I don’t disagree with that assessment of the trend toward more competition and greater parity over time. That said, the Elo-based expected sweeps measure should in theory account for changes in the distribution of team strength over time. Yet even after controlling for more competitive matchups on paper, we get fewer sweeps than we “should”.
The lack of sweeps is a symptom of a much larger seismic change in sports over time. Specifically, as talent has been allowed to move more freely within sports, the landscape has become more competitive and there are fewer dynasties and sweeps as a result.
Recall, that in the 1950s it was frequently noted - accurately - that the Yankees' AAA farm team was superior to most MLB teams at the time. A handful of teams had a virtual monopoly on talent and most races were over after the All-Star Break. Consequently, fan interest outside of those few teams was not high. Just consider how much of baseball's history in its first 50 years is confined to those few teams versus the last 50.
As an A's fan who watched as they won three straight Championships in the early 70s with a Coliseum often not at capacity during the Series, I watched with great interest when the Seitz decision was handed down in 1975 and the reserve clause effectively eliminated. Laser focused because the A's saw an immediate drain of talent and the media uniformly told me that free agency would "ruin baseball."
They were wrong...it was the opposite.
The game quickly became more competitive and interesting to a wider swath of fans. As the supply of talent was able to move more freely to satisfy demand, monopolies on talent were reduced and greater competition was fostered. The results were immediate. Races were closer, often coming down to the final weeks. Championship banners were no longer a fait accompli as Bob Cousy so candidly noted recently.
Importantly, with family-owned baseball teams (many of which viewed their team as a mere hobby) now less able to make money through artificially low labor costs, teams began to be sold to new aggressive ownership groups who were successful in other lines of business. These new owners were familiar with the rigors of the marketplace and what it took to be successful. They brought with them money and new ideas that expanded the competitive landscape. It is not an overstatement to say that the entire Moneyball fervor was the direct result of the Seitz decision 25 years earlier.
Additional changes have been felt in other ways as well through efforts such as elimination of discriminatory color lines, franchise expansion, challenger leagues (e.g. the AFL and ABA), salary caps, Draft incentives and luxury taxes. In each case, these developments allow for greater movement of labor and increased competition among teams.
Consider how much time today is taken up talking about roster construction versus just a decade ago. Consider also that the Washington Capitals just bought CapFriendly - a free website - to help them manage the cap. This is all the result of increased labor movement and pay - and is a great thing for fans - even if the media is so often oblivious to their impacts.
Yes, the Chiefs won the Super Bowl - but could have easily lost to San Francisco. Some of the Patriots' Championships came down to one or two key plays. Injuries aside, the difference between professional sports teams today is razor thin. Boston is not that much better than Dallas, and neither are the Panthers compared to Edmonton - even if they both sweep. Don't be fooled - just ask the Nuggets who were anointed as a dynasty just a year ago.
The game today is more competitive and entertaining for everyone when there exists greater labor freedoms and fewer dynasties and sweeps.
The greater movement of labor is admittedly a more subtle, slower developing impact. To your point, let me offer a thought experiment.
If you were to take a group of people that you felt comprised a statistically significant sample size and had them watch a number of games and evaluate and grade the officiating throughout in various sports - similar to Pro Football Focus - what would you expect to see going in? I would expect to see a spectrum of grades from the NFL as the lowest (poorest) to golf at the highest (best). My expected order, worst to first, would be as follows: NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, and golf.
Some of that would reflect the number of players interacting, the relative speed of the game, the dimensions of the playing surface, the number of officials and the complexity of the rule book - to name a few. One result would be fewer sweeps, where a single bad call - a bad blocking call or technical foul, a wrong tripping call resulting in a power play, an obviously wrong pass interference penalty and an allowed impermissible drop from a hazard - impacts the outcome. Some of that would reflect more effective use of replay by the various sports to reverse incorrect calls.
Regardless, when I see your chart, it strikes me - one person's opinion - as entirely expected and reflective of a human element negatively impacting the outcomes of very close games over time where models likely are not able to fully capture those aberrant outliers. This is particularly true for postseason games that I sense are becoming more competitive as rosters reshuffle each year, inadvertently magnifying a relatively small number of negative human intervention in outcomes as time moves forward.
