The State of Parity Today
“Tanking” has become a word people are applying to baseball, with various agendas being pushed in advance of the CBA negotiations. No matter where you stand on the merits of the argument, it’s at least a curiosity that now, perhaps more than ever, almost everybody seems to have a chance. It’s easier than it’s ever been to build a roster capable of making the playoffs, and the landscape feels like it’s mostly in balance. You probably already knew these things. If you’re a big fan of looking at stuff you already know, wait’ll you see what I have in store for you here!
Ben Lindbergh wrote an excellent article at Grantland last March about the broad trend toward greater parity within the game. There’s not very much for me to add, because in classic Lindbergh fashion, he went into incredible detail, following every thread. You should read that article from start to finish, and all I’m really here to do now is add a little more data. As I noted earlier today, this is projection season, so it’s of interest to see what the projections are saying. They’re saying what you might’ve already been able to guess about the American and the National Leagues.
What we have here right now are projections based on Steamer. Within a few weeks we’ll also fold in ZiPS to make it a 50/50 blend, and ZiPS and Steamer don’t always see eye-to-eye, but today we’ll use what’s available. Okay, now, think about the leagues. How do you expect them to shake out? You probably think of the AL as being pretty even. Meanwhile, you probably figure the NL more or less groups teams into two tiers. Maybe three. Great — let’s visualize that, also including preseason projected information going back to 2005.
I split by league, and then for each season, I calculated the standard deviation, in terms of wins, for preseason projected records. This works as a measure of parity, and though the projection systems differ over the years, all projection systems try to do the same thing so it shouldn’t be that big of a deal. Here, look at the National League, first. A dozen years of preseason standard deviations:
This year’s spread looks as big as it’s been in the window, with the 2016 figure tying the 2005 figure. You could argue there’s parity at the top of the league, I suppose, but the league itself is clearly split. Steamer’s six worst projected teams are all in the NL. Then you get the Diamondbacks as being okay, and the Marlins as being okay, and then you move into the higher tier. Every single tanking accusation — those teams are all in the same league, and the Brewers and Reds aren’t finished selling. The Padres and Rockies have yet to truly begin. The NL, in other words, has obvious winners and losers.
The American League is the complete opposite:
Look at how stable that used to be. Look at the more recent slope. If this were a mountain that you were coming down, you’d have to be careful, because with one slip you might end up dead. At the time, 2014 had the lowest observed standard deviation. That was eclipsed in 2015, and it’s been eclipsed again in 2016, at least as far as Steamer is concerned. The league is incredibly well balanced, with no dominant teams and no awful teams, and if you consider the Orioles and/or the White Sox as a little below-average, those are teams that might still add Yovani Gallardo, Dexter Fowler, and/or Ian Desmond. Everybody in the AL could conceivably be a playoff team. Everybody in the AL could conceivably end up a cellar-dweller. There are still better and worse teams, relatively speaking, but this is extreme, as parity goes. Steamer sees just an eight-win difference between the AL’s worst team and the AL’s second-best team.
Maybe you’re wondering about the outcomes, instead of just the projections. Obviously I can’t do anything about 2016, but here’s the NL over 11 years:
There was decent observed parity between 2005 – 2007, but things have been more lopsided since then, 2014 blip aside. As for the AL:
It holds well with the earlier plot. Which is funny — on a team-by-team sense, the 2015 AL projections went terribly. There was actually a point where you would’ve been better off believing the opposite of the preseason projections. But the projections still nailed the parity, forecasting a pretty even league, which is basically how things played out. There was more real-life spread than projected spread, but that’ll almost always be the case, just because of how these things work.
Steamer isn’t a perfect system, and the numbers will change some when we get ZiPS information included, but I don’t think there’s much room here for disagreement. The NL is clearly tiered, whereas the AL is more like a narrow-ranged gradient. The NL feels kind of like how baseball used to be. The AL feels more like what we should get used to. There will always be teams with more resources, but with the playoffs within easier reach, teams should be less incentivized to bottom out, and I think the NL teams doing that are mostly correcting for previous mistakes. We shouldn’t see too many teams tear down, in theory, once the current repairs have been made. It could be a future of parity, across both of the leagues.
That’s my own speculation; I don’t know for sure where baseball is going to go. But there are two things about parity: (1) everyone feels like they have a chance, and (2) there’s a greater role of luck in determining outcomes. That’s just how it is when there isn’t much spread in talent, and that can be considered either a good thing or a bad thing. You’ve heard before about how you can’t predict baseball. With greater parity, it’s only going to get even harder.
Jeff made Lookout Landing a thing, but he does not still write there about the Mariners. He does write here, sometimes about the Mariners, but usually not.




Take the second graph, get rid of the title, and shift a little to the right, and you’ve got a graph of the Padres’ win totals (in tens).
