The Champs/Chumps Ratio

8/6/2019 The Champs/Chumps Ratio

1/15

THE

CHAMPS/CHUMPSRATIO

A Study Of Competitive BalanceIn Professional Sports

by STEPHEN TAYLOR


2/15

Alameda, Caliornia

A Study of Competitive Balancein Professional Sports

by STEPHEN TAYLOR

THE

CHAMPS/CHUMPSRATIO


3/15

A Malchats Media Publication

For more inormation

email: [email protected]

First Malchats Media edition, July 2011

A version o this article frst appeared

in the online magazine Teemings (Series 2, Issue 3)

www.teemings.net

2011 Stephen Taylor

All Rights Reserved
http://www.teemings.net/http://www.teemings.net/


4/15

1

Recently, while watching the Golden State

Warriors drop another disheartening loss to

the Oklahoma City Tunder, I consoled myselwith the thought, At least the Warriors won the NBA

championship back in 75. A promo or the next game

led me to continue with, And thats one more than the

Mavericks1 have ever won.

Only a ew seconds later I added, And one more

than the Suns.And the Jazz

And the Nuggets

As one and piled upon another, a surprising

thought hit me: a loto teams have neverwon the NBA

championship.

How many, you ask? Tats what I wanted to know,and a quick check at NBA.com satised my curiosity:

only 17 out o the current 30 teams2 have ever won an

1 Authors Note: this essay was originally written in the Spring o2010; reerences in the rst section o the essay reer to results aso April 2010. Statistics in the rst section are updated to includeresults as o July 2011. Te second section o this article updatesand expands upon the conclusions drawn in the rst hal.2 Roster o NBA teams dates back to 1947 and includes BBAmembers Philadelphia (now Golden State) Warriors andMinneapolis (now Los Angeles) Lakers.


5/15

2

Te Champs/Chumps Ratio

NBA championshipa paltry 56.7%. Tat gurethe

percentage o teams that have ever won a league

championshipwe will call Te Champs/Chumps Ratio.But just how paltry is that 56.7%? Perhaps the NBA

isnt so bad in relative terms. How does that percentage

compare with the other major pro sports leagues?

Only the NHL matches the NBA in competitive

imbalance. An identical 17 o its current 30 teams3 have

ever won the Stanley Cupthe same unremarkableratio o 56.7%. (Hockey partisans do have grounds

to deend their sportsee below or urther results.)

Football ares substantially better: the NFL has seen 22

o its 32 teams win the NFL championship (including

pre-Super Bowl champs), a healthy ratio o 68.8%.

And then theres Major League Baseball. It turnsout there really is something to all that Spring raining

talk about hope and renewal: a ull 22 out o 30 major

league teamsa robust 73.3%have won the World

Series. (See able 1 or a summary o these gures.)

All o this strongly suggests that when it comes

to competitive balance, baseball and ootball are

accomplished pros, while hockey and basketball have a

lot o catching up to do.

Tis comparison works because, thanks to happy

accidents o history and demographics, all our leagues

have nearly the same number o teams and have

3 Stanley Cup history pre-dates the NHL, though two currentteams/ranchisesthe Montreal Canadiens and oronto MapleLeasdid win the Cup in pre-NHL times as members opredecessor leagues (and under a diferent name, in the case ooronto). Both teams, o course, won several Cups in the NHL era.


6/15


7/15

4


relatively imbalanced NHL can boast that many o its

champions were crowned in recent times.

And the NBA? Its worse than you think. Only 12 oits 30 teams, a lowly 40%, have won the championship

since Rick Barry and Al Attles made it happen in

Oakland. Tat is, almost two-thirds o the league has

been shut out since 1975. Clearly, while baseball and

ootball ans have valid hopes or their avorite teams,

most NBA ans are getting hosed. (See able 2 or asummary o the post-1975 gures.4)

Table 2 Total Championships by League, 1976present

LEAGUE NBA NHL NFL MLB

Total Teams 30 30 32 30

Championship Winners 12 15 15 20

Percentage 40% 50% 46.9% 66.6%

O course, ans have many reasons or ollowing

their avorite teams. Rooting or the last team

standing is not everything. But given the evidence

attendance gures, V ratings, the tenor o sports

talk radiowinning is what matters most to ans.And championships are the ultimate expression o the

average ans satisaction.

Te Champs/Chumps ratios indicate that ans o

many teams are doomed to years o rustration. Yet,

as daunting as those numbers may be, the situation is

never entirely hopeless. Many teams that have neverwon a title have come close, reaching their leagues

4 Data in ables 1 & 2 accurate as o July 25, 2011.


8/15

5


championship round at least once. And just two days

aer that aorementioned Warriors-Tunder game, the

New Orleans Saints won their rst NFL championshipaer 42 years o trying. Long-time chumps can indeed

become champs.

But i youre a Suns or Jazz anor, or that matter,

a Warriors andont hold your breath.

