User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 0.5503 seconds
55 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
If you hadn't specified pro team, I'd have assumed you were talking about the Gorillas.
And the idea the Steelers are the greatest franchise in sports is simply asinine.
The writer starts sports history in 1970.
Since then the Yankees have won 6 World Series and 10 pennants. So even with that silly cutoff point... no, they're not.
You can make a strong argument for the Detroit Red Wings, no?
Or maybe he was just parroting this guy's column
or Tiger Woods.
No, Mike was talking about this last week.
No.
Only if you ignore the Detroit Dead Things era.
The Wings went 41 years without a Cup, and were a laughingstock during the 'Dead Wings' era of the 70s and 80s.
The stats definitely favor the Yankees, I know. In fact, the numbers are nearly impossible to argue: They've got a gazillion titles (26) in 109 years, but nothing since 2000. The Steelers could have six in the past 43, giving them 14 percent of their sport's titles as compared to 24 percent for the Yanks. I could go on with this, but the truth is math gives me a headache. So let me say this: You can't buy titles in football the way you can on the diamond. Therefore extreme parity in the NFL, plus the economic constraints of a hard salary cap, make it (at least) twice as hard to win Lombardi trophies.
So the Yanks bought all their titles, but they haven't bought any in the last 8 years with their record payrolls.
Yep, I agree with that logic.
God, sticking up for the Yanks and the Habs in the same thread. I need a shower.
honest question: has there always been a hard salary cap in the NFL? At least, since the AFC/NFC merger?
You have to discount British Open titles, though, because this is in American sports history.
No. The cap didn't come until the late 80s or early 90s.
The era of parity in the NFL is a relatively new thing. I recall years of dominance by the Cowboys and the 49ers (yes, and the Steelers) just in my lifetime.
Of course, if the argument is greatest franchise of all-time, saying the Steelers is ridiculous.
Okay, but I thought we were just counting championships.
In any case, I don't even see the Steelers as being the most dominant team in their sport, much less in all of pro sports.
Are they even the best (or greatest) NFL franchise, though?
the Toronto Maple Leafs.
There, that feels better.
the Yankees have had the same owner as 1973 (are they the only MLB team to have consistent ownership that long?), and have never even come close to changing hands since then. And they're the most popular team in the country's biggest media market, and probably the most widely recognized American sports franchise internationally. I don't see how even the Steelers compare favorably here.
Wikipedia says 1994. I think free agency also came to the NFL around that time... it's not like the Steelers were dominating Parity Central in the '70s.
I started to read this article the other day, when I first noticed it, and I stopped after this section. 6 championships in 43 years, huh? Already crediting them with 1 for this year to make the numbers look closer? Also, conveniently ignores the first 34 years of the Steeler's existence during which they won all of 0 championships...
Ahh yes, so hard to win in the NFL with the salary cap. Of course, 4 of the Steelers 5 Super Bowl wins came before the NFL had a salary cap(1994)...
"You can't buy titles in football the way you can on the diamond. Therefore extreme parity in the NFL, plus the economic constraints of a hard salary cap, make it (at least) twice as hard to win Lombardi trophies."
It never ceases to amaze me how sportswriters accept the ruse that the salary cap puts severe economic contraints on teams that ensure a level playing field (in terms of salaries). The highest team salary in the NFL this year was 152.3 million (Raiders), which was higher than any MLB team's other than the Yankees. It was also almost 100% more than the lowest NFL salary. Granted, the NFL isn't a Yankees vs. Marlins type disparity, but the idea that the NFL's cap doesn't allow teams to spend more than others is ludicrous.
and the truth is that the NFL makes a buttload of money, and has a record of unfair distribution of that wealth to which even MLB pales in comparison.
I think so -- if we're talking about just the NFL and just post-merger (which differs from the article). Tied for the most championship (and having the lead all to themselves if they win on Sunday), stability in coaching and ownership, number of Hall of Famers, postseason success, no disasterous seasons.