I bet if you did that SD plot for team payrolls you find something pretty similar for each league.
I wonder how much, if any, of the parity we see can be attributed to the elimination of PED’s. Since the normal aging curve has shifted due to PED elimination, teams now have players locked up through the majority of their primes, or at least part of the players primes. It seems you simply cannot shop your way to the post season with a roster of players 30+ years old with rare exception. So now small market teams can cpete via draft and develop.
Where is the evidence PED’s have been eliminated? A former MLB investigator said he thought upwards of 20% of players are on PED’s at any one time. Biogenesis proved that players can use w/o testing positive, and the Al Jazeera’s report suggests the same.
5 of the 10 top PA for the Royals were from players over 30, and 3 of the top 5 IP leaders were over 30. They won the World Series.
I don’t doubt that there are guys using PEDs, but if it’s as widespread then it’s helping pitchers out a lot more then hitters all of a sudden.
In most cases….
RIP Grantland
Well you did just mention a big point, all of the bad teams happen to be in the NL. It’s just how things lined up.
On an overall basis, the breakdown of market sizes for clubs in the bottom half of baseball is 9NL, 6AL. You would, on average, expect teams that have to periodically rebuild to be from the NL more often. I think it’s funny because out of the teams that are rebuilding (or not predicted to be good) they are all small teams except Philly (who had a ton of other problems).
I think when most people talk about true parity in baseball what they want is big teams to have to be as smart as small teams to win long term. Let’s take an example: the Cardinals. While they are in a smaller market (though the numbers listed are way too low considering their fanbase is much larger than just St Louis itself) they have been successful through good spending, good trading, good drafting,and good development. Now take those teams from the mid 2000s and give them the ability to double their budget. They were already one of the best teams because they were just better constructed.
money doesn’t mean your team is automatically better but that’s because having a rich team doesn’t mean you have a good front office or scouting department. As a matter of fact in the past it’s mostly covered up that weakness and you’re seeing that come to fruition lately with teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs and Phillies. Specifically note the Yankees this year have no FA spending. They are waiting for money to come off of the books on their old roster to attempt to play things smarter instead of tossing cash around to every FA out there worth buying.
I guess the most recent showing of the parity thing is KC. But how much easier would a repeat have been if they could have just signed Grienke and Price this winter? Or the Pirates sign them and Chris Davis?
What about expansion? With the number of people competing for each MLB spot going up and up (population increases, overseas players) wouldn’t it make sense to add a couple of teams, get some differences going again and end the age of parity?
Does anyone even really like parity? I like that some teams are strong and some are weak, just so long as everyone has a chance to be strong eventually if they play things right.
I blame the lack of DH in the NL. Let’s use this to get DH in both leagues.
Of course this most likely nothing to do with this, but hey, something has to be the scapegoat.
Can anyone explain to me why baseball has such parity, while the NBA has such jaw-dropping disparity these days? The obvious answer that NBA rosters are, on average, ~56% the size of an MLB 25-man roster, and so it is easier to accumulate a core of elite players in the Association. But is that really a sufficient explanation for one team being 48-4 and another 8-45? That has never happened in baseball, and likely never will. Is there some structural difference between the two collective bargaining agreements (draft, trade rules, salary cap vs. luxury tax, and so on) that explains it? Are MLB teams just better at analytics? Some other reason? I’m genuinely puzzled.
Largely yes – the best NBA players are worth on average about 3 times as much as the best MLB players, so the scales get tipped much more easily
Actually its more like 6x as valuable because there are half as many games so the WAR is twice as valuable.
And to the original point, is because look how much the best player is effecting the game. He can be involved in nearly 100% of the offense, and can be playing defense as well. If you have a guy like Trout, he is playing 11% of the offense and an even less percentage on defense.
So basically think of adding an elite player like Labron similar to something like, adding one Kershaw and five Trouts to your team, or something ridiculous like that.
Not only that, but it’s just the nature of a game where scoring opportunities come every few seconds. The sample size, you could call it, in any given game is so large that the more talented teams are more likely to win.
Imagine if baseball games were 50 innings long. You wouldn’t see very many games where Andrew Romine got a hit in every at-bat.
It’s rather impressive that the NBA has been able to maintain the fanbase it has when league championships are so heavily concentrated and the very vast majority of teams know they have absolutely no chance at the title before the season even begins.
A lot is also the fact that the draft is more certain as well. Top end talent really does make your team vastly better. Skills across leagues and talent levels translate much much better. Raw athleticism means a lot too.
Baseball is the outlier in talent scouting across sports because it takes so long for players to be ready to pitch against major league hitters and for hitters to hit against major league pitchers. You really have no idea what you draft or trade for until 2-5 years later. It’s why you see a high bust rate even in the top 10 spots in drafts.
More interpretations of graph data through moutaineering metaphors please thanks