, LA Clippers)
NBA teams with more than 9 playoff appearances: 3 (Dallas, LA Lakers, San Antonio)

The numbers aren't entirely accurate because of expansion teams that were not active for that entire period (and I may have made transcription errors in spending the fifteen minutes necessary to run the numbers), but they should be about right.

Now, if you want to bring up competitive balance in terms of teams that actually win a title, one explanation is that the NFL has a single-elimination playoff system, while the NBA has multiple seven-game series.  Luck becomes more of a factor.  A few bad calls by the refs can knock you out of the playoffs in the NFL.  A few bad calls may cost you the game in the NBA, but the better team can still overcome that and win the series.  The NFL (by necessity, since there are only so many games a team can play) has a playoff system where the team that is the favorite is less likely to advance to the next round of playoffs (or to win the title in the final game/round). 

To put it bluntly, if you think that NFL fans have more hope of winning a Super Bowl than NBA fans have of winning the Finals, the main reason is because it's a lot easier to get lucky in the NFL, not because of a hard cap creating more competitive balance.  The defining feature of the truly hopeless teams tends to be bad management/ownership.  No hard cap can prevent the Lions from being the Lions or the Clippers from being the Clippers.

You are more likely to win in the NFL because it is more of a team sport vs. the NBA which is a superstar sport.



You don't have to have a top 5 player in the NFL to win a title.


And there are only so many to 5 players in the NBA. 




Can't really look at appearances.  More teams (4) make the NBA playoffs vs. the NFL. 

[LooseCannon]

Can't really look at appearances.  More teams (4) make the NBA playoffs vs. the NFL. 

I accounted for the different number of team making the playoffs by counting the number of teams that were more than one standard deviation away from the average number of playoff appearances.

[nickagneta]

And there are only so many top 5 players in the NBA. 

 

Yeah....like.... 5.

Sorry wd, had to go there that was left too wide open not to.

[LooseCannon]

Of course, Dallas, Miami, and Detroit are teams that have recently won a title without having a player finish in the top five in MVP voting.

[KCattheStripe]

And there are only so many top 5 players in the NBA. 

 

Yeah....like.... 5.

Sorry wd, had to go there that was left too wide open not to.

[action781]

You are more likely to win in the NFL because it is more of a team sport vs. the NBA which is a superstar sport.

You don't have to have a top 5 player in the NFL to win a title.


And there are only so many to 5 players in the NBA. 

I disagree somewhat.

Rodgers was a clear top 5 player in 2011.  Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, and Brady were all clear top 5 players for the 4 superbowls they won (I don't think Brady was yet in '02).  Ray Lewis was a clear top 5 in '01.

I think that if NFL had playoff matchups be 7 game series, then the teams built around superstars would have won more too.  I don't believe the Giants would have beaten the Patriots in a 7 game series in 2007.  I think the Rams would have outlasted the Patriots in '02, etc. and both of those teams were superstar driven.

So, I think it has more to do with the luck factor in single game elimination than team vs. superstar orientation of the game.  That's why I love the NBA playoffs.  I think it's winner is the much truer champion than in NFL or MLB.

[PosImpos]

I think it's worth taking into consideration that lower seeded teams have a much better chance of winning a title in the NFL than in the NBA, meaning the threshold for "contending" in the NFL is much lower.  

Also, it seems to me that in the NFL there are much larger turnarounds from year to year in terms of number of wins; a team could be well out of the playoffs one year, and a 1 or 2 seed the next.  When merely making the playoffs means that a team is a "contender," this great variability in wins means greater parity.

(Yes, I do think that "parity" should be defined by how level the playing field is for winning a title / Super Bowl, not merely making the playoffs)

[The Walker Wiggle]

Great post, LooseCannon. I've argued the same.

The best five teams in the Eastern Conference at the end of 2009-10 season were, in order, Cleveland, Orlando, Atlanta, Boston and Miami. All five of those teams won fewer than twenty-five games at some point in the decade — Atlanta won as few as thirteen. While at the bottom of the standings were New Jersey, Washington, Philadelphia, Detroit and New York - three of those five were Finalists over the same span. The NBA already has parity.

Broader revenue sharing for small market teams is more the issue than competitive parity.

[indeedproceed]

I think it's worth taking into consideration that lower seeded teams have a much better chance of winning a title in the NFL than in the NBA, meaning the threshold for "contending" in the NFL is much lower. 

Also, it seems to me that in the NFL there are much larger turnarounds from year to year in terms of number of wins; a team could be well out of the playoffs one year, and a 1 or 2 seed the next.  When merely making the playoffs means that a team is a "contender," this great variability in wins means greater parity.

