Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, January 26, 2009

Are the Steelers the Greatest Franchise?

Good food for offseason thought.  The Steelers?  Topping the Yanks?  The Celts?  Long Beach Poly?

Puh-lease.  Somebody bring some sense to the table.

Lest we forget Posted: January 26, 2009 at 05:33 PM | 220 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: general

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.

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 
   1. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq. Posted: January 26, 2009 at 06:03 PM (#3060608)
No.
   2. Flynn Posted: January 26, 2009 at 06:10 PM (#3060617)
I've always found it mystifying that the Steelers/Cowboys/49ers having five Super Bowls somehow cancels out Green Bay's 12 NFL titles. Pro Football didn't start existing in 1967.
   3. galaxieboi Posted: January 26, 2009 at 06:12 PM (#3060619)
The pro football team from Pittsburg is dead to me since Super Bowl XL.
   4. SoSH U at work Posted: January 26, 2009 at 06:15 PM (#3060622)
The pro football team from Pittsburg is dead to me since Super Bowl XL.


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.
   5. BDC Posted: January 26, 2009 at 06:22 PM (#3060630)
The Steelers have certainly had some success. However, they were 0-for-the 1980s and 1990s, let alone their history before moving to the AFC. When they were in the old NFL, they were doormats for a long time.
   6. Hello Rusty Kuntz, Goodbye Rusty Cars Posted: January 26, 2009 at 06:23 PM (#3060631)
I've always found it mystifying that the Steelers/Cowboys/49ers having five Super Bowls somehow cancels out Green Bay's 12 NFL titles. Pro Football didn't start existing in 1967.


The writer starts sports history in 1970.
   7. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq. Posted: January 26, 2009 at 06:26 PM (#3060635)
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.
   8. Jorge Luis Bourjos (Walewander) Posted: January 26, 2009 at 06:28 PM (#3060637)
And (gritting my teeth) the Habs have won 8 Stanley Cups since 1970.
   9. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 26, 2009 at 06:29 PM (#3060639)
I hate the Yankees, but they're undeniably the greatest franchise in American sports.
   10. GGC:BTF's Biggest Underachiever Posted: January 26, 2009 at 06:32 PM (#3060645)
Haven't the Steelers only won one Super Bowl post-Chuck Noll?
   11. More Dewey is Always Good Posted: January 26, 2009 at 06:33 PM (#3060646)
I hate the Yankees, but they're undeniably the greatest franchise in American sports.

You can make a strong argument for the Detroit Red Wings, no?
   12. 1k5v3L Posted: January 26, 2009 at 06:34 PM (#3060649)
Mike Greenberg was making this same argument this morning on espn radio.
Or maybe he was just parroting this guy's column
   13. GGC:BTF's Biggest Underachiever Posted: January 26, 2009 at 06:34 PM (#3060650)
You can make a strong argument for the Detroit Red Wings, no?


or Tiger Woods.
   14. GGC:BTF's Biggest Underachiever Posted: January 26, 2009 at 06:35 PM (#3060653)
Mike Greenberg was making this same argument this morning on espn radio.
Or maybe he was just parroting this guy's column


No, Mike was talking about this last week.
   15. Lassus Posted: January 26, 2009 at 06:36 PM (#3060654)
I can't wait for Super Bowl L. Actually, I might be around for Super Bowl C, too.
   16. Randy Jones Posted: January 26, 2009 at 06:36 PM (#3060655)
We all know about the Yankees' postseason success. How bout the fact that they have a .567 winning percentage(9472-7235) in the regular season? The next closest team is the Giants at .538(10256-8814).
   17. Infinite Yost (Voxter) Posted: January 26, 2009 at 06:37 PM (#3060657)
You can make a strong argument for the Detroit Red Wings, no?

No.
   18. Tom Nawrocki Posted: January 26, 2009 at 06:37 PM (#3060658)
I'd go with Popeye's Fried Chicken.
   19. RJ in TO Posted: January 26, 2009 at 06:37 PM (#3060659)
You can make a strong argument for the Detroit Red Wings, no?


Only if you ignore the Detroit Dead Things era.
   20. Jorge Luis Bourjos (Walewander) Posted: January 26, 2009 at 06:38 PM (#3060660)
JRE - no.

