Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

West is the best. Why?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    West is the best. Why?

    Currently, in all major league sports, the top western teams have better records than their Eastern counterparts. Sometimes by a little — MLB, NFL, NBA — sometimes a fair bit NHL, MLS. I'm curious as to why this is so, as it goes against conventional wisdom, regarding travel etc. The only theory I've come across is that there are fewer distractions on the road. Any other thoughts? Or is it just coincidence?

    #2
    West is the best. Why?

    I think the disparity is relatively pronounced in the NBA where the West has won circa 60% of all games they've played versus the East in the past decade or so. Cumulatively that adds up to a pretty big gulf in quality.

    In a salary capped league where poor teams have first dibs on incoming talent via the draft it is certainly perplexing that the figure has been consistent for as long as it has. You would expect it to correct and revert to the mean eventually.

    Comment


      #3
      West is the best. Why?

      One could imagine that Western teams have an advantage in attracting and retaining free agents, especially given the number of professional athletes who come from California and Texas (though Florida is the other great provider of talent to leagues other than the NHL). There may also be something to the theory that the long-established, well-entrenched nature of Eastern clubs makes them less eager to embrace innovative management techniques and tactics than their Western brethren, though it is easy to find counter examples (e.g., the Texas Rangers in baseball, the Oakland Raiders in the NFL, Edmonton and Calgary in the NHL, etc.)

      I do, however, tend to think that there is a type of reinforcement effect from being in a conference/division with a concentration or either good or bad teams. In the first case, you need to get better unless you have an inelastic fan base (these seem more prevalent in the NHL and NFL than other leagues), in the latter case, there is a serious temptation to do just enough to be competitive, while pocketing the money saved on being good.

      Comment


        #4
        West is the best. Why?

        ursus arctos wrote: There may also be something to the theory that the long-established, well-entrenched nature of Eastern clubs makes them less eager to embrace innovative management techniques and tactics than their Western brethren, though it is easy to find counter examples (e.g., the Texas Rangers in baseball, the Oakland Raiders in the NFL, Edmonton and Calgary in the NHL, etc.)
        Indeed, thats something that I was going to propagate. When you think of the poster children of Western ownership and general managership you think of progressive, dynamic types like Mark Cuban and Billy Beane whose success could be said to be based on their willingness to embrace new ideas compared to their staid Eastern counterparts. However the success of the Rooney's and the Mara's tends to refute that line of thinking.

        It appears that you can win with old school ownership and you can win Young Turks.

        Comment


          #5
          West is the best. Why?

          hagi-stoichkov-romario wrote: I think the disparity is relatively pronounced in the NBA where the West has won circa 60% of all games they've played versus the East in the past decade or so. Cumulatively that adds up to a pretty big gulf in quality.

          In a salary capped league where poor teams have first dibs on incoming talent via the draft it is certainly perplexing that the figure has been consistent for as long as it has. You would expect it to correct and revert to the mean eventually.
          Thanks, I don't follow basketball so only checked the past season. The disparity in the salary-capped, NHL is as strong, or stronger and has been for some time.

          Ursus's theory of reinforcement seems viable. If you play good teams a lot, you'll get better than playing weak ones. If the championship culminates in an East v West final, it also means you have to be damn good to even get out of your division/conference. The NFL and MLB conference structure is, perhaps, fairer for that reason.

          Comment


            #6
            West is the best. Why?

            Amor de Cosmos wrote:
            Originally posted by hagi-stoichkov-romario
            I think the disparity is relatively pronounced in the NBA where the West has won circa 60% of all games they've played versus the East in the past decade or so. Cumulatively that adds up to a pretty big gulf in quality.

            In a salary capped league where poor teams have first dibs on incoming talent via the draft it is certainly perplexing that the figure has been consistent for as long as it has. You would expect it to correct and revert to the mean eventually.
            Thanks, I don't follow basketball so only checked the past season. The disparity in the salary-capped, NHL is as strong, or stronger and has been for some time.

            Ursus's theory of reinforcement seems viable. If you play good teams a lot, you'll get better than playing weak ones.
            Agreed, "competition fuels competition as iron sharpens iron", Jordan 3:16.

            Whilst the Eastern conference has had a few elite teams over the past decade (Pistons, big three Celtics, Bulls when Rose was healthy, 2010-2014 Heat) its second tier and middle of the pack teams have been very substandard when compared to their counterparts in the West. You have to go all the way back to the strike shortened season of 1998/99 to find an 8th seed in the East that won more games than its opposite number in the West.

            When the bar is always lower there is not that much incentive to be any better than military medium. Teams in the West do not have the luxury of resting on their laurels because they have to scratch one another's eyes out just to scrape into the postseason as a low seed.

            Comment

            Working...
            X