I don’t disagree with that assessment of the trend toward more competition and greater parity over time. That said, the Elo-based expected sweeps measure should in theory account for changes in the distribution of team strength over time. Yet even after controlling for more competitive matchups on paper, we get fewer sweeps than we “should”.
The lack of sweeps is a symptom of a much larger seismic change in sports over time. Specifically, as talent has been allowed to move more freely within sports, the landscape has become more competitive and there are fewer dynasties and sweeps as a result.
Recall, that in the 1950s it was frequently noted - accurately - that the Yankees' AAA farm team was superior to most MLB teams at the time. A handful of teams had a virtual monopoly on talent and most races were over after the All-Star Break. Consequently, fan interest outside of those few teams was not high. Just consider how much of baseball's history in its first 50 years is confined to those few teams versus the last 50.
As an A's fan who watched as they won three straight Championships in the early 70s with a Coliseum often not at capacity during the Series, I watched with great interest when the Seitz decision was handed down in 1975 and the reserve clause effectively eliminated. Laser focused because the A's saw an immediate drain of talent and the media uniformly told me that free agency would "ruin baseball."
They were wrong...it was the opposite.
The game quickly became more competitive and interesting to a wider swath of fans. As the supply of talent was able to move more freely to satisfy demand, monopolies on talent were reduced and greater competition was fostered. The results were immediate. Races were closer, often coming down to the final weeks. Championship banners were no longer a fait accompli as Bob Cousy so candidly noted recently.
Importantly, with family-owned baseball teams (many of which viewed their team as a mere hobby) now less able to make money through artificially low labor costs, teams began to be sold to new aggressive ownership groups who were successful in other lines of business. These new owners were familiar with the rigors of the marketplace and what it took to be successful. They brought with them money and new ideas that expanded the competitive landscape. It is not an overstatement to say that the entire Moneyball fervor was the direct result of the Seitz decision 25 years earlier.
Additional changes have been felt in other ways as well through efforts such as elimination of discriminatory color lines, franchise expansion, challenger leagues (e.g. the AFL and ABA), salary caps, Draft incentives and luxury taxes. In each case, these developments allow for greater movement of labor and increased competition among teams.
Consider how much time today is taken up talking about roster construction versus just a decade ago. Consider also that the Washington Capitals just bought CapFriendly - a free website - to help them manage the cap. This is all the result of increased labor movement and pay - and is a great thing for fans - even if the media is so often oblivious to their impacts.
Yes, the Chiefs won the Super Bowl - but could have easily lost to San Francisco. Some of the Patriots' Championships came down to one or two key plays. Injuries aside, the difference between professional sports teams today is razor thin. Boston is not that much better than Dallas, and neither are the Panthers compared to Edmonton - even if they both sweep. Don't be fooled - just ask the Nuggets who were anointed as a dynasty just a year ago.
The game today is more competitive and entertaining for everyone when there exists greater labor freedoms and fewer dynasties and sweeps.
The greater movement of labor is admittedly a more subtle, slower developing impact. To your point, let me offer a thought experiment.
If you were to take a group of people that you felt comprised a statistically significant sample size and had them watch a number of games and evaluate and grade the officiating throughout in various sports - similar to Pro Football Focus - what would you expect to see going in? I would expect to see a spectrum of grades from the NFL as the lowest (poorest) to golf at the highest (best). My expected order, worst to first, would be as follows: NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, and golf.
Some of that would reflect the number of players interacting, the relative speed of the game, the dimensions of the playing surface, the number of officials and the complexity of the rule book - to name a few. One result would be fewer sweeps, where a single bad call - a bad blocking call or technical foul, a wrong tripping call resulting in a power play, an obviously wrong pass interference penalty and an allowed impermissible drop from a hazard - impacts the outcome. Some of that would reflect more effective use of replay by the various sports to reverse incorrect calls.
Regardless, when I see your chart, it strikes me - one person's opinion - as entirely expected and reflective of a human element negatively impacting the outcomes of very close games over time where models likely are not able to fully capture those aberrant outliers. This is particularly true for postseason games that I sense are becoming more competitive as rosters reshuffle each year, inadvertently magnifying a relatively small number of negative human intervention in outcomes as time moves forward.