The Decline of Sports

Sports aren't going anywhere, it's just that they're not immune to the pressures that every business faces, although generally facing them well off the front pages. Money drives everything, and the game is often played on the outskirts of legality to make more of it. The NBA tries to exploit their refs in quasi-legal ways to maximise profits, and it surprises no one.

The NBA has approached this in the dumbest way possible, the one that everybody can see. And MLB isn't much better by allowing steroids for so long. Issues that all can see will eventually be found out. Best to let players take uppers or something to increase their energy (no, I'm not endorsing that). The NFL is okay for now because steroid bodies can be hidden by the uniforms, but if it weren't for that we'd have the same issues we have elsewhere.

As an aside, I continue to believe that the much maligned Tour de France is the cleanest pro sport in the world because they take drug use seriously and don't just sweep away their issues. Good for them.

But no, the end of sports will never come, as there will always be people like me suiting up to play in adult leagues every weekend. Professional sports are in trouble, real trouble, and they need to face up to this, but something will be around. In what form?

Even if one of the major sports leagues fail, another league will take its place because there is too much money to be made. But, is there a chance that some element of professional "wrestling" will come into sports? Has that already happened in the NBA? I believe it has. I hate to say it, but everything in the book I linked to rang true. We've entered an age of sports as entertainment, and not fully sports.

Cheating And Scandal Will Never Be the End of Sports

Last night I got home and read Mike's previous post, which led to the Deadspin article containing excerpts from a book written by disgraced NBA ref Tim Donaghy. It is indeed a fascinating read, and if it's true, then the NBA certainly has a scandal that I think is even worse than the steroid problem in the MLB.

This past year, I've heard a lot of sports radio talk centered around the steroids in baseball, and at around the time Manny Ramirez made it back to the Dodgers after his 50-game suspension, talk show hosts made note of the warm reception Dodgers fans gave him in that first game and said, "Fans are showing that they just don't care about this steroid mess."

Well, in some ways, this is true. I think the more accurate way to describe it is "people don't care enough about it to say goodbye to baseball."

I've been a baseball fan going on 25 years now. The very best baseball is played in the Major Leagues. College baseball is nearly unwatchable for me. When the steroid scandal hit, MLB dragged its feet for a very long time, finally getting around to suspending players. But the players are allowed back in, the records they may set are not officially tarnished (although baseball writers exact revenge on these numbers by not allowing these guys into the Hall of Fame), and there's no way of knowing whether they are all clean because drugs can be a step ahead of the testing. But for all that, I really have no choice on what MLB does. It's baseball. I love baseball. I will still watch.

It's the same for the lockout that happened 15 years ago. I thought, when a new labor agreement had to be reached a few years later, and there was talk of another lockout, that I might stop watching it if it were to happen. But then I realized, no, I wouldn't. The game I grew up watching and becoming my favorite sport for so many reasons had not changed.

There are a lot of things, I suppose, I wish I could stop enjoying so I could pursue more fruitful endeavors. I guess if I really tried, I could find a way to stop watching (or listening) and I wouldn't notice the void. But every time it's on, and it's either my team or a battle between two good teams, I can't help it. And if someone says they have tickets to the game and I'm not doing anything, I'll go. I think this is the case for many baseball fans, and why stadiums still fill up. It's the game they love...what other avenue is there to watch professionals play?

Sure, there are a few who can stop and do, but clearly it's not going to stop the majority, because they have no alternative. Saying baseball fans, or in the case of the revelations of Tim Donaghy, NBA fans, "don't care" is wrong. We care, we want it completely clean if possible, but in the meantime, the games are still the games we enjoy even if there's something cracked in them.

On the other hand, should officiating in sports become so awful that every game is being altered by horrible calls, you might see an exodus if nothing happens there. Officials can change the game in a meaningful way by interpreting the rules incorrectly or allowing things that are clearly wrong to stand. This is why the NBA scandal could be worse than the MLB steroid problem (although this postseason in the MLB is making me wonder if some umps are on the take). If people start going to games and think that their team is getting hosed because of officiating, and fans take a step further and think the refs are on the take, and there's a lot of evidence supporting this claim, then fans will turn on the sport.

Of course, when fans start turning on the sport, the league will probably make the necessary changes to try to win those fans back...until the next scandal hits.

Microcosm

Tonight's 5-4 loss to the Marlins is business as usual for the Braves. Let me tell you how this one ended:

Bases loaded, 2 out, one of the Braves' better hitters at the plate. They knocked out Marlins closer Leo Nunez after 2 unearned runs got them to 5-4. The excitement was palpable. There seemed to be nothing that was going to stop the Braves from at least tying this game. In comes Brendan Donnelly to relieve Nunez. He throws a pitch...a ball...it gets behind the catcher and he can't find it.

But Matt Diaz at 3rd can't see it either and is halfway down the line...Marlins catcher Ronny Paulino finds it and fires to third...Matt Diaz out...ballgame over.

In games like these, you're hoping for some sort of escape from this situation. The escape never comes. Your team lost on one of the rarest of plays, not to mention rare for a game-ender.

