On Competitive Balance

Keith and I were engaging in a text conversation about competitive balance and MLB versus English Premier League soccer. We were discussing the news that Chelsea is interested in Liverpool striker Fernando Torres when I made the following throwaway comment: "well, EPL is the original MLB when it comes to money. Although MLB has more competitive balance."

Well, I only thought it was a throwaway comment. Keith of course hates baseball, so this led to a discussion, which led me to this thought:

How do you frame competitive balance?

What defines it?

Keith and I, two avid sports fans, two guys keenly interested in world futbol, came from this concept in totally different directions. I am going to lay both lines of thought out briefly, although I probably won't do Keith's justice.

I argue that MLB has more competitive balance than not only the EPL, but at least comparable to every other American sports league. I think this is true for these reasons:

• baseball has had many winners in the last decade - 8 in 10 seasons if my memory serves correctly (Yankees-2000, Dbacks-2001, Angels-2002, Marlins-2003, Red Sox-2004, White Sox-2005, Cardinals-2006, Red Sox-2007, Phillies-2008, Yanks-2009).
• baseball also had by my unofficial count 23 of 30 teams that made the playoffs in the first decade of the 21st century (the lone clubs to not make the postseason - Bucs, Reds, Nats, Royals, O's, Blue Jays, Rangers).
• baseball has a playoff where anything can happen

Keith's reason against baseball (again, I apologize for any overarching simplicity) was that, in any given year, there are only approximately 5 teams that can win it all. When pressed to name pre-season favorite this year, I would name the following: Yanks, Red Sox (those 2 every year), Rays, Phillies, Cardinals, Twins. I could only name 6, and that might come from having played almost two months already, and it also might come from the way I think about baseball.

In any event, this leads me to the question that I hope will solicit comments - what exactly is competitive balance? How should Keith and I frame this argument?

World Cup Qualifying Match Day 5 - On to Chicago

As the weekend is upon us, and I sit here at my desk at work, I am getting excited for the big sports weekend at hand. Stanley Cup Finals with the Pens involved, some golfing with Keith, the Belmont, and McCutchen’s continued debut for the Bucs are all on mind; however, something else has captured my imagination above all of this: the U.S. Soccer World Cup qualifier versus Honduras, at Chicago’s Soldier Field.

I, along with many of my collegues, am a big fan of European football, especially when the national side is on the pitch. U.S. Soccer is almost at a crossroads here for the 2010 Cup, as after tomorrow’s match, half of the qualification round will be over. The U.S. right now are 2-1-1, with wins coming against Mexico and Trinidad, a draw at El Salvador, and an ugly 3-1 defeat at the hands of Costa Rica earlier this week. During Cup qualifying, it is important to get points at home and pick up a few points here or there on the road. After the first half of qualifying, the U.S. will have two home matches remaining against three on the road. Since this is the almost halfway point, it seemed like a good time to ask three burning questions of U.S. Soccer:

• What the heck happened in Costa Rica? The U.S., plainly and simply, did not show up. There are a lot of reasons that we got destroyed in San Jose. It is a ridiculous atmosphere (as most of them are in Central America), where the crowd is loud, boisterous, and right on top of you. These crowds are infamous for their nastiness and vulgarity; it is not uncommon for someone to throw bags of urine at the American players. Add to this that the Yanks traditionally do not experience much success in Costa Rica. It totals up to portend that the U.S. may have not had a chance at all going into the match. Still, the poor quality of U.S. play cannot be overlooked. The Ticos notched two goals in the first 12 minutes of the match, and the U.S. never recovered. They scored a meaningless penalty in the 90th minute (taken skillfully by Donovan), but a listless performance needs to be remedied against Honduras tomorrow.

• What was Bob Bradley thinking with the lineup against the Ticos? Bradley started with a 4-3-3 formation in San Jose. You read that correctly; the U.S. had three men on the attack. When was the last time this happened? My formative futbol years were watching Bruce Arena’s squads employ a single striker at the top of the formation (usually Brian McBride). These Arena teams would utilize a patient type of soccer, defending and defending and waiting for a chance to counterattack. They were not always the most fun to watch (certainly not comparable to, say, the Dutch Oranje) but they got results and had a great finish at 2002 Korea/Japan. On Wednesday, the Yanks had Jozy Altidore and Clint Dempsey flanking Landon Donovan. This left their back four exposed when the midfield pushed up into the attack. Add to the fact that Marvell Wynne looked lost on the pitch, and DeMarcus Beasley is currently being miscast as a left back, and you get a defence that looked uninspired, disorganized, and lacking confidence. What can be done about this? I am not tactical expert, but I think a 4-4-2 or 4-5-1 would be more appropriate. I think something with Donovan and Altidore up top, Dempsey and Beasley on the outside with Mastroeni and Bradley manning the central mids, and a backline of Hedjuk, Onyewu, Bocanegra, and Bornstein with Tim Howard in goal would be an effective, responsible way to start the match.

• What is the overall goal of U.S. Soccer? This is the most important question for me right now. It is important to determine what we will consider success in South Africa. On the backs of the impressive finish in Korea, expectations were way too high for the squad that went to Germany. U.S. typically does not play well on European soil. Couple this with the fact that teams have more success on their home continents in World Cup play, and it was easy to predict that the U.S. would bow out before the Round of 16 (side note - getting in the Group of Death with Italy, Ghana, and the Czech Republic certainly did not help matters, nor did FIFA's archaic seeding system that valued the results of the '98 Cup more than it did the complete domination of Mexico by U.S. from 2000 through present times; Mexico were seeded, U.S. were not, and Mexico ended in a group with Portugal, Angola, and Iran. Also ignore the fact that I didn't predict this at the time). So what factors go into determining how the U.S. should do in South Africa? It is unwise, in my opinion, to ignore the importance of the group in which U.S. are placed. Therefore, the factors seem to me to be: (1)form, (2)continuity of success (from '02, allowing a hiccup in Germany), (3) difficulty of group (to be assessed in December 2009), (4) location (it should be one of the most neutral sites possible in the world, no advantage to anyone except for the home Bafana), and (5) the quality of manager decision-making (currently, the biggest question mark on this squad). For me, a reasonable goal would be to advance to the knockout stage and threaten to get to the quarterfinals (if not get there entirely). We can look at the world footballing order right now and determine that U.S. are not one of the top 8 footballing nations in the world. However, luck in the form of a few breaks is always huge at the World Cup finals, and the U.S. have the ability to get to the round of 8. Where do we go after 2010? When will we compete for a World Cup tournament title? This is the question that needs to be asked of U.S. Soccer administration.