UPDAE

More than year has passed since the rst publication o

this essay. In the Spring o 2010, the NBA's Cleveland

Cavaliers still had LeBron James under contract,

nished with the best record in the NBA, and looked

like a reasonable bet to win their rst championship.It didn't work out that way.

Te Boston Celticsa team ull o veterans playing

or a ranchise that is no stranger to the NBA Finals

bounced the Cavs rom the 2010 playos on their way

to a conerence championship. Teir victory set up a

Finals match-up against the deending champion Los

Angeles Lakersyet another ranchise well-acquainted

with hoisting the Lawrence O'Brien rophy.

Te Cavs, meanwhile, watched James make an

ugly exit rom Cleveland, abandoning his home state

or South Beach. In the aermath, Cleveland crashed

and burned during the 2010-11 regular season, setting

new marks or utility (including an epic losing streak)

and completely missing the playosall just one

year removed rom standing on the verge o breaking


9/15

6


through basketball's parquet ceiling and claiming their

long-sought rst championship.

Fast orward to June o 2011: in a stunning run thatew saw coming (see page 1), the Dallas Mavericks

one o those NBA teams starving or that rst

championshiprode a brilliant perormance by one o

the league's star orwards, Dirk Nowitzki, and claimed

their rst crownthwarting the eorts o another star

orward, the erstwhile Cavalier himsel, LeBron James.How's that or irony?

Dallas's win came as a surprise, but it shouldn't

have. As this essay's original text noted, long-time

losers can overcome past ailures and win it all. A year

aer the long-suering New Orleans Saints won their

rst Super Bowl title, the even longer-suering ChicagoBlackhawks captured their rst Stanley Cup since

1961and a year later the Boston Bruins ollowed it up

with theirrst title since 1972. And Fall 2010 saw the

longest-suering-o-all San Francisco Giants win their

rst World Series title since 1954. Te Mavericks' parlay

came as just one more in a series o new or long-absent

teams joining the roster o recent champions.

Tough these wins came as long-awaited relie,

those long-suering ans should have received their

healing victories much sooner. Fans should expect a

level playing eld rom proessional sports leagues.

"Te pros" is where money talks and the ability to

buy a championship is a time-honored strategy.

Many sco at "parity," but pro sports are supposedto

possess the virtue o competitive balance. Tere is


10/15

7


no reason or pro leagues to suer rom the "usual

suspects" syndrome that bedevils college athletics. It's

all about building a winner by having the money andthe will to spend it wisely. Long-time incompetents

like the Pittsburgh Pirates or Detroit Lions have only

themselves to blame.

Even with the Mavericks nally breaking through,

the numbers shown above still lean heavily against

the NBA. Can we really expect to see more improvedcompetitve balance in the NBA in the uture?

Whenever it seems as though a newcomer is about

to join the clublike the now hapless Cavaliersthe

league's small roster o dominant teams reasserts itsel

and slaps down the challengers. Perhaps the current

labor strie will radically reorient the economics o theleague and deliver great equity both at the bank and on

the arena foor. But history suggests believing that when

you see it.

* * *

Another way to look at the issue o competitive

balance in the our major sports leagues is to

examine the record over time and see how evenly

championships are distributed. o that end, I have

compiled a chart (See able 3, below) listing each

league's number o rst-time champions per decade.

Each league ollows a similar pattern: in early

seasons, the championship gets spread around among

several teams. Later, as a ew teams establish


11/15

8


themselves as their sports' dominant ranchises, the

roster o new champs grows thin. (Note that zeroes in

the columns below show up mostly during the middleyears o a league's history.) Later still, as expansion

brings in new teams to compete or the title (and thin

the talent pool, and pull away some o the revenues),

new champions emerge once again.

Table 3 First-time Champs by Decade (rom 1900 onward)

Decade NBA NHL NFL MLB

1900s -- -- -- 5

1910s -- -- -- 3

1920s -- 2 3 4

1930s -- 2 3 1

1940s 2 0 2 0

1950s 4 0 2 1

1960s 0 0 1* 2

1970s 5 1 5 0

1980s 1 3 1 2

1990s 3 4 1 2

2000s 2 3 4 2

* Includes only NFL champions. I AFL champions are added to tally, thenumber or the 1960s becomes 5, and 1970s total becomes 4 (Dallas exans/Kansas City Chies won AFL championships in the 60s, prior to the Chies

victory in Super Bowl IV in 1970). Includes all 12 years post-1999. Includes World Series results rom 1903. Baseballs modern era began 1901,

though major league baseball (National League) dates back to the 1880s. Includes Stanley Cup champs rom NHL era, 1927 onward.

For our purposes, the heart o the matter lies in

the last two rows o the chart above. Note that the

NBA has crowned ve brand new champions in the

last two decadesa tally pushed up rom our thanks


12/15

9


to the Mavericks' victory this year. Te NFL matches

that result with ve new champions o its own. Both

leagues still trail the NHL's seven newly-mintedStanley Cup winners. Strangely, MLB has the worst

showing on this list, but that gure is less damaging

than it appears; we have already established baseball's

bona des on competitive balance.