The Braves found themselves in this situation after falling behind the Marlins 5-0, a deficit brought on in big part by an error by Chipper Jones, who allowed a double-play grounder to go into left field earlier in the game and it led to 3 runs. A pitcher the Braves had batted over .370 against decided this was the night he would strike out 16 batters.

The deficit the Braves find themselves in with the standings has been brought on by losing not only these types of games, but the games where they had huge leads that were erased, notably in the 3rd game of the year against the Phillies in which they had a 10-3 lead heading into the 7th inning and somehow lost 12-11. The bullpen, in general, has been a strength of the Braves but they've blown it in the most crucial situations. In 48 save situations between closer Rafael Soriano and part-time closer Mike Gonzalez, they blew 13. In other save situations, the other relievers combined for a 1-for-12 clip, bringing their success rate to 24 blown saves out of 60.

Now, I'm not the type to say my team should have won each and every one of those, because the percentages will be against you on that. But what about half of them? 12 more wins. Hell, they'd be NL East leaders with just that, forget about the Wild Card.

With the way the Braves lost the past two games and the Titans lost this past Sunday, I have seen all of the things that are supposed to be positives for a team fail miserably.

If anyone wants to know why I don't believe in the things that I have railed against in the past, this is why. I've seen my team have what is known as momentum and watched them fail constantly. I've seen the crowd get behind my team, cheering lustily, to be let down. I've seen my team play with emotion and lose. In the end, your team of guys must make the plays that move them forward, and nothing else matters, regardless of how the energy changes in the building or the two teams.

So Why Is the MLB and NHL Champ More Random?

I started out writing this as a comment, but I think it's a subject worthy of study and decided to make it a post.

True, true. MLB and NHL have more random champs than anyone. I wonder, though, how much of the data is skewed between the four sports depending on these factors:

1. Number of teams allowed in the playoffs.

The MLB allows 8, the NHL 16, the NBA 16, and the NFL 12.

My theory, and I would be wrong based purely on this data, is that the more teams allowed in the playoffs, the more random it gets. It wouldn't explain the NBA's higher winning percentage, and wouldn't explain the MLB's lower winning percentage.

It makes me wonder: is the NBA the sport where talent matters the most, and isn't as susceptible to randomness like the other sports?

And then I take a look at the difference between the NCAA tourney and the NBA: randomness occurs far more often, probably because it's one-and-done.

2. Number of games played in the season, skewing winning percentages.

NBA 82, NHL 82, MLB 162, NFL 16.

I think most teams can get into the playoffs with a 10-6 record in the NFL, with some exceptions being lower. 10-6 works out to .625, and even 9-7 is .562. Remember this is your usual wild-card team, so there are teams with better records. It's not uncommon to have a couple of 13-3 (.812) or 14-2 (.875) teams in the mix.

The reason I bring this up is that you don't find teams in any other sport that win more than 80% of their games. In the MLB, 80% is 129-33 (never has happened), the NBA and NHL it's 65-17, which isn't exactly common. I think we can take the NFL out of the "better winning percentage" category based on how skewed the records are due to the amount of games played. Your worst NFL playoff team has winning percentage right around the best of baseball teams.

It still doesn't explain the NBA, though. With the exact amount of games played and number of teams allowed in the playoffs as the NHL, why are those two sports so different?

Could it be that goaltending is an integral part of the NHL, and is a foul in the NBA?

I wonder how the NHL would be without a goaltender (and to the point that an NHL ref could award a goal to a team if the puck is about to go in the goal and is blocked). Your skill guys would take over, and it would be less random. Just a theory. The NBA, meanwhile, mostly allows guys to shoot towards the basket with a reasonable expectation that it won't get blocked. This allows your best shooters to do what they do best. And while shooting is not the only part of the game, and is susceptible to some randomness, I think your skill guys have a better chance to thrive in the NBA.

Meanwhile, in the MLB, there is an obvious randomness that leads a sport with only 8 teams in the playoffs to crown unworthy champs. I've always disliked the idea that in a short series, a team with two good pitchers will find a way to use those guys as often as possible (and we're in the age of the 5-man rotation), and teams get more days off in a week than they do in a week in the regular season. The playoffs are played differently, and therefore, it's mostly a different game.

NHL, same thing. Overtime games are not the same, you no longer have the shootout, and it seems like (and I don't know how to verify this quickly) more penalties are called. I still think the NHL's real reason for having more random champs is just the randomness of the sport itself. Skill guys, while having a better chance at helping their team win, are still subject to the whims of the game.

And in the NFL, this sport is famous for not calling as many penalties in the playoffs, especially the Super Bowl, and therefore the game is changed. Plus, the neutral site (which I don't favor, at all, and the MLB is mulling it over...ugh) for the Super Bowl takes away the home crowd.

So perhaps the NBA has two things going for it: the games aren't played much differently other than harder and more physical, and your skill guys have a better chance to thrive. Therefore, your better teams are going to win more often than not.

Anyone care to comment, refute, or support?