I hope you're right. One thing I think we can all agree on is that Morey is clearly the sharpest out of our 3 GM's.
Championships are something special. Some cities go an entire lifetime without experiencing that magical feeling that we all shared back in the early 90's. I want my son to one day experience that. With the rockets and texans, we have owners that will do everything in their power to win. Les has been cursed and Mr. Mcnair received bad advice from czar casserly. I vote texans because like others have said, the nfl is the place where cinderella stories happen. *if next year is an uncapped year in the nfl, then we will have all of our core players back...if we want them back
Overall, the Rockets remain the best-run franchise, just like they have been for decades (even though I don't really like Les), I see no reason why they wouldn't be the odds-on favorite to climb the mountain again.
ultimately irrelevant to this discussion, which is focused on the hardest sport to win a championship *in any given year*, not hardest sport to win over and over again. given it's longer regular season, smaller playoff field and more competitive, evenly-matched postseason, baseball is, by far, the hardest to crack. these reasons, btw, are behind why its harder to sustain excellence, as is the lack of salary cap, which unevens the playing field. what are you arguing? because the presence of volatility and luck underscores that winning a world series is harder - you can't manufacture luck. besides, in baseball, the teams will be much more evenly matched, leading to more "upsets" that aren't really upsets. a division winner playing the wild card winner, where maybe 5-10 games, tops, separate the two teams, is a much more evenly matched series than a #1 seed taking on the #8 seed in the nba. very rarely, if ever, do you have match-ups in the MLB playoffs in which the two teams haven't won 90+ games.
One nit, picked: Agree with much of your post, but I can think of two examples in the first nanosecond off the top of my head: '06 Redbirds '05 Astros So it's certainly not *never*, nor would I think it's rarely either: you have bad divisions that produce Chargers-esque "division champions" all the time in baseball. '97 Astros, for example, at 88-74. Got *rolled* by the Braves; the matchup wasn't all that close.
How can you say that? Did you not see the numbers I posted earlier? