Quick question about the “parity” narrative

[eebmg]

Well, if the favorites win on Saturday, all top 8 seeds are in the E8, Realistically, only 2 seed Iowa has a chance of losing to 3 seed NC state

Got to like that.

 

[BroadwayVa]

Don't know whether there is parity of mediocrity. That is almost certainly not true in many professional sports. The worst MLB teams of today could probably beat the best MLB teams of the 1920s. Likewise, the worst NHL teams of today could probably beat the best NHL teams of the 1940s. While I seriously doubt whether, say, Tulane 2018-19 could beat the 1997-98 Lady Vols, I suspect they are probably better than most of the 5-11 teams of that year. Could be wrong. But we'll never know.

It is a great premise that the current team could beat the 40's teams. You'll never know or the 20's B team same is true. A circular argument-and no argument here. Just not prove able. . In those sports where bigger, stronger are required you may be right.
I was speaking specifically of the Womens Basketball teams since 1980. You are right if you think I should have stated that, but since this is UCWBB site, I thought it understood.

 

[connie]

Does anyone really want true parity? When baseball got closer to "parity" everyone complained about mediocrity. Th Tat is the definition. When everyone in a class gets a 90 on an exam statistics tell us that 90 is now average (whose grade is a C). I used this concept in a statistics course i taught. Before giving exams I asked the class if they wanted actual grades or be grades on the "curve". They wanted a curve, Everyone loved it when the first test was hard and a 62 was an A. Got a totally different reaction when I gave an easy test where the average was 92 and that got them a C. The UConn women like the Yankees of old were hated or loved but were required watching by both sides. In my view "good for the game".

I think this way of framing the issue misses a critical component--that is, whether overall performance improves across all participants. To see the point, consider a 3rd grade class of children with a class average of 92 on spelling tests over the course of a semester. Depending on the facts, this could reflect tests are so easy that even children of lesser ability are able to achieve high. scores. Conversely, it could reflect excellent performance by children of exceptional intelligence on tests that are exceedingly difficult. In both cases, one sees a kind of parity across the class.

In athletics, "excellence" in performance has subjective as well as objective components. But both components reflect the limitations of what is humanly possible. Consider the women's deadlift. The record is 694 pounds. Will any women ever be able to deadlift 2000 pounds? Obviously not. How about 1000 pounds? Almost certainly no. How about 800 pounds? Probably not; but who knows? 750 pounds? Possibly. 725? 700? As among those women at the top of their sport who compete in the deadlift, it is reasonable to assume that the average deadlift will continue to increase as performance ability approaches the wall of what is humanly possible, while the differences between competitor performance shrinks. In this respect, the "class average" may well be "C". But it hardly follows that there is mediocrity among class members (that is, unless we define "mediocre" in the narrowest sense as meaning "average").

If what we want among the best athletes is the best that can possibly be achieved given the limits of flesh and blood, then the tendency toward parity is invariably a necessary outcome. In that respect, we would certainly want a tendency toward parity.

 

[connie]

It is a great premise that the current team could beat the 40's teams. You'll never know or the 20's B team same is true. A circular argument-and no argument here. Just not prove able. . In those sports where bigger, stronger are required you may be right.
I was speaking specifically of the Womens Basketball teams since 1980. You are right if you think I should have stated that, but since this is UCWBB site, I thought it understood.

With all respect, I think you have it backwards. That a team from today could beat a 40's team is not the premise; it is the conclusion. The premise is that under circumstances of competition over time, with increased pools of available talent, developments and improvements in training, technique, nutrition, strategy, technologies, etc., athletic performance will improve over time. I think the premise is sound theoretically and is demonstrated historically. From the premise one can conclude that today's athletes are "better" at their sport than those of, say, 80 years ago. This is true in every single sport (running, jumping, swimming, skating, skiing, lifting, etc.) that measures performance by reference to some absolute (time, distance, height, weight, etc.) So far as I am aware, there is no exception.

In any case, that something is not "provable" does not mean a reasonable argument cannot be convincingly made in support of a proposition. Outside of the hard sciences, very little is literally "provable" in the strict sense of the word. But that does not prevent us from weighing the merit of propositions in light of the evidence and the application of reason. True, we will never be able to "prove" that the 1899 Cleveland Spiders could beat the 2018 Boston Red Sox in a 7-game series. But it would be a defeatism of reason to suggest that it is exceedingly likely. The question is "why"? My post attempted to address that.

 

[BroadwayVa]

You'll have to explain what you mean in stating that there is a "circular argument-and no argument here." Admittedly, I may be missing something.

In any case, that something is not "provable" does not mean a reasonable argument cannot be convincingly made in support of a proposition. Outside of the hard sciences, very little is literally "provable" in the strict sense of the word. But that does not prevent us from weighing the merit of propositions in light of the evidence and the application of reason. True, we will never be able to "prove" that the 1899 Cleveland Spiders could beat the 2018 Boston Red Sox in a 7-game series. But it would be a defeatism of reason to suggest that it is exceedingly likely. The question is "why"? My post attempted to address that.