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.
   21. aleskel Posted: January 26, 2009 at 06:40 PM (#3060661)
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.

honest question: has there always been a hard salary cap in the NFL? At least, since the AFC/NFC merger?
   22. GGC:BTF's Biggest Underachiever Posted: January 26, 2009 at 06:40 PM (#3060662)
Voxter, Teed is actually a client of the company I work for. I believe this is the first time that I have seen his name at Primer.
   23. rLr Is King Of The Romans And Above Grammar Posted: January 26, 2009 at 06:41 PM (#3060664)
or Tiger Woods.

You have to discount British Open titles, though, because this is in American sports history.
   24. GGC:BTF's Biggest Underachiever Posted: January 26, 2009 at 06:42 PM (#3060665)
honest question: has there always been a hard salary cap in the NFL? At least, since the AFC/NFC merger?


No. The cap didn't come until the late 80s or early 90s.
   25. More Dewey is Always Good Posted: January 26, 2009 at 06:42 PM (#3060667)
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.

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.
   26. Uncle Willy Posted: January 26, 2009 at 06:43 PM (#3060668)
If you count only post-merger (1970), I think a (shaky) case can be made for the Steelers. The author clearly is factoring the stability of ownership and what the team means to the community. Also, in the past 40 years, the Steelers haven't had any extended stretches of being really bad -- some losing seasons to be sure, but not laughingstock level.

Of course, if the argument is greatest franchise of all-time, saying the Steelers is ridiculous.
   27. More Dewey is Always Good Posted: January 26, 2009 at 06:44 PM (#3060669)
The Wings went 41 years without a Cup, and were a laughingstock during the 'Dead Wings' era of the 70s and 80s.

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.
   28. GGC:BTF's Biggest Underachiever Posted: January 26, 2009 at 06:47 PM (#3060673)
The author clearly is factoring the stability of ownership and what the team means to the community. Also, in the past 40 years, the Steelers haven't had any extended stretches of being really bad -- some losing seasons to be sure, but not laughingstock level.


Are they even the best (or greatest) NFL franchise, though?
   29. BDC Posted: January 26, 2009 at 06:47 PM (#3060674)
What is the "shortest longest drought" between championships in one of the four major American sports? The Lakers have one of 18 years (1954-1972). The Yankees would be at 18 (1978-1996) if you leave out their first 20 years. The Celtics would be at 22. Actually now that I look it up the Canadiens have gone only 16 years since their last Stanley Cup. The Cowboys are currently at 15, but they have only existed since 1960 or so. I am probably figuring this wrong or leaving some team out ... or should RTFA :)
   30. Jorge Luis Bourjos (Walewander) Posted: January 26, 2009 at 06:47 PM (#3060675)
If we're just counting championships, the Wings are behind ....

the Toronto Maple Leafs.

There, that feels better.
   31. aleskel Posted: January 26, 2009 at 06:48 PM (#3060676)
The author clearly is factoring the stability of ownership and what the team means to the community. Also, in the past 40 years, the Steelers haven't had any extended stretches of being really bad -- some losing seasons to be sure, but not laughingstock level.

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.
   32. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 26, 2009 at 06:49 PM (#3060677)
No. The cap didn't come until the late 80s or early 90s.

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.
   33. Randy Jones Posted: January 26, 2009 at 06:49 PM (#3060678)
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.


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)...
   34. bads85 Posted: January 26, 2009 at 06:52 PM (#3060680)
From the article:

"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.
   35. aleskel Posted: January 26, 2009 at 06:56 PM (#3060683)
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.
   36. Uncle Willy Posted: January 26, 2009 at 06:57 PM (#3060685)
Are they even the best (or greatest) NFL franchise, though?


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.
   37. More Dewey is Always Good Posted: January 26, 2009 at 06:59 PM (#3060687)
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 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.
   38. Greg K Posted: January 26, 2009 at 07:04 PM (#3060695)
I think the Habs and the Yankees are really the only teams that can be in this discussion...and just the Yankees I guess if it's "Best American Franchise"
   39. More Dewey is Always Good Posted: January 26, 2009 at 07:11 PM (#3060703)
just the Yankees I guess if it's "Best American Franchise"

The Habs are American, too...
   40. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 26, 2009 at 07:12 PM (#3060704)
Globetrotters, mofos.
   41. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 26, 2009 at 07:15 PM (#3060706)
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.

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.
   42. Greg K Posted: January 26, 2009 at 07:17 PM (#3060709)
Well I think there's room for debate there. I'm sure more than a few Habs fans would rather there be at least a "North" qualifier thrown in there. Those Quebecois tend to be a little sensitive about nomenclature.
   43. GGC:BTF's Biggest Underachiever Posted: January 26, 2009 at 07:20 PM (#3060711)
MLB should just not release salary information.


