White Sox like I said Borderline MMT but just because just because 12 other teams had higher payrolls the the Cards, IMO, doesn't mean they were a traditional middle market team considering they spend nearly 89 million and where closer to top third in payroll then middle of the pack. Disagree and this is were I make argument for MLB stand...if you play 162 games and reach the postseason your not a fluke team getting hot at the right time, you where the best in your division or at worst 4th best team in the while NL or AL so you're a really good team. Now reaching the playoffs is one thing but the question I was asked was why do I think its the hardest to win a title and thats why I keep refering to that advancing vs winning as an example, the Rays got to the Series after taking care of the WSOx and RSox but then had to go up aginst the Phillies which was to hard to task. This happens to alot of teams and thus my argument that in MLB it takes a incredible effort to reach the top. NFL everyone has an equal shot at going 8-8 because no one has the ablity to spend more then others so everyone has an equal shot at the SB..in theory of course. NBA...uh half the darn league gets in the dance.
the fluke team thing is a red herring. the only sport where a fluke would be possible really is the NBA, where they let in more teams than they exclude. but the nature of basketball makes that extremely unlikely, as evidenced by being the league with the shortest list of champions over the same time frame as the others. but i don't see anyone in either of the other leagues producing champs that are comparable to the 2006 Cards or the 2003 or 1997 Marlins, for example. maybe the Giants winning a couple years back would be comparable...but i can't think of other examples like that.
Steelers were a 6th seed with no home field advantage Patroits were a huge underdogs in both the AFC title game and Super Bowl in 01/02. Bucs were huge underdogs in the NFC Title game and semi-huge dogs in the Super Bowl the year they one it. Ravens had to win the title by going to Tennesse and Oakland to reach the Super Bowl and then dismantled the #1 Seed Giants... Just a few examples that it happens more then you believe plus the 97 Marlins won 92 games to reach the playoffs and it wasn't a last day of the season scenrio I believe. The Cards were the one exception to my argument because they got lucky it was weak division and the Stros couldn't pull out the Series in the ATL to close the season saying that they had Carpenter, Pujols, Rolen and Wainwright playing key roles for that team so they had really good talent just needed to put it all togather in the playoffs.
The 97 Marlins weren't in a last day of the season scenario...but you don't remember them being a surprise?? They finished 9 games back of the Braves who won 101 games. ok, you win. i don't remember who was a HUGE underdog and don't care enough to look it up. there is tons of parity in football, and i won't argue with that. but the fact that more teams have won in baseball over the same period of time underscores the whole argument.
How about the 2004 Boston Red Sox. Down 3-0 to the NYY, and go on to sweep the WS. That was an upset of all time just for the fact that they did something nobody has ever done in the over 100 years of baseball.
but that dismisses the fact that a) baseball has the longest *regular* season, which weeds out the weaker teams and makes the postseason more competitive because it generally always features each league's elite teams; and b) the smallest field of postseason participants (26% to the nba's 53% and nfl's 37%), which makes getting in the hardest and underscores the idea that the postseason is comprised of the sport's elite. i think that's pretty indisputable. and unlike the nfl, you can't get lucky, steal a playoff game, and then advance in mlb; you have to get lucky, steal *three more games,* advance... and then do it all over again with no extended time off. further, i think too much emphasis is being given to this notion that a wild card winner is this grand underdog lucky to be in the postseason. as mentioned, you very *rarely* have a "weak" wild card team, if ever. you can't back into a wild card spot - the vast majority are *earned.* consider: * the '97 marlins actually won more games than their nlds opponent; so, too, did the '01 a's, '01 cardinals, '04 red sox, & '07 rockies; * the '00 mariners actually won more games than their nlcs opponent; so, too, did the '02 angels, '03 marlins, '06 tigers (the '07 red sox and rockies had the *same* record) * the '97 marlins actually won more games than their WS opponent; so, too, did the '02 angels. you really have one egregious outlier in baseball - the '06 cardinals (who weren't a wild card, btw). otherwise, looking at the standings, there isn't a large disparity between division winners and wild card winners. and the difference isn't one team being better, per se - but one team playing the majority of its games in a *better* division. after all, if you're the WC team, you're in a division with a superior team you have to play, like, 95 times a year. case in point, the '02 angels won 99 games in a division with 3 90-game winners - can we definitively label them the "4th best team" in that year's AL postseason? how about the the '04 red sox? they had the 3rd best record in all of baseball the year they won the WS as a WC. baseball's postseason is by far the hardest to get in to (and it's not even really very close) and has the second-hardest postseason structure to navigate. therefore, imo, it's the hardest.
I disagree - how often do you really see a true fluke NFL champ, or especially an NBA champ? Arizona last year was the closest we've seen in the NFL in a long time, I think - and in the end, they didn't win it. I can't think of an NBA one. There's also the aspect of simple luck. In the MLB, you have far more luck involved because of the role of a single player - the worst teams in MLB still win close to 40% of their games, and the best lose close to 40%. Comparatively, in the NBA, the better teams win far more often, and the worst teams lose more often. So in a 5 or 7 games series, there's less likelihood of an upset due to simple statistics.
