All Things Being Equal

When fans discuss a league for a period of time, something that inevitably comes up is parity. This seems to be the goal of any league – the idea that all of the teams in the league are similar enough talent-wise that it's highly possible for any team to beat any other team on any given night. This also implies that any team has a reasonable shot at winning a championship. The idea certainly has merit. If you're a fan, you know that the chances of your team winning it all or at least being competitive are pretty good.

But if you listen to Bob McCown, one of Canada's most knowledgeable sports broadcasters (both loved and despised by many), he'll tell you point blank that parity is the worst thing that could possibly happen to a league. When you look back over the history of pro sports in North America, what kinds of team-related things do you remember? The Yankees' dominance in the 50's, the Islanders in the early 80's and the Oilers immediately after that, the Red Wings in the late 90's, and the Rock of the late 90's/early 2000's. Do you look back fondly on the years of parity? Do you even know when they occurred? No, you don't. You remember the dynasties.

With the dynasties come the, well, anti-dynasties, I suppose. We also remember the teams that were really bad for long periods of time – the Senators of the mid-90s, the lowly Nordiques before Eric Lindros turned them into the powerhouse Avalanche, the Maple Leafs for most of the last 40 years, and the Clippers, Pirates, and Cubs seemingly forever. Again, do you remember the years when all the teams were pretty good, but nobody was awesome and nobody was terrible?

So parity isn't so good for the history books, but is it good for the fans? That depends. I've been a Maple Leafs fan all my life, and apart from a few good years in the 80's and a few more in the 90's, they've been mediocre at best for the majority of that time, and downright awful for quite a bit of it. A little parity sounds like a pretty damned good idea there. The Jays were terrible from 1977 until about 1984, then good for the rest of the 80's, awesome in the early 90's, then dropped off and have been no better than pretty good for the last fifteen years. The Raptors were terrible for a while, then pretty good for a few years, and now they're terrible again. The aforementioned Cup-winning Islanders and Oilers are both pretty bad these days. It's a terrible feeling watching your favourite team lose, and know that they're going to have a lousy season and are not likely to improve for at least a couple of years. That feeling is made even worse knowing that some other teams are likely to be awesome for that entire period. I'm sure parity would be welcome to fans of those teams as well.

But I've also lived the other side of the equation, thanks to the NLL. I became a Rock fan in 2001, when they had already won two championships. The total number of home games they lost was in single digits for several years. In their first seven seasons, they won five championships and lost a total of two playoff games. The Wings stole the 2001 championship away (don't get me wrong, they earned that victory), but the Rock stormed back and won the next three of the next four. I can tell you that parity in the NLL was the last thing that Rock fans wanted around 2005.

So for the fans the conclusion is hardly surprising – when your team is winning, parity is something you want to avoid. When your team is losing, parity is something to strive for. How about for the league as a whole?

Obviously most leagues think that parity is ideal. They want fans from all of their teams to continue to pay money to come out to the games as much as possible. This is easier when all the games are meaningful because each team still has a chance to make the playoffs and win it all. This is at least part of the reason we have salary caps and luxury taxes and such, so that some teams can't outspend the rest of the teams by 200% and buy themselves a stacked team. Of course that wouldn't happen in a league without a salary cap, would it? Well, the pre-cap Toronto Maple Leafs and New York Rangers tried it for a number of years, but just ended up with some very expensive losing teams. But this strategy has worked very well for the New York Yankees, and has made the Yankees one of the most hated teams in all of North American sports, outside of New York anyway. It has also turned the Yankees into one of the biggest draws at MLB stadiums all over North America, and has made them one of the most valuable sports franchises in the world. And at the same time, MLB is doing very well financially, thank you very much, with no salary cap. Parity shmarity. How's that salary cap working for your owners, Mr. Bettman?

The NLL east has been pretty even for a couple of years. Only 2 games separated 2nd from 5th last year. In 2009, the top 3 teams had the same record 10-6 record, and in 2008, the top four were 10-6. The west has been kind of weird for a few years. Minnesota's 5-11 regular season record (.313) in 2010 is the second worst ever to make the playoffs in the NLL, and the third worst ever in any sport*. Calgary ran away with the west in 2009, and in 2008 San Jose and Colorado tied for the division lead with records just above .500.

