Basketball games have the highest scores of any professional sport that I can think of. Each “goal” achieved in basketball has a point value awarded of 1, 2, or 3 points. Generally, most goals scored are worth 2 points. Therefore, assume a typical number of points scored in a game: 80, say. 80 points divided by 2 average points per goal equals a rough total of 40 scoring opportunities achieved.
In other sports, such as football (both American and well, the rest of the world’s) and baseball, there are fewer scoring opportunities. All of these sports involve the concept of two sides, with each alternating between offense and defense. In basketball, turnovers happen more frequently than in other sports; as more “goals” are scored, and each goal involves a turnover, plus the potential for turnover during normal play, there seem to be more variables.
With that said, is basketball, from a statistical standpoint, a relatively “fairer” game than many other pro sports? That is, if by agreed standards one team is judged better than another, does this team not have better odds of being the winner in a given match?
You may find this thread is more attuned to GD or IMHO since the opinion raised may not have a factual answer …
Last time I checked, basketball has opposing sides, too. Why should it be more fair if transitions from offense to defense and back again are more rapid that football? An intercepted pass is a rapid change, Three outs is a rapid change.
Scoring opportunities? How many attempts at a baskets vs actually made provides scoring opportunities. How many times at bat vs actual hits is a scoring opportunity. How many possessions vs touchdowns is a scoring opportunity, just to make things clear.
BTW, take a look at cricket. I’ve seen combined team scores great that 500-600 points per match.
Yet at the end of the day, how does one actually rate fairness among sports when the sports themselves, the rules, the action, etc., are so different from each other? Is that fair?
Perhaps an example will help make the OP’s point clearer. In baseball, when a very good professional team plays a weak professional team, there is still about a one in three chance that the weaker team will win. This is one reason why it’s necessary to have a series of seven games for the World Series, rather than a single game, to increase the chance that the best team will win. One might reasonably say that baseball is an “unfair” sport, since there is such a large chance of the better team losing. The OP is then asking if more scoring opportunities would tend to make a game more “fair”, by this definition, and if that would imply that basketball is the most “fair” of all games commonly played in the US, since it has the most scoring opportunities.
Mathematically, with all other factors being equal, a greater number of scoring opprotunities will make a game more “fair”. But I don’t think that all other factors are equal. American football, for instance, typically has about the same number of score events as baseball, but football is definitely fairer than baseball. For that matter, I’m not familiar with the statistics, but I wouldn’t be surprised to find that American football is fairer than basketball.
Thanks, Chronos, for clarifying that. Re: the number of points in, say, Cricket, I was not familiar with Cricket scoring – pardon my US-centric sports catalogue. However, though scores may reach 500-600, how many “goals” are achieved? I was simply dividing the actual score in basketball by the “worth” of each score to get a relative number of “potential scores”.
I can think of an individual pro sport, where the scoring system greatly favors the stronger player - tennis. In order to win a match, you must win by two points within a game, two games in a set or two points in a tie breaker.
This system makes it much more difficult for a slightly weaker player to win a match. You can see this a some very lopsided lifetime records of players that are probably only slightly different in ability.
So, if I understand it correctly, you are asking what professional sports allow random events to affect the outcome the least. Given your example, I suspect you mean “team sports,” since professional track sports have very little randomization (although chance exposure to the flu virus, for example, would certainly affect the outcome).
In (American) football, for instance, there’s a heck of a lot of chance involved when someone fumbles–who recovers the ball can drastically affect the outcome of the game. In that respect I would guess that football is the least “fair” as we’re trying to define it here.
I think you’re asking if a plethora of scoring opportunities gives the “better” team an opportunity to even things up when a “chance” event gives the weaker team an “undeserved” score.
Scoring opportunities and points scored are only one factor to consider in “fairness”.
In Basketball, there are only five men on the court while in baseball and American (& non) football put many more on feild. Consequently it is true that a true “team” of men/women are less likely to be overwhelmed by a single fantastic player on an opposing team in these sports than in basketball — that is fairer to the team, but it is less fair to the individual player.
Likewise it is easier in Basketball to build defenses to limit a single players effectiveness of a single player than it is to do that in football, & soccer (not Baseball). Less fair to the the GREAT ONE. More fair to the team
Cricket scoring has a minimum of a 1 run score by running, with ‘automatic’ 4- and 6-point plays (good explanation here). Multiple runs can be scored by repeated running (with a limit set by increased risk of being run out). Making a rough analogy to baseball, it’s something like getting a point per base (more like 1.5 if you went by distance), with 4 points for a ground-rule double and 6 points for a home run. I think this comparison illustrates the thrust of the question nicely - baseball isn’t as offensively ‘fair’ since you don’t get credit for men left on. This is my interpretation of the OP anyways - the score is an accurate reflection of the (offensive) performance of the team.