Te gures in able 3 are suggestive, but not

denitive. Tey paint a picture o relative equalitybetween the several sports leagues when it comes

to competitive balance. We need to go deeper to

nd a measure that provides a true comparison o

competitive balance.

Perhaps the best metric or this comparison lies

in the number o teams who have played or thechampionship. Aer all, winning the championship

is great, but in a league with a truly level playing eld,

we should at the very least see a healthy mix o teams

in the championship game or seriesincluding a air

collection o those also-rans who have yet to win a

title despite their years (even decades) o trying.

able 4 (see next page) contains the data, by

decade, or the number o dierent teams to have

played or the championship. And here's where the

rubber meets the road. In these columns we see how

ar behind the NBA lags in competitive balance.

Simply put, ewer teams reach the NBA Finals than

reach the championship round o any other league.

Add up the total number o championship contestants

in the past two decades plus (the 1990s and 2000s,


13/15

10


including 2010 and 2011) and the contrast grows much

clearer: NHL - 31; NFL - 28; MLB - 25; NBA - 22. And

that comparison gets even worse when the '80s are

added to the total (NHL - 39; NFL - 38; MLB - 39;

NBA - 27). Only ve diferent teamsan astoundingly

small number in the expansion erabattled or the

NBA crown in the '80s, an era widely hailed as the

game's golden era. (A similar dearth o competition

stains another "golden age," MLB in the '50s.) No other

Table 4 Number o diferent teams to play or thechampionship (rom 1900 onward)

Decade NBA NHL NFL* MLB

1900s -- -- -- 7

1910s -- -- -- 9

1920s -- 4 -- 9

1930s -- 7 5 8

1940s 5 6 7 10

1950s 8 5 6 71960s 5 5 10 11

1970s 10 7 7 8

1980s 5 8 10 14

1990s 11 16 13 10

2000s 11 15 15 15

* Includes NFL champions rom 1933 onward (no playos pre-1933. otals

or decades based on seasons; Super Bowl winners in January counted orprevious years season. Does not include AFL championship games, but doesinclude Super Bowl participants rom 1966 season onward.

Includes all 12 years post-1999. Includes World Series results rom 1903. Baseballs modern era began 1901,

though major league basebal l (National League) dates back to the 1880s. Includes Stanley Cup champs rom NHL era, 1927 onward. Te 7 gure or

the 1930s comes rom the Original Six plus the Montreal Maroons, whowon the cup in 1935 beore olding in 1938.


14/15

11


league in the last our decades has had such a small

number o teams compete or the ultimate prize. Nor

has any league in the last 22 years had ewer total

teams vying or the crown than the NBA.

Adding it all togetherthe raw numbers o to teams

to have won championships, overall and recently; the

distribution o rst-time champions; and the number

o teams to make the nal round o playwe can

conclusively state that the NBA does not measure up tothe other pro leagues in competitve balance.

One nal comparative measure must be mentioned:

as noted beore, the NBA does not measure up in the

more nebulous metric o ans' expectations.

Basketball partisans may use any one o the

measures presented in this study to claim the NBAmatches up with its peers. For instance, the NBA has

had as many rst-time champions recently as the NFL

or MLB. But who really has more hope or uture

success, a Detroit Lions an, a Kansas City Royals

anor a Minnesota imberwolves an?

Football and baseball have seen their share o"worst to rst" teams; how oen do you see that in

the NBA? Small-market teams nd ways to win in

baseball (wins), and even a team in Green Bay,

Wisconsin can thrive in the revenue-sharing NFL.

But how long has it been since the Portland rail

Blazers were a legitimate threat to win the title?

wenty seasons, since their last trip to the Finals in

1992. And don't orget, Portland enjoys the benets

o Paul Allen's Microso moneythey are nota


15/15

12


nancially poor team. So why then haven't they

broken through lately? Poor luck? Sure, there's there's

been some o that (injuries to Oden and Roy). Baddecisions? Undoubtedly so (bad hirings, bad rings,

bad dra picks).

Yet, Portland's utility has just as much to do

with the nature o the NBA and its almost caste-like

structure o winners and losers. Elite status? Tat

belongs to the Lakers and Celtics, and you'd better winthe lotteryliterallyi you want to crash that party.

And even then, there are no guarantees. O course,

no sport guarantees success to any o its participants,

yet more oen than not, the NBA is where good

ortune (such as a number one overall dra pick) goes

to die. And history then repeats itselusually in theorm o a championship or the Lakers.

All o preceding promises more o the same or

a league that has long been tilted in avor o the

priveleged ew. As always, there are Champs, and

there are Chumpsand then there are the people

who buy season tickets, again and again, to watch the

Warriors or the Pacers. Tose hopeul souls may not

be Chumps, but the evidence remains clear: theyre

not getting their moneys worth.

The Champs/Chumps Ratio

Documents

Transcript of The Champs/Chumps Ratio