Aren't they required to release it?
   44. Hello Rusty Kuntz, Goodbye Rusty Cars Posted: January 26, 2009 at 07:21 PM (#3060712)
the Yankees have had the same owner as 1973 (are they the only MLB team to have consistent ownership that long?)

According to Wikipedia, yes. The White Sox and Phillies are next, with the same ownership since 1981.
   45. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 26, 2009 at 07:28 PM (#3060715)

Aren't they required to release it?


I don't know. Why would they be?
   46. aleskel Posted: January 26, 2009 at 07:29 PM (#3060716)
Globetrotters, mofos.

"Wait a minute, you bet AGAINST the Globetrotters?!"
"Ooooooh, I thought the Generals were due!"
   47. Jorge Luis Bourjos (Walewander) Posted: January 26, 2009 at 07:32 PM (#3060721)
"That game was rigged. The guy was using a freaking ladder!"
   48. Greg K Posted: January 26, 2009 at 07:33 PM (#3060722)
He's spinning the ball on his finger! Just take it!
   49. Jose is an Absurd Doubles Machine Posted: January 26, 2009 at 07:37 PM (#3060723)
I think the Habs and the Yankees are really the only teams that can be in this discussion...and just the Yankees I guess if it's "Best American Franchise"



Grrrr....Celtics 17 titles in 52 years.
   50. More Dewey is Always Good Posted: January 26, 2009 at 07:37 PM (#3060724)
I always wondered what would happen if the Generals tried to really play - the Globetrotters are pretty creaky these days.
   51. Greg K Posted: January 26, 2009 at 07:38 PM (#3060725)
Silly fellow
Basketball's not a sport
   52. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 26, 2009 at 07:51 PM (#3060740)
If you count only post-merger (1970), I think a (shaky) case can be made for the Steelers. The author clearly is factoring the stability of ownership and what the team means to the community. Also, in the past 40 years, the Steelers haven't had any extended stretches of being really bad -- some losing seasons to be sure, but not laughingstock level.

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.
   53. SoSH U at work Posted: January 26, 2009 at 07:56 PM (#3060741)
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.
   54. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 26, 2009 at 07:56 PM (#3060742)
Grrrr....Celtics 17 titles in 52 years.

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.
   55. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: January 26, 2009 at 07:58 PM (#3060743)
It is next to impossible to make this argument unless you really narrow the time frame which then defeats the purposes of claiming the 'best of all-time' as was done in #36
   56. Thok Posted: January 26, 2009 at 08:00 PM (#3060744)
What is the "shortest longest drought" between championships in one of the four major American sports?

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.
   57. Dag Nabbit at ExactlyAsOld.com Posted: January 26, 2009 at 08:00 PM (#3060746)
the Yankees have had the same owner as 1973 (are they the only MLB team to have consistent ownership that long?)

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.
   58. WillYoung Posted: January 26, 2009 at 08:01 PM (#3060747)
I'd go with Popeye's Fried Chicken.


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.
   59. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 26, 2009 at 08:03 PM (#3060750)
"Wait a minute, you bet AGAINST the Globetrotters?!"

"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.

How could I charge full price to the man whose lust for filthy magazines kept me in business during that first shaky year?

[quietly] Oh, by the way, here is your new issue of "Gigantic Asses".

[holds up magazine with a large butt on it]
   60. aleskel Posted: January 26, 2009 at 08:06 PM (#3060751)
And the runner-up is right there in the same episode.

I prefer: "I'm seeing double here! Four Krustys!"
   61. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: January 26, 2009 at 08:07 PM (#3060752)
espn actually recently undertook a noble effort in creating its presitge rankings in college football, developing a value system based on several different variables over time (since '36, when the first AP Poll was published). For those that care, Oklahoma finished at #1.

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).
   62. Randy Jones Posted: January 26, 2009 at 08:08 PM (#3060753)
That's still the greatest line in the entire history of The Simpsons.

Only if we aren't counting Ralph Wiggum quotes.

"Oh boy! Sleep! That's where I'm a Viking!"
   63. BDC Posted: January 26, 2009 at 08:09 PM (#3060754)
You probably want the "shortest longest drought" among teams that weren't recently expansion teams

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.
   64. aleskel Posted: January 26, 2009 at 08:12 PM (#3060758)
I think it's a testiment to the power of the Simpsons over my psyche that, watching Ken Burns' Baseball on the MLB network recently, every time George Plimpton comes on I expect him to say "you may also remember me as the evil dean in Boner Academy"
   65. Dag Nabbit at ExactlyAsOld.com Posted: January 26, 2009 at 08:13 PM (#3060759)
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.