(Yes, I do think that "parity" should be defined by how level the playing field is for winning a title / Super Bowl, not merely making the playoffs)

See I don't agree with that, or at least I think we're talking about different things. In the NBA, usually the toughest, most healthy, and most worth team wins a 7 game series. Shouldn't that team always be the champion?

If the issue is that the NFL has more 'parity' because they have had a larger # of different franchises as champions in the past 20 yrs, I think that's completely and utterly dependent on a 1 game per round playoff structure, and its unrelated to revenue sharing, or a hard cap or any of that.

[Roy H.]

I think it's worth taking into consideration that lower seeded teams have a much better chance of winning a title in the NFL than in the NBA, meaning the threshold for "contending" in the NFL is much lower. 

Also, it seems to me that in the NFL there are much larger turnarounds from year to year in terms of number of wins; a team could be well out of the playoffs one year, and a 1 or 2 seed the next.  When merely making the playoffs means that a team is a "contender," this great variability in wins means greater parity.

(Yes, I do think that "parity" should be defined by how level the playing field is for winning a title / Super Bowl, not merely making the playoffs)

See I don't agree with that, or at least I think we're talking about different things. In the NBA, usually the toughest, most healthy, and most worth team wins a 7 game series. Shouldn't that team always be the champion?

If the issue is that the NFL has more 'parity' because they have had a larger # of different franchises as champions in the past 20 yrs, I think that's completely and utterly dependent on a 1 game per round playoff structure, and its unrelated to revenue sharing, or a hard cap or any of that.

My guess is that division winners, teams in the conference finals, etc., vary more in football, too.

In the NBA, barring huge free agent movement or injuries, you can pretty much predict the top four teams in each conference at the beginning of the year (or the end of the previous year) and be right more often than not.  That's not really the case in the NFL.

[PosImpos]

I think it's worth taking into consideration that lower seeded teams have a much better chance of winning a title in the NFL than in the NBA, meaning the threshold for "contending" in the NFL is much lower.  

Also, it seems to me that in the NFL there are much larger turnarounds from year to year in terms of number of wins; a team could be well out of the playoffs one year, and a 1 or 2 seed the next.  When merely making the playoffs means that a team is a "contender," this great variability in wins means greater parity.

(Yes, I do think that "parity" should be defined by how level the playing field is for winning a title / Super Bowl, not merely making the playoffs)

See I don't agree with that, or at least I think we're talking about different things. In the NBA, usually the toughest, most healthy, and most worth team wins a 7 game series. Shouldn't that team always be the champion?

If the issue is that the NFL has more 'parity' because they have had a larger # of different franchises as champions in the past 20 yrs, I think that's completely and utterly dependent on a 1 game per round playoff structure, and its unrelated to revenue sharing, or a hard cap or any of that.

My guess is that division winners, teams in the conference finals, etc., vary more in football, too.

In the NBA, barring huge free agent movement or injuries, you can pretty much predict the top four teams in each conference at the beginning of the year (or the end of the previous year) and be right more often than not.  That's not really the case in the NFL.

Yeah.

While I can't disagree that the parity in the NFL is largely due to the single elimination system, the variation in number of wins and seeding from year to year is indicative of a competitive landscape that frequently changes.  The NBA is not like that.  The comparison I'd make is between the NFL and NCAA basketball -- the NCAA also uses a single elimination system, which makes it possible for underdogs to make deep runs, even to the title game.  However, because the teams are on completely uneven footing when it comes to recruiting and coaching, the teams you see win each year tend to be the big names.  

In the NFL, only a handful of teams stay out of contention for very long stretches at a time, and that's almost always due to poor management, not a lack of money or an inability to attract / hold onto free agents.

How often in the NBA do you see a team go from being a non-playoff team to a title favorite?  It happens all the time in the NFL.

[wdleehi]

And there are only so many top 5 players in the NBA. 

 

Yeah....like.... 5.

Sorry wd, had to go there that was left too wide open not to.

You would be surprised the number of times such wide open questions come back wrong in school.

[wdleehi]

Of course, Dallas, Miami, and Detroit are teams that have recently won a title without having a player finish in the top five in MVP voting.

Top 5 player.


Not top 5 media darling at the end of the regular season.

[ManUp]

It's as Wdleehi says. Top 5 players are the make and break point when it comes to winning in the NBA. Teams like the Pistons that won without one are few and far between. The fewer pieces you have playing the more they each matter and vice versa. IMO, the impact one player can have on a game in the NBA is so much greater than that of the NFL.