Conquer Club

New York owns you bitchez.

Army of GOD wrote:Dammit, forgot about the Ducks.

And are we going to pick and choose years to go back when talking about the most successful franchises? They're not even the most successful franchise in their sport overall, while the Yankees and Canadians destroy them in overall championships.

There's a few things at play here. First off, if you consider the fact that the NBA didn't even have its first champion until 1950, then apples-to-apples, total championships since then are a LOT closer than you make out: Montreal 18, Celtics 17, Lakers 16, Yankees 15.

Second, recent success is a much better predictor of future success and overall franchise strength, especially given how much more difficult it is to win titles in all sports in the modern era, with expansion and free agency and salary caps (except in baseball, obviously).

Finally, after listening to my similarly-aged (early 30's) friends who are Boston fans crow about titles the celtics won in the 60's, I've come to the conclusion that fanbases need to stop making arguments based on championships that happened before most of them were born.

EDIT:

the.killing.44 wrote:New York owns you bitchez.

Not really.

Yeah, I know lol. FTR I'm with L.A. here, because I hate Boston so much.

But I just want to say something about the whole "recent success means better success." I get your argument that it's harder to win a championship in today's era, but if you're really looking to measure a franchise's strength as a whole you have to encompass the franchise's history as a whole. I see you said this is more about predicting "future success," but it is? I thought we were arguing for franchises as they are, not so much their future—a very unpredicatble thing, I might add.

Also, it's pretty unfair to just take the most recent 60 years of history when looking at championships. If you'd take 60/number of years there's been a championship = x/total amt. of championships that franchise has, it's a much fairer way to look at titles.

However, it doesn't change anything, really.

60/60 = x/17 gives the Celts 17
60/60 = x/16 gives the Lakers 16
60/106 = x/27 gives the Yanks 15
60/93 = x/23 (if you're discounting pre-1950 basketball you have to discount pre-1917 hockey) gives the Canadiens 14

Incandenza wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:You're a troll. I could care less about your antics. Now go away and let the grown-ups talk.

Sounds like it's time to call the Whaaaaaambulance. Good thing the Bruins beat the Flyers after taking that 3-0 series lead, the Patriots had that 19-0 season, and the Red Sox beat the Angels in last year's ALDS... oh wait, none of those things happened. Maybe the proverbial chickens are coming home to roost after boston had an almost insane run of good fortune after the last decade.

Unfortunately, though, I've had to stop drinking your sweet sweet tears of despair, since I'm afraid that I'll contract whatever damaged your brain so.

Fail again troll. I"m a Celtics fan, not a Boston homer. I hate the Patriots and the Red Sox and the only time I cheer for or against the Bruins is when they are playing the Canadiens.

And what does taunting me have to do with this discussion anyways? Now let the grown-ups talk. I seen you going about the threads just trolling for putdowns. You'll be lucky if I bother to give you any fodder and respond to any of your dumbassery. Now go away fraud.

If you were to rank the level of difficultly in winning a championship across the four major pro leagues, what would be your order? I say:

Football - there are only 16 weeks and maintaining a high level of play is the hardest
Baseball - the other end of the spectrum: nearly 200 games in a World Series winner's season and baseball's probably the most unpredictable sport when it comes to the 5-to-7 game series
Hockey - tbh I don't really know much about the entire hockey season, but the diversity in champs says something
Basketball - sport with the least parity, definitely the easiest IMO

the.killing.44 wrote:Yeah, I know lol. FTR I'm with L.A. here, because I hate Boston so much.

But I just want to say something about the whole "recent success means better success." I get your argument that it's harder to win a championship in today's era, but if you're really looking to measure a franchise's strength as a whole you have to encompass the franchise's history as a whole. I see you said this is more about predicting "future success," but it is? I thought we were arguing for franchises as they are, not so much their future—a very unpredicatble thing, I might add.

Also, it's pretty unfair to just take the most recent 60 years of history when looking at championships. If you'd take 60/number of years there's been a championship = x/total amt. of championships that franchise has, it's a much fairer way to look at titles.

However, it doesn't change anything, really.