In 2011, you've got a couple of strong teams (Washington and Boston) but nobody that's unbeatable. You've got some weak teams (Philly, Colorado, Minnesota), but nobody who's really terrible. And everybody else could easily find themselves in the playoffs or fighting for a spot. Could Washington repeat? Sure they could. It's way too early to say "dynasty", but they could easily be in the running again this year. But could I predict a Rush championship without looking like an idiot? Sure I could. Or the Blazers. Or the Rock. Or the Bandits. Could the Roughnecks win without Sanderson or Kelusky? Well, the Oilers won without Gretzky, so anything's possible.

* In the 1993 and 1994 NLL (called the MILL at the time) seasons, three different teams made the playoffs with 2-6 (.250) records. In the other major sports, only the 1952-53 Baltimore Bullets of the NBA were worse: 16-54 (.229). No NFL team has ever made the playoffs with a record under .500. In baseball, the 1981 KC Royals made the playoffs at 50-53 (.485), though that was a strike-shortened season. And my beloved Leafs made the playoffs in 1987-88 with a 21-49-10 record, which is .263 in wins (21 wins in 80 games) but ties screw things up. They got 52 out of a maximum of 160 points, which is .325.

Meme: Books I have read

Have you read more than 6 of these books? The BBC believes most people will have read only 6 of the 100 books here. How do your reading habits stack up?

Instructions: Copy this entire document. Look at the list and put an 'Yes' after those you have read [I bolded them too]. (Watching the movie DOES NOT COUNT)