Cons: too many playoff losses (especially as home favorites), no titles in a 26 year span.
I would think that the other contenders would be Dallas, Green Bay and San Francisco, and each of those has had some rather bad stretches and much less stability.
Full disclosure: I'm a Steelers fan using very selective points in my argument.
I don't have the time to look this up, but I thought a greater percentage of the NFL's grosses went to player salaries than MLB's.
Of course, NFL rosters are twice the size of MLB rosters.
The Habs are American, too...
The best thing about the salary cap is it makes NFL salaries to hard to discern that everyone assumes the payrolls are all the same. MLB should just not release salary information.
Aren't they required to release it?
According to Wikipedia, yes. The White Sox and Phillies are next, with the same ownership since 1981.
Aren't they required to release it?
I don't know. Why would they be?
"Wait a minute, you bet AGAINST the Globetrotters?!"
"Ooooooh, I thought the Generals were due!"
Grrrr....Celtics 17 titles in 52 years.
Basketball's not a sport
Of course, if the argument is greatest franchise of all-time, saying the Steelers is ridiculous.
You can tell by the Rooney anecdotes that much of what goes into the writer's definition of "greatness" is consistency and the lack of bombast, qualities that most people appreciate. You can almost see his working out some sort of a formula which takes in on-the-field success, loyalty of the fan base, humility of the owner, the fact that it's one of the few family-run franchises left in sports that goes back more than a few years, and the fact that nobody outside of maybe Baltimore and Cleveland really "hates" the Steelers the way they do the Cowboys. Plus, in any discussion of "greatest NFL mini-dynasties ever" the Steelers of the 70's are right up there with the Bears of the 40's, the Packers of the 60's, and the 49ers of the 80's in forefront of the discussion. Each of those teams won at least 4 championships in those decades and only the Bears and Packers even lost a single title game.
If you look at it this way, and if you eliminate everything before 1972, then there's a certain case to be made. But that's a hell of a lot of "ifs." In terms of overall history it's gotta be the Yanks or the Habs.
And OBVIOUSLY he's only talking about the last 40 years, not the history of professional sports.
I think it mostly has to do with Fleming being a football guy and nothing else. The contortions he goes through are undertaken to allow a football team to claim the title.
I'd love to put them in there, too, but until last year they really stank up the joint for a good 15+ years running. The Yanks never came close to that sort of run of failure, and I doubt if the Canadians have, either. And anyway, if you want to include the NBA as a whole, the Lakers have had extended success in more different eras than the Celtics. If you wanted to include Boston you'd have to include Minny/LA, too, much as I hate to admit it.
I'd be shocked if it is anybody but the Florida Marlins. Of course, having two world series titles in 15 years will do that. You probably want the "shortest longest drought" among teams that weren't recently expansion teams.
Yup. Several years ago I read that the teams with the longest continual reign by an ownership group were: Brewers, Yankees, Mets, White Sox, Cubs, and Twins.
The Seligs sold the Brewers. Tribune was bought by Zell, who apparently is FINALLY moving to sell the Cubs to a new owner. I don't know what the Pohlard family will do with the Twins - selling is a possibility at least.
I would think that the other contenders would be Dallas, Green Bay and San Francisco, and each of those has had some rather bad stretches and much less stability.
I *really* don't think Green Bay can be argued as a serious contender as best NFL team since 1970. Forgot Super Bowl appearance - I'm pretty sure the Pack went about 20 years without winning the farking division. That's pretty bad.
It's Steelers, Cowboys, 49ers in the first tier. Dolphins, Broncos, Raiders (they're a laughinstock now, but they also played in Super Bowls in three different decades) in the second tier.
When you enter Metarie Cemetery in New Orleans, you are now greeted by a ginormous tribute to Al Copeland (founder of Popeye's). I discovered this recently when I went to the cemetery to find the grave of Mel Ott.
"Ooooooh, I thought the Generals were due!"
That's still the greatest line in the entire history of The Simpsons.