60/60 = x/17 gives the Celts 17
60/60 = x/16 gives the Lakers 16
60/106 = x/27 gives the Yanks 15
60/93 = x/23 (if you're discounting pre-1950 basketball you have to discount pre-1917 hockey) gives the Canadiens 14

It's interesting that all four teams are still very tightly bunched using that calculation, while penalizing the Canadiens for having very little success since their heyday. But overall franchise strength and expectation of future success is a very real thing. There are a lot of franchises with glorious histories that are currently moribund and have very little chance at future success, at least in the short-to-medium term, like the Canadiens. Or the Baltimore Orioles. Or the Oakland Raiders. Or the Kansas City Royals. Or the Pittsburgh Pirates. Or the LA Clippers.

Okay, just kidding about that last one. Of course, this is easier to pinpoint with baseball teams, given the unfair salary structure and the much more stringent requirements for making the playoffs.

the.killing.44 wrote:If you were to rank the level of difficultly in winning a championship across the four major pro leagues, what would be your order? I say:

Football - there are only 16 weeks and maintaining a high level of play is the hardest
Baseball - the other end of the spectrum: nearly 200 games in a World Series winner's season and baseball's probably the most unpredictable sport when it comes to the 5-to-7 game series
Hockey - tbh I don't really know much about the entire hockey season, but the diversity in champs says something
Basketball - sport with the least parity, definitely the easiest IMO

Personally I'd swap baseball and football, given how many fewer teams make the playoffs, but basketball is definitely the easiest, given the substantially fewer number of players involved in the outcome of a given game. Hell, the Lakers and Celtics have won about half the total NBA titles, which is insane.

ViperOverLord wrote:And what does taunting me have to do with this discussion anyways?

I'd say it's unrealistic of you to expect people to not call you out when you make incredibly asinine statements. Not my fault that you're unable to make anything approaching a plausible argument.

ViperOverLord wrote:You'll be lucky if I bother to give you any fodder and respond to any of your dumbassery. Now go away fraud.

Knock yourself out, tho given what I've seen from you thus far, a sputtering, nonsensical diatribe would be a step up. But come on, give me your best shot. Let's see that keen insight and rhetorical wit that you've thus far kept safely hidden.

Late-night number crunching:

Taking the years of the franchises' competing for the current championship (e.g. only Super Bowls, World Series; and only in the NHL or NBA)/no. of championships per city (from here)

LA has a title once every 8.7 years
New York has a title once every 9.2 years
Boston has a title once every 11 years

Incandenza wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:And what does taunting me have to do with this discussion anyways?

I'd say it's unrealistic of you to expect people to not call you out when you make incredibly asinine statements. Not my fault that you're unable to make anything approaching a plausible argument.

ViperOverLord wrote:You'll be lucky if I bother to give you any fodder and respond to any of your dumbassery. Now go away fraud.

Knock yourself out, tho given what I've seen from you thus far, a sputtering, nonsensical diatribe would be a step up. But come on, give me your best shot. Let's see that keen insight and rhetorical wit that you've thus far kept safely hidden.

Isolate my comments and don't use supporting examples. You must think this is a bridge because you're underneath me just reaching up trying to feed on my nuts. You're dismissed dude.

the.killing.44 wrote:Late-night number crunching:

Taking the years of the franchises' competing for the current championship (e.g. only Super Bowls, World Series; and only in the NHL or NBA)/no. of championships per city (from here)

LA has a title once every 8.7 years
New York has a title once every 9.2 years
Boston has a title once every 11 years

Nice try. The Lakers/Celtics both started in 1946. But at any rate I don't care about the numbers and I say that with the Celts being ahead. Stern has been fixing games for three decades now.

Incandenza wrote:Begone with thy political fuckery and your "I'm just too cool to watch sports for pleasure." Either you're a fan of various Cleveland teams, or you're a twat. I'm guessing the latter.

Tell ya what, when I come into a thread in which you have interest and talk some shit, go ahead and refute. Knock yourself right the f*ck out. But here, in this thread, unless you're a Laker fan, a Celtic fan, or someone who has a legitimate beef against one or the other or both (specifically, not tedious hipster anti-sports ennui), f*ck right off.

'I simply wanted to join in the NBA fun, even if it was for only 15 minutes.