Pride and Prejudice - Jane Austen - Yes
The Lord of the Rings - JRR Tolkien - Yes
Jane Eyre - Charlotte Bronte - No
Harry Potter series - JK Rowling - Yes
To Kill a Mockingbird - Harper Lee - Yes
The Bible - No
Wuthering Heights - Emily Bronte - No
1984 - George Orwell - No
His Dark Materials - Philip Pullman - No (only the first one "The Golden Compass")
Great Expectations - Charles Dickens - No
Little Women - Louisa M Alcott - No
Tess of the D'Urbervilles - Thomas Hardy - No
Catch 22 - Joseph Heller - No
Complete Works of Shakespeare - No, just a few in high school
Rebecca - Daphne Du Maurier - No
The Hobbit - JRR Tolkien - Yes
Birdsong - Sebastian Faulk - No
Catcher in the Rye - JD Salinger - Yes
The Time Traveler's Wife - Audrey Niffenegger - No
Middlemarch - George Eliot - No
Gone With The Wind - Margaret Mitchell - No
The Great Gatsby - F Scott Fitzgerald - Yes
Bleak House - Charles Dickens - No
War and Peace - Leo Tolstoy - No
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams - Yes
Brideshead Revisited - Evelyn Waugh - No
Crime and Punishment - Fyodor Dostoyevsky - No
Grapes of Wrath - John Steinbeck - No
Alice in Wonderland - Lewis Carroll - No
The Wind in the Willows - Kenneth Grahame - Yes
Anna Karenina - Leo Tolstoy - No
David Copperfield - Charles Dickens - No
Chronicles of Narnia - CS Lewis - No (3 of the 7)
Emma - Jane Austen - No
Persuasion - Jane Austen - No
The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe - CS Lewis - Yes (Um... part of the Chronicles or Narnia above)
The Kite Runner - Khaled Hossein - No
Captain Corelli's Mandolin - Louis De Bernieres - No
Memoirs of a Geisha - Arthur Golden - No
Winnie the Pooh - AA Milne - No
Animal Farm - George Orwell - Yes
The Da Vinci Code - Dan Brown - Yes
One Hundred Years of Solitude - Gabriel Garcia Marquez - No
A Prayer for Owen Meaney - John Irving - No
The Woman in White - Wilkie Collins - No
Anne of Green Gables - LM Montgomery - No
Far From The Madding Crowd -Thomas Hardy - No
The Handmaid's Tale - Margaret Atwood - No
Lord of the Flies - William Golding - No
Atonement - Ian McEwan - No
Life of Pi - Yann Martel - Yes
Dune - Frank Herbert - No
Cold Comfort Farm - Stella Gibbons - No
Sense and Sensibility - Jane Austen - No
A Suitable Boy - Vikram Seth - No
The Shadow of the Wind - Carlos Ruiz Zafon - No
A Tale Of Two Cities - Charles Dickens - No
Brave New World - Aldous Huxley - No
The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night - Mark Haddon - No
Love In The Time Of Cholera - Gabriel Garcia Marquez - No
Of Mice and Men - John Steinbeck - No
Lolita - Vladimir Nabokov - No
The Secret History - Donna Tartt - No
The Lovely Bones - Alice Sebold - No
Count of Monte Cristo - Alexandre Dumas - No
On The Road - Jack Kerouac - No
Jude the Obscure - Thomas Hardy - No
Bridget Jones's Diary - Helen Fielding - No
Midnight's Children - Salman Rushdie - No
Moby Dick - Herman Melville - No
Oliver Twist - Charles Dickens - No
Dracula - Bram Stoker - Yes
The Secret Garden - Frances Hodgson Burnett - No
Notes From A Small Island - Bill Bryson - No
Ulysses - James Joyce - No
The Inferno - Dante - No
Swallows and Amazons - Arthur Ransome - No
Germinal - Emile Zola - No
Vanity Fair - William Makepeace Thackeray - No
Possession - AS Byatt - No
A Christmas Carol - Charles Dickens - No
Cloud Atlas - David Mitchell - No
The Color Purple - Alice Walker - No
The Remains of the Day - Kazuo Ishiguro - No
Madame Bovary - Gustave Flaubert - No
A Fine Balance - Rohinton Mistry - No
Charlotte's Web - EB White - No
The Five People You Meet In Heaven - Mitch Albom - No
Adventures of Sherlock Holmes - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle - No
The Faraway Tree Collection - Enid Blyton - No
Heart of Darkness - Joseph Conrad - No
The Little Prince - Antoine De Saint-Exupery - No
The Wasp Factory - Iain Banks - No
Watership Down - Richard Adams - No
A Confederacy of Dunces - John Kennedy Toole - No
A Town Like Alice - Nevil Shute - No
The Three Musketeers - Alexandre Dumas - Yes
Hamlet - William Shakespeare - Yes
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - Yes
Les Miserables - Victor Hugo - Yes

So I've read 18 of the 100 books. But the Harry Potter series is seven books, and Lord of the Rings is three more! That should count for something. And the entire works of Shakespeare shouldn't be listed as a single book.

Get over it

Your team has just traded for a player who is one of the best players in his sport, and has been for much of the last decade. We're talking about a lacrosse player who has the following credentials:

• NLL MVP
• NLL Championship (Rochester Knighthawks)
• NLL Championship game MVP
• MLL Offensive Player of the Year
• MLL MVP
• World Indoor Lacrosse Championship (Team Canada)
• Mann Cup (Peterborough Lakers)
• Mann Cup MVP

That's a pretty impressive list for any career. But consider this: those are John Grant, Jr.'s accomplishments in 2007 alone. Not listed here are his accomplishments in other years: rookie of the year awards (2), other championships (2 MLL, 2 Mann Cup, one World Indoor Lacrosse, one World Outdoor Lacrosse, one Heritage Cup), other MVP awards (2 more), and MLL Offensive Player of the Year awards (2 more). Guy's got more hardware than Home Depot.