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.
   66. zack Posted: January 26, 2009 at 08:14 PM (#3060760)
For the hockey clubs, throw out everything from the travesty of competitiveness that was the original six era. It's not that hard to win lots of titles when there are only 6 teams, and 2 of them are complete jokes by design.
   67. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: January 26, 2009 at 08:22 PM (#3060764)
1. Yankees
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.
   68. More Dewey is Always Good Posted: January 26, 2009 at 08:28 PM (#3060769)
Which Giants? NFL or MLB? Either way, I'm having trouble seeing it.
   69. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: January 26, 2009 at 08:33 PM (#3060773)
What's his basis for claiming it is at least twice as hard to win a Super Bowl under the salary cap era than it is in baseball?
   70. Jorge Luis Bourjos (Walewander) Posted: January 26, 2009 at 08:36 PM (#3060777)
For the hockey clubs, throw out everything from the travesty of competitiveness that was the original six era. It's not that hard to win lots of titles when there are only 6 teams, and 2 of them are complete jokes by design.

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.
   71. The District Attorney Posted: January 26, 2009 at 08:38 PM (#3060778)
I have no idea how one could possibly narrow down this field, but I'm leaning at this moment towards "I hate every ape I see, from Chimpan A to Chimpan Z"
   72. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: January 26, 2009 at 08:38 PM (#3060779)
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.


Twins won in '87 and then suffered for four years before winning again in '91.
   73. SoSH U at work Posted: January 26, 2009 at 08:40 PM (#3060781)
What's his basis for claiming it is at least twice as hard to win a Super Bowl under the salary cap era than it is in baseball?


I'll repeat myself here. Fleming is strictly a football guy. Everything is harder, better, sweeter on the gridiron than in baseball.
   74. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 26, 2009 at 08:42 PM (#3060782)
"Me fail English? That's unpossible!"
   75. Alex meets the threshold for granular review Posted: January 26, 2009 at 08:42 PM (#3060783)
There are way too many great Simpsons quotes to make even a ten-best list.

"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."
   76. PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina Posted: January 26, 2009 at 08:42 PM (#3060784)
If you just take it from 1970, you could argue for the Steelers if they win this week... they'd be even with the Yankees in championships, and (I believe; I haven't taken the time to add it up) ahead of them in winning percentage. But you'd have to put the Celtics and Canadiens in the discussion as well.

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.
   77. Santanaland Diaries Posted: January 26, 2009 at 08:43 PM (#3060785)
Yeaarrgghhhh:

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.
   78. booond Posted: January 26, 2009 at 08:43 PM (#3060786)
Celtics for peak, Yankees overall.
   79. Zac Schmitt Posted: January 26, 2009 at 08:44 PM (#3060788)
Twins won in '87 and then suffered for four years before winning again in '91.


a number of teams only had to wait some 12 months between titles, but i assume we're not counting them.
   80. GGC:BTF's Biggest Underachiever Posted: January 26, 2009 at 08:46 PM (#3060790)
and (I believe; I haven't taken the time to add it up) ahead of them in winning percentage.


Cross-sports comparisons by wpct don't mean much. When was the last time a baseball team went 130-30?
   81. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: January 26, 2009 at 08:47 PM (#3060794)
Which Giants? NFL or MLB? Either way, I'm having trouble seeing it.

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.
   82. Alex meets the threshold for granular review Posted: January 26, 2009 at 08:48 PM (#3060795)
Cross-sports comparisons by wpct don't mean much. When was the last time a baseball team went 130-30?


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.
   83. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 26, 2009 at 08:52 PM (#3060799)
How bout the worst franchises?

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?
   84. Lassus Posted: January 26, 2009 at 08:52 PM (#3060800)
I have no idea how one could possibly narrow down this field...

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.)
   85. SoSH U at work Posted: January 26, 2009 at 08:54 PM (#3060802)
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 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.
   86. More Dewey is Always Good Posted: January 26, 2009 at 08:58 PM (#3060808)
(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'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.
   87. CWS Keith plans to [omitted] at [omitted] Posted: January 26, 2009 at 08:58 PM (#3060810)
I have to add to the fun of random Simpsons quotes.