Phatscotty wrote:

Incandenza wrote:Begone with thy political fuckery and your "I'm just too cool to watch sports for pleasure." Either you're a fan of various Cleveland teams, or you're a twat. I'm guessing the latter.

Tell ya what, when I come into a thread in which you have interest and talk some shit, go ahead and refute. Knock yourself right the f*ck out. But here, in this thread, unless you're a Laker fan, a Celtic fan, or someone who has a legitimate beef against one or the other or both (specifically, not tedious hipster anti-sports ennui), f*ck right off.

'I simply wanted to join in the NBA fun, even if it was for only 15 minutes.

I'd rather hear from someone that has something to say than from your homer clap trap.

Incandenza wrote:Begone with thy political fuckery and your "I'm just too cool to watch sports for pleasure." Either you're a fan of various Cleveland teams, or you're a twat. I'm guessing the latter.

Tell ya what, when I come into a thread in which you have interest and talk some shit, go ahead and refute. Knock yourself right the f*ck out. But here, in this thread, unless you're a Laker fan, a Celtic fan, or someone who has a legitimate beef against one or the other or both (specifically, not tedious hipster anti-sports ennui), f*ck right off.

Dude I was just making fun of people who torch shit over sports.

That is a far cry from thinking I'm too cool.

the.killing.44 wrote:New York owns you bitchez.

This is for ViperLord, so he will stop balling about the Celtics getting screwed against the Lakers:

ViperOverLord wrote:

the.killing.44 wrote:Late-night number crunching:

Taking the years of the franchises' competing for the current championship (e.g. only Super Bowls, World Series; and only in the NHL or NBA)/no. of championships per city (from here)

LA has a title once every 8.7 years
New York has a title once every 9.2 years
Boston has a title once every 11 years

Nice try. The Lakers/Celtics both started in 1946. But at any rate I don't care about the numbers and I say that with the Celts being ahead. Stern has been fixing games for three decades now.

bold

For the record, the SAUX are the only pro team from Boston that I like (there is in fact no pattern to the teams I like [Toronto Raptors (who haven't been good in a while), Denver Broncos (amazing starts the last two seasons but are choking like someone without a trachea), and the Pittsburgh Penguins (tied with the Red Wings for the strongest team in the NHL in the last few seasons)]).

And wait, what do you mean by which sport has the championship that is the most easy to win? Like, which one would a bad team have the best chance at winning?

More along the lines of, "if you're good, how easy is it for you to get past the shit teams and consistently win."

Ohh.

From easiest to hardest:

Football - any given Sunday you can lose to HURRDURR OAKLAND RAIDERS DURRR
Hockey - teams seem to step up in the playoffs. Just look at the Flyers.
Basketball - Good teams usually run over the shitters, but if the star of another team is hot during a playoff and your star is cold (that's what most of what basketball is, minus the Pistons when they were good, the Spurs when they were good and the Celtics of the last few years), then you can lose.
Baseball - 162 games with a playoff where only the 4 best teams from each division play. Only the good teams are allowed to win.

I guess I'm mainly talking about parity. And if basketball isn't the last on that list, I dunno what to tell you…

That we disagree?

I think it's easier to get past the shit teams in baseball...and even if you lose to them in the regular season, it means nothing.

Parity isn't about getting past the shit teams.

the.killing.44 wrote:Parity isn't about getting past the shit teams.

the.killing.44 wrote:More along the lines of, "if you're good, how easy is it for you to get past the shit teams and consistently win."

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

the.killing.44 wrote:Parity isn't about getting past the shit teams.

the.killing.44 wrote:if you're good, how easy is it for you to get past the shit teams

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

the.killing.44 wrote:getting past the shit teams.

the.killing.44 wrote:get past the shit teams

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

the.killing.44 wrote:I guess I'm mainly talking about parity.

the.killing.44 wrote:I guess I'm mainly talking about parity.

the.killing.44 wrote:I guess I'm mainly talking about parity.

I GUESS I CHANGED MY MIND

the.killing.44 wrote:I enjoy people putting alien objects in my butthole

You sick bastard...

Army of GOD wrote:

the.killing.44 wrote:I GUESS I CHANGED MY MIND

Oh cool, I enjoy people putting alien objects in my butthole

You sick bastard…