So now this guy is on your team, and all you had to give up for him was a guy who has never played for your team in the first place, and you got for free anyway. Great news, right? Why would any fan be upset about acquiring such a player? Well, just ask Colorado fans how they feel about acquiring Grant last week. Not all of them think this was a great idea, in fact some are quite unhappy with the deal. Why? Because they don't think he's that good? Absolutely not. Nobody is arguing Grant's talent. It's because of a split second decision that Grant made back in December of 2006. Grant cross-checked Colorado defender John Gallant in the back of the head, knocking him out and getting himself a one-game suspension. Gallant was likely concussed – he was out six weeks and suffered headaches for a while – but luckily returned to the Mammoth. For Mammoth fans, this brought back a painful memory of the last game of Steve Moore's NHL career, before Todd Bertuzzi ended it.

Was Grant's hit a cheap shot? I personally didn't see it, but I can't imagine how a cross-check to the back of someone's head while they're walking away from you wouldn't be. Is Grant a goon? Not by a long shot, but I can't say he's the most sportsmanlike player I've ever seen either. We all know that lacrosse is an intense game played by passionate people, and passionate people sometimes make errors in judgement in the heat of the moment. John Gallant himself has said that he and Grant are friends and he's very much looking forward to playing together on the Mammoth, so he's forgiven Grant. It's easy to just say "Yo Colorado fans, it's been six years. Gallant only missed a few weeks and he himself is good with it, so just get over it." But that's much easier said than done.

Back in the early-mid 2000's (I can't remember exactly when it happened), the Philadelphia Wings were in Toronto to play the Rock. At some point in the game, the Wings' Dave Stilley and Toronto's Steve Toll started pushing and shoving each other and the gloves dropped. No more than a couple of punches were thrown before Stilley did something I had never seen before on a lacrosse floor and haven't seen since – he head-butted Toll, who instantly dropped to the floor. Stilley was booed relentlessly, and was tossed from the game. I don't remember if there was a suspension involved. Toll was out the rest of that game, but returned for the next game uninjured. To this day, I remember seeing Toll drop like he'd been shot. I remember the jaws of everybody in our row dropping open as we watched Stilley being dragged away. I remember the defiant look on Stilley's face, as if to say "Yeah, I went there, so don't fuck with me!" Ever since that game, the name Dave Stilley has represented to me the worst of violence in pro sports (well, up until Todd Bertuzzi grabbed it and hasn't let go). A couple of years ago I saw a picture of Stilley raising the 2001 Champions Cup in Toronto as a member of the Wings. The fact that you could see me in the background of the picture was pretty cool, but I couldn't stop staring at the C on his chest, stunned that he had at one point been chosen as captain of the Wings. As I read the tweets, blog posts, and message board postings about how ticked off some Mammoth fans were about the Grant trade, I immediately thought "Get over it, Mammoth fans". But then I wondered how I would have felt if the Rock had traded for Dave Stilley.

My first thought was "Well, that was different, because..." but then I couldn't think of how to finish that sentence. Both were cheap shots. Both could have caused devastating injuries or even been career-ending, but they weren't. Both players returned after a relatively short absence, and both continue to play well – interestingly, Toll played with Grant for five years on the Knighthawks and Gallant is now captain of the Mammoth and Grant's teammate. Both offenders were penalized and the incident subsequently considered closed by the league, the teams, and likely the players involved. But not the fans. The only real difference I can think of is that if Stilley were acquired by the Rock, it would have been a fairly minor deal, as Stilley was never a superstar. We could have still followed the Rock but hated Stilley, and it wouldn't have been that big a deal. Nobody would have cancelled their season tickets over it. But Grant is a superstar, and is expected to singlehandedly bring the Mammoth back to glory. If he succeeds and the Mammoth contend this year, it will be very difficult to cheer for a team led by a man you hate. Of course the other option would be to give up your lacrosse tickets. I cannot imagine doing this myself – I wouldn't give up my season tickets even if the Rock traded Colin Doyle for Dave Stilley straight-up. (Excuse me while I go and scrub my brain with steel wool for even thinking such a thing.) The only advice I can give Mammoth fans is to give it time and try to forgive, even if you can't forget.