My meaning is simple--Circular an un-ending argument/discussion with no conclusion seems futile to discuss sports in a circular manner. You are right scientist discuss the unanswerable questions all the time--as a learning tool.
I'M STILL NOT ARGUING ANYTHING.
No argument here: 2 meanings 1. I'm not arguing your posting 2. I wasn't discussing anything other than Women's BB since 1980.

 

[connie]

My meaning is simple--Circular an un-ending argument/discussion with no conclusion seems futile to discuss sports in a circular manner. You are right scientist discuss the unanswerable questions all the time--as a learning tool.
I'M STILL NOT ARGUING ANYTHING.
No argument here: 2 meanings 1. I'm not arguing your posting 2. I wasn't discussing anything other than Women's BB since 1980.

Glad to see we are not arguing!

That something has no end does not Necessarily make it circular.

I disagree that the absence of any “conclusion“-at least in any sense of achieving absolute scientific certainty-negates the need for or legitimacy of discussion. Just because absolute certainty cannot be achieved hardly means that discussion is futile. If such a position were the case, it would effectively eliminate a substantial realm of human inquiry, Including many of the hard sciences, and potentially even areas within the fields of mathematics.

 

[Sven23]

Does anyone really want true parity? When baseball got closer to "parity" everyone complained about mediocrity. Th Tat is the definition. When everyone in a class gets a 90 on an exam statistics tell us that 90 is now average (whose grade is a C). I used this concept in a statistics course i taught. Before giving exams I asked the class if they wanted actual grades or be grades on the "curve". They wanted a curve, Everyone loved it when the first test was hard and a 62 was an A. Got a totally different reaction when I gave an easy test where the average was 92 and that got them a C. The UConn women like the Yankees of old were hated or loved but were required watching by both sides. In my view "good for the game".

Parity is buzz word for someone winning more than certain people want. There are only so many stories the media can write about dominance. True parity is actually mediocrity in most cases b/c a large number can't really be good at the same time. Look at the NFL, Patriots have won 6 Superbowls, been to 9 and been in the AFC title game I believe every year but 3 since 2001. Does anybody talk about lack of parity? NO! You can look at other pro sports. MCBB, etc,,,it's mostly the same core teams that are at or near the top most years. What you can say about the NFL or NBA or MCBB is when the perennial good team play poorly they have a much higher chance to lose than WCBB. Most of the Patriots losses last year were to teams that didn't make the playoffs. Golden State has gone blown out several times this year by teams that aren't close to making the NBA playoffs. Most of the blue bloods in MCBB have some losses to teams that on paper make you scratch your head. One could argue that's what some night call parity. When the better team plays poorly, the lesser teams have enough skill and talent to beat them. The any given Sunday montra in the NFL.

 

[connie]

Parity is buzz word for someone winning more than certain people want. There are only so many stories the media can write about dominance. True parity is actually mediocrity in most cases b/c a large number can't really be good at the same time. Look at the NFL, Patriots have won 6 Superbowls, been to 9 and been in the AFC title game I believe every year but 3 since 2001. Does anybody talk about lack of parity? NO! You can look at other pro sports. MCBB, etc,,,it's mostly the same core teams that are at or near the top most years. What you can say about the NFL or NBA or MCBB is when the perennial good team play poorly they have a much higher chance to lose than WCBB. Most of the Patriots losses last year were to teams that didn't make the playoffs. Golden State has gone blown out several times this year by teams that aren't close to making the NBA playoffs. Most of the blue bloods in MCBB have some losses to teams that on paper make you scratch your head. One could argue that's what some night call parity. When the better team plays poorly, the lesser teams have enough skill and talent to beat them. The any given Sunday montra in the NFL.

I think we are in agreement in so far as most of what you say here confirms the proposition that as overall improvement increases, the difference between the best and worst narrows.

I do not agree with the proposition: “True parity is actually mediocrity in most cases b/c a large number can't really be good at the same time.” I think that “true parity” may in some cases reflect mediocrity. It may just as easily reflect excellence across-the-board.

Of course, much depends on what you mean by “good”. The worst team in major league baseball today is probably better than most teams in major league baseball 50 years ago. The 1927 Yankees were considered “good“. But I am pretty sure that they would be soundly defeated in a seven game series against the 2018 Baltimore orioles. (In fact, while I have not looked, I would not be surprised at all if the fielding percentage at each position for the 2018 orioles is higher than the same figure for the 1927 Yankees. This would be consistent with the data showing that fielding percentages have increased over the decades; players at each position are getting better and better defensively than their counterparts in previous decades.)


In this sense, “true parity“ among 2018 teams in a given sport does not necessarily reflect mediocrity, at least not in the sense in which most people understand that word. In fact, probably reflects the opposite.