And the runner-up is right there in the same episode.
I prefer: "I'm seeing double here! Four Krustys!"
I suspect a similar value system could be created, adding and subtracting values based on any number of factors to evaluate pro-franchises, I suspect this may have been done at some point.
Championships, Pennants/Conf. championships, Division titles, winning percentage, All-Stars, All-pros, MVPs, negative points for losing seasons, ownership stability, managerial/coaching stability (good luck evaluating that).
Only if we aren't counting Ralph Wiggum quotes.
"Oh boy! Sleep! That's where I'm a Viking!"
Exactly, and then there are different ways to define that, divide by years of existence, etc.
I am. as #54 suggests, impressed by the Lakers having had dynasties at regular intervals for the past 60 years. The Mikan teams, the West/Baylor teams (though they didn't win an NBA title till joined by Chamberlain), the Kareem/Magic teams, the Shaq/Kobe teams. They've never been bad for very long.
Correction: this isn't true. They won in 1972, 1982, and then several after 1995. Still, that's a heckuva gap (especially when you consider 1982 was the weird strike-shortened season that only lasted 9 games. Green Bay did go 17 years without more than 8 wins in a season.
2. Celtics
3. Lakers
4. Steelers
5. Cowboys
6. Dodgers
7. Red Sox
8. Giants
9. Cardinals
10. Green Bay
EDIT: Actually, the Giants are probably too high.
So should we throw out all those midcentury AL pennants? Only 8 teams and every year 3 teams (usually the As, Browns, and Senators) were terrible.
Twins won in '87 and then suffered for four years before winning again in '91.
I'll repeat myself here. Fleming is strictly a football guy. Everything is harder, better, sweeter on the gridiron than in baseball.
"Hey, Apu, do you have any of that German beer with the candy floating in it? You know, Skittlebrau?"
"Such a product does not exist, sir, I believe you may have dreamed it."
"Oh, then just give me a six pack and some Skittles."
Strictly talking about NFL teams since 1970, sure the Steelers are on top. Cowboys are up there, Dolphins and 49ers were before they started horribly sucking the past few years... the last time the Steelers drafted in the top 5 was 1970, when they picked Terry Bradshaw #1. They've done worse than 7-9 six times in the past 38 seasons. It's a pretty impressive resume for an NFL team.
Best franchise in sports since 1970, though, the Yankees are ahead. I don't think any pro franchise has gone longer since the last time they were really terrible than the Steelers (1971), which is impressive.
I'd say there are definitely too many baseball teams on the list, and the Boston/New York franchises are probably too high, other than the Yankees and Celtics. You should probably have at least one hockey team as well.
My list, with preference to teams that have had success under many different conditions.
1. Yankees
2. Lakers
3. Celtics
4. Canadiens
5. Steelers
6. Cowboys
7. Cardinals
8. Dodgers
9. Packers
10. (tie) Red Sox and Athletics. The Sox have more recent success, and a bigger name, while the Athletics have had 4 dynasties across 70 years, more titles, but have moved twice and had a ghastly 40 year period.
a number of teams only had to wait some 12 months between titles, but i assume we're not counting them.
Cross-sports comparisons by wpct don't mean much. When was the last time a baseball team went 130-30?
MLB...but you're right. They're maybe in the 13-15 range.
I didn't include any hockey teams because I don't know anything about hockey.
The Athletics are a good addition. So just replace the Giants on my list with the A's.
I'd be interested if somebody much smarter at math than I am could equalize such a cross-sport comparison by using standard deviations from .500 or something along those lines.
1. LA Clippers
2. Detroit Lions
3. Arizona Cardinals
4. Cleveland Indians
5. New Orleans Saints
6. Texas Rangers
7. Pittsburgh Pirates
8. Denver Nuggets
9. Cincinnati Bengals
10.Sacramento Kings
I don't know enough about NHL history to put a good candidate out there. Any help?
Seriously. The first one (of many) that comes to my mind is:
Moe: "...and I'm taking your favorite song out of the jukebox."