Minority Report

NLL Scheduling

Scheduling in pro sports leagues is hard. I cannot imagine the complexity of the software that does scheduling for a league of 30 teams and 82 games (NHL, NBA) or 162 games (MLB). Even 16-game seasons like the NFL or NLL are pretty complex. You have to take into account arena availability (though many NBA, NHL, MLB, or NFL teams have first priority on the arena / stadium), how many games against division / conference opponents should there be, other league-imposed rules like the Maple Leafs must always play at 7pm on Saturday nights, and travel time (you can't have a home game in New York on Saturday and a road game in Vancouver on Sunday). In the NHL, you're talking about 30 teams and 82 games each, or 1230 games. That's gotta be a nightmare to schedule. I'm not sure if scheduling baseball would be easier or harder, since all their games are in groups of 3 or 4. So before I talk about the problems in the NLL scheduling, I want to say that I realize that this is a hard problem.

Having said that, the software that does the scheduling for the NLL has some flaws. Either that, or some of the league-imposed rules are a little silly. In the six seasons from 2005 to 2010 inclusive, here are some things I noticed:

• Rochester played in Colorado four times but Colorado only played in Rochester once.
• Colorado has had a weird schedule hosting teams from the East. Rochester has played there four times, Buffalo and Philly two, Toronto zero.
• Toronto never played in San Jose or Colorado, and the Stealth and Mammoth only played in Toronto once each. (Toronto did play the Washington Stealth once in 2010, but only in the Championship Game.)
• Buffalo and San Jose each hosted the other only once.
• San Jose hosted the Rock, the Bandits, and the Knighthawks once each, but Philly three times.
• Cal-Edm games in Calgary: ten. Cal-Edm games in Edmonton: six.
• Edm-Col games in Colorado: eight. Edm-Col games in Edmonton: five.
• Buf-Min games in Buffalo: eight. Buf-Min games in Minnesota: five.
• Neither Edmonton nor Calgary have ever played in Buffalo or Philadelphia, but they've played in Toronto four and six times respectively. The Bandits have played in Calgary once (plus one Championship game) and Edmonton twice, and Philly has played twice in Calgary and twice in Edmonton. Toronto has played five times in Edmonton and six in Calgary.

I get that the NLL wants teams from the same division to play each other more often, and I have no problem with that. But the Stealth were in San Jose for six seasons, and the only time they played the Rock was the last game of the sixth season in Toronto. In a league with this few teams, does it make sense to have two teams go almost six full seasons without meeting at all? And for the love of Jim Veltman, can we please do away with this supposed Canadian rivalry that doesn't exist? I think Calgary and Edmonton could have a good rivalry with each other because they're so close together (and already have rivalries in the NHL and CFL), but Toronto's main NLL rivals are the Bandits. A rivalry that's forced on the fans doesn't work, and it makes the scheduling problems even worse.

I'd love to see a system that allowed every team to play every other team at least once per season, but I understand that this may cause scheduling difficulties. But every other year should be doable. Now that there's five teams in each division (not that that is likely to last long – article on NLL stability coming soon), the scheduling could go something like:

• three games against other each team in the same division = twelve games (alternate 2 home + 1 away or 1 home + 2 away from year to year)
• one game against four of the five teams in the other division. That's four more games, totalling sixteen. The team that gets skipped changes from year to year, so you won't go more than one season without seeing any one team. Alternate home and away as well so you don't have a discrepancy that way.

Maybe this is just too difficult a problem for a simplistic solution like this to work. But the Toronto Rock and the Washington Power / Colorado Mammoth had a pretty good rivalry going back in the day, when they played each other in the semifinals three years in a row (2001 and 2002 as the Power and 2003 as the Mammoth). In the seven seasons since then, the Rock and the Mammoth have only played each other in the regular season once. Obviously, something is wrong with the current scheduling system.

Pattern matching

Here is another list of bands that have something in common, but this time I'm going to let you, dear reader, attempt to figure out what that is. These are all bands that have been active in the past ten years.

1. Matchbox Twenty
2. Blink 182
3. Sum 41
4. Eve 6
5. Maroon 5
6. Finger 11

If you're in a band and you can't come up with a name, just do what these guys all did: pick a random word and a random number and put them together. That's called creativity.