The 1st Pats title, and the Giants beating the Pats(even if they played them nearly to a draw in week 17 as well). In NBA the Pistons of 2004 seemed to come out of nowhere. Nobody expected them to win.
Certainly there are surprise teams - but we tend to learn that those teams are actually good based on their future performance. For example, yes the Patriots were a surprise, but as we've learned since then, they actually were a really good team. Same with the Pistons - they were in the ECF the year before, and made the finals again the year after (I think - if not, then the year after that). In MLB, you see many more teams that suck, win a WS, and then suck again.
no you don't. going back to 2000, the angels in 2002 won 75 games the year before, 77 the year after. but they fall in line with your patriot example (5 wins/9 wins in their bookend seasons with no playoffs) - they've won 92, 95, 89, 94 and 100 games since. but they're the *only* team that had bookend losing seasons surrounding their WS championship. the yankees (98/95), dbacks (100/98), red sox (95/95), white sox (83/90), red sox (86/95) and phillies (89 and on pace to win 96 games) did not, by ANY stretch, suck, win, suck. the '03 marlins lost 79 the year before, but won 83 after and the cardinals won 78 the year after, but won 100 the year before.
rockets934life already listed some - the 2008 giants, the 2005 steelers, the 2001 patriots. the raiders went in '02 and lost 12 games the next year; the panthers went in '03 and lost 9 games the next year; the eagles went in '04 and lost 10 games the next year; the seahawks went in '05 and lost 7 games the next year; the bears went in '06 and lost 9 games the next year... even the '07 patriots didn't make the playoffs the following year and, while early obviously, no one thinks the '08 cardinals was year 1 of a dynasty. if they fail to make the playoffs, that'll be 7 consecutive years the SB loser failed to qualify for the playoffs the following year. what??!??!? the worst teams don't get into the mlb playoffs; not necessarily true in the nba, where under .500 teams make it often. the nba is off the table - it's far and away the easiest. luck rarely carries a team over the course of a potential 181-game season. come on...
Sorry - but win/suck/win, I didn't necessarily mean one-year wonders. I was more thinking of sustained excellence. You have a lot more teams in MLB pop up for a short period, be good, and then go back to sucking. Outside of the Yankees and Red Sox, along with the Braves in the 90's - all of whom had major financial advantages over the competition - you don't see many teams maintain their excellence. In the NBA, if you look at the top 4 seeds (to compare fairly to the MLB), you have the same teams in that mix over and over, year after year. Once you're at the top, its much easier to sustain that because you have fewer players involved, and because there is less luck per game. If the Yankees play the Royals 10 times, the Royals will likely win about 3 of those games. If the Lakers play the T-Wolves, the T-Wolves probably won't win 3 of those games. In the NFL, you also have more long-term sustained excellence, though not nearly as much so as the NBA. Here, I was referring specifically to series within the playoffs - not making the playoffs. A series between 2 MLB teams is more volatile and susceptible to an upset than a series between 2 NBA teams because of the luck factor involved in baseball, which is shown in win %'s of the best and worst teams.
Another way to look at it is this. If you were to try to guess the champion of each sport at the beginning of the playoffs, I think you'd be right most often in the NBA, next in the NFL, and last in the MLB. And that's counterintuitive given the number of teams involved in the playoffs in each sport.
Well, that's the problem isn't it? Yao has never played a full season without missing significant time. What makes you think he ever will? Especially as he gets older? And just about every team in the league has a few good young players. Do you think Brooks/Scola/Landry/Ariza can carry a team to a championship without a superstar? I love them too, but they can't. Horry, Cassell, Elie, and OT were all great players for the Rockets, but they never would have won anything without Hakeem. Who is our Hakeem now? Yao? I don't think so.
Damn. never looked at it like that. But I still will have to go with the team that has the talent right now. That is the Texans
I know I picked the Astros, and I believe they will win before the others, but the Texans have the best chance of winning it because football lends itself better to quick turnarounds. The Rockets would be next if McGrady was able to be the same player he was in 2005.
We'll never have another Hakeem IMO. But I see what you're saying we need a star that will be available longer than half his career. I don't doubt that with all the players coming in and out of camp and left on our roster that Morey doesn't have something up his sleeve as far as a trade. I'm not saying that he's going to pull an Al Jefferson trade out of his ass but with about a year I'd say we have either our high draft pick playing in a Rox uniform along side Yao or another superstar above Yao, talent wise not height, carrying the team. From the looks of things our roster is going to have a real makeover between this and next season, some will love the moves and others won't understand them, kinda like when we traded for Lowry last year. Who's to say Yao doesn't get traded either..... Doubtful, put it is possible.
In baseball if you get 2 hot pitcher you can win the whole thing with the rest of the team not being that good. Take 2005 astros for example or the 98 padres.