Homer: "'It's Raining Men?'"
Moe: "Yeah, not no more it ain't."
Added bonus as Moe flings the record out of the bar and it hits Smithers.
(I'll gladly hijack a football thread with Simpsons quotes, which will be fun until the first "Simpsons sucks now and started sucking year X" barking.)
I think the Red Sox have them beat. Boston's worst record (by far) since 1966 was a 73-89 mark in 1992, which was still 8th from the bottom in all of baseball.
Pittsburgh's 5-11 mark was tied for the fifth worst in the NFL.
I'd say season 10 was the turning point into mediocrity (I won't say suckitude - it's still better than most shows on TV), which is pretty amazing when you think about it. Eight or nine really strong seasons is more than even most critically-acclaimed shows could pull off.
"You call that a knife? This is a knife."
"That's not a knife, that's a spoon."
"Alright, alright you win. I see you've played knifey-spoony before."
"Have the Rolling Stones killed."
"But sir, those aren't the..."
"Do as I say!"
"We'll take the spruce moose! Hop in!"
"But sir, it's just a mod..."
"I said, 'Hop in.'"
You'd have to be pretty old to remember the last time the Red Sox were truly awful, which is hard to do in this day and age.
Even the Yankees were terrible in 1990.
2. Lakers
3. Celtics
4. Canadiens
5. Steelers
6. Cowboys
7. Cardinals
8. Dodgers
9. Packers
10. (tie) Red Sox and Athletics. The Sox have more recent success, and a bigger name, while the Athletics have had 4 dynasties across 70 years, more titles, but have moved twice and had a ghastly 40 year period.
There is no way to rank the Lakers ahead of the Celtics. None.
Yankees, then Celtics or Habs. Everyone else is battling for fourth.
did you find it? i used to drive past it everyday going to and from work ...
1. LA Clippers
2. Detroit Lions
3. Arizona Cardinals
4. Cleveland Indians
5. New Orleans Saints
6. Texas Rangers
7. Pittsburgh Pirates
8. Denver Nuggets
9. Cincinnati Bengals
10.Sacramento Kings
I don't know enough about NHL history to put a good candidate out there. Any help?
No Phillies? I know they just won, but 2 WS and 6 pennants in 125 years and a .470 WPct. First team to 10000 losses also.
For teams with decades and decades of history, the Rangers or the Hawks.
Impressive. And if it wasn't for their currently active 17 year title drought and that 53 year drought from 1924-1987 (including the time they were the Senators), they might be in the discussion.
Ah, the trillion dollar bill episode. That and the softball episode are my 2 favorites.
Another great quote (that I say to my wife):
"It takes two to lie. One to lie, and one to listen."
I'd say Season Nine. Watching the DVDs, you can ACTUALLY pinpoint the SECOND when the show's quality rips in half.
Oh, wait. That was Ralph's heart.
Wow, this wouldn't make my top 100 list. It's a good line but I feel like it's a joke one of my friends could have come up with.
"Homer Simpson sleeps nude in oxygen tank which he says gives him sexual powers."
"Hey! That's a half-truth."
"There's only one monster here Lisa. I call him Gamblor, and it's time to snatch your mother from his neon claws!"
"You kissed a girl?!?! That's so gay."
"Weaseling out of things! It's what sets us apart from the animals. Except for the weasel."
"Mr Simpson, this is the most criminal case of fraudulent advertising since my lawsuit against the Neverending Story."
And I'm not sure I can call this one a line, but submitted for your approval, the greatest speech in the history of the Simpsons. Apologies if I butcher it:
"Stealing! Stealing! Haven't you learned anything from that guy that talks at church? Captain Whatshisname? Why do you think I took you to all those Police Academy movies? Because they were funny? Well, I didn't hear anyone laughing! Except at that guy that made sound effects. [Homer makes terrible sound effects] What was I saying? Oh yeah, stay out of my booze."
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main