The high scores in cricket matches come from the extreme length (several days). Since (assuming equal fatigue) a longer game also is more ‘fair’, with more scoring opportunities, test cricket is probably the most ‘fair’ sport in this sense.
I think cricket & baseball have mostly ‘fair’ fatigue (except maybe for pitchers/bowlers). Football (American) has inequal effects of fatigue. There’s the differing philosophy on linesmen even at the pro level - a heavy line will do better for most of the game against smaller opponents, but tires out sooner; a smaller, faster line usually can last longer if they survive the first-half pummeling. Basketball has a similar effect, but not as much since it’s usually only one or two big players that get tired out (though players commonly fouling out makes a longer game more inequal).
I go with golf simply because every intentional swing of the club is factored into the scoring. In basketball, only made baskets are counted. In golf, all intentional swings are counted. This includes good swings, bad swings, and flat-out misses.
This is all in theory and taken to the absurd, but baseball has no time limit. Thus, in theory, it’s possible for a superior team to score an almost infinite number of runs before the final out. Even if the same goofball logic is applied to other sports, eventually, the time limit would cap the score. For example, on every possession, the Clippers get the inbounds pass, take one second to shoot the ball, and make the basket. That would lead to a high-scoring game. Eventually, however, time would run out. If fairness is measured by the largest possible margin of victory, the Red Sox could beat the Yankees by infinity – one to zero. Furthermore, if fairness is measured by possible scoring opportunities, and a scoring opportunity in baseball in considered a pitch, a batter can get to a 3-2 count and foul off a limitless number of pitches. If a scoring opportunity is measured by an at bat, a baseball team can have a near-limitless number of at bats.
Baseball is fairer in the sence that skill is rewarded more than body shape. Most professional basketball players wouldn’t be professional if they woke up the next day and found themselves only 5 foot 10. And football players for most positions with a couple of exceptions need to have some kind of thyroid problem. But in baseball speed, power and most of all skill trump body shape.
It might be worth noting that the turnover rate in ice hockey is comparable to that in basketball; the only reason the scores aren’t as high as in basketball is probably because in hockey, you’ve got a big padded guy standing right in front of the net. So by the criterion “more scoring opportunities = fairer”, hockey is just as fair as basketball.
Are we only thinking in terms of one game/match/whatever?
Certainly professional baseball is extremely “fair” over the course of a 120+ game season … winning percentages almost invariably end up between .400 and .600, versus a much wider discrepancy in most other sports.
Results are based purely on measurement (to the millimetre if necessary), the involvement by the umpire is neglible (apart from measuring), very simple and direct scoring system, identical playing surface (esp. if indoors), alternative play so neglible chances of weather affecting result, all but zero crowd influence.
Sounds like you could put curling in the same boat as lawn bowling for a “fair sport.”
Cricket, on the other hand, while offering lots of “scoring opportunities,” also offers lots of opportunity for “unfairness.” The home side can (and often does) have a friendly word with their groundskeeper to prepare a pitch that is more suitable to their bowling attack. And in some cases the coin toss to decide who bats or bowls first can decide the match, especially in day/night one-dayers, where because of ground conditions in some localities it can be darn near impossible to win batting second under the lights.
I too initially thought of cricket… but, as Duke mentions, there is much scope for ‘unfairness’ in cricket too. Aside from the said ground conditions and coin toss, you have to factor in the weather too. Many a match has been lost, which would otherwise have been a comfortable victory, simply because it rained (Duckworth-Lewis system).
In my experience, I would have to say that professional (that is, NBA) basketball is perhaps one of the least fair of the commonly played sports. The rules are enforced unevenly, with highly favored stars being given more leeway in both foul calls and violations such as traveling. There’s also cause to believe that the officials have thrown games during the playoffs (and even during the regular season) in order to increase “fan excitement” and maximize revenue for the league. As a result, the outcome of the game has less to do with the quality of the players and more to do with the financial motivations of those who stage the games.
The game is perhaps less unfair at the college and high school levels, although we’re seeing some of the same problems in the college leagues now, too.
The ultimate in a fair sport, in my mind, would have to be chess.