Quick question about the “parity” narrative

[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.