"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."
   88. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: January 26, 2009 at 08:59 PM (#3060811)
"Oooo...a head bag. Those are chock full of...heady goodness."

"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.'"
   89. More Dewey is Always Good Posted: January 26, 2009 at 09:00 PM (#3060812)
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.

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.
   90. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 26, 2009 at 09:00 PM (#3060813)
"Mr. Burns, I think we can trust the President of Cuba."
   91. Famous Original Joe C Posted: January 26, 2009 at 09:00 PM (#3060814)
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.


There is no way to rank the Lakers ahead of the Celtics. None.

Yankees, then Celtics or Habs. Everyone else is battling for fourth.
   92. SoSH U at work Posted: January 26, 2009 at 09:01 PM (#3060815)
"Larry Flynt is right, you guys stink."
   93. phredbird Posted: January 26, 2009 at 09:01 PM (#3060816)
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.


did you find it? i used to drive past it everyday going to and from work ...
   94. Randy Jones Posted: January 26, 2009 at 09:02 PM (#3060817)
How bout the worst franchises?

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.
   95. Jorge Luis Bourjos (Walewander) Posted: January 26, 2009 at 09:02 PM (#3060819)
I don't know enough about NHL history to put a good candidate out there. Any help?

For teams with decades and decades of history, the Rangers or the Hawks.
   96. Thok Posted: January 26, 2009 at 09:02 PM (#3060820)
Twins won in '87 and then suffered for four years before winning again in '91.

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.
   97. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: January 26, 2009 at 09:04 PM (#3060821)
"All right, let's see... 'It was the best of times, it was the BLURST of times?' You stupid monkey."
   98. Uncle Willy Posted: January 26, 2009 at 09:04 PM (#3060822)
"Mr. Burns, I think we can trust the President of Cuba."


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."
   99. Moloka'i Three-Finger Brown (Declino DeShields) Posted: January 26, 2009 at 09:06 PM (#3060824)
I'd say season 10 was the turning point into mediocrity


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.
   100. PreservedFish Posted: January 26, 2009 at 09:06 PM (#3060825)
"Ooooooh, I thought the Generals were due!"

That's still the greatest line in the entire history of The Simpsons.


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."
Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
LA Podcasting Hombre of Anaheim
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogFinding the best spot for Giancarlo Stanton
(6 - 4:59am, Nov 22)
Last: stevegamer

NewsblogTaking Back the Ballparks - Phillies Voting Thread
(11 - 4:46am, Nov 22)
Last: stevegamer

NewsblogSources: MLB hammers Atlanta Braves, declaring 12 minor league players free agents
(59 - 3:42am, Nov 22)
Last: Swedish Chef

NewsblogA Discussion of WAR Wherein I Ardently Attempt to Avoid any WAR-Related Puns | Sports-Reference.com
(27 - 2:23am, Nov 22)
Last: Cooper Nielson

NewsblogOTP 20 November 2017: Sheriff’s official suspended 10 days over Cubs World Series sneak-in
(468 - 1:13am, Nov 22)
Last: Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant

NewsblogOT - November* 2017 College Football thread
(193 - 1:02am, Nov 22)
Last: Shredder

Hall of Merit2018 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(246 - 12:58am, Nov 22)
Last: Rob_Wood

NewsblogJoe Morgan Wants To Keep Steroid Cheats Out Of Baseball Hall Of Fame | MLB | NESN.com
(73 - 12:49am, Nov 22)
Last: Hotel Coral Esix Snead (tmutchell)

NewsblogOT: Winter Soccer Thread
(211 - 12:25am, Nov 22)
Last: Richard

NewsblogOT - NBA 2017-2018 Tip-off Thread
(1499 - 12:24am, Nov 22)
Last: LA Podcasting Hombre of Anaheim

NewsblogdWAR to end all WARs – Joe Blogs – Medium
(49 - 11:34pm, Nov 21)
Last: Meatwad in mourning

NewsblogGabe Kapler's only season as a manager gave hints for how he will lead Phillies
(34 - 10:10pm, Nov 21)
Last: Infinite Yost (Voxter)

NewsblogProspectus Feature: Bill James vs. The Noise - Baseball Prospectus
(9 - 9:26pm, Nov 21)
Last: The Duke

NewsblogOT: Wrestling Thread November 2014
(2114 - 9:23pm, Nov 21)
Last: Chokeland Bill

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-21-2017
(3 - 8:45pm, Nov 21)
Last: Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama

Page rendered in 0.6054 seconds
47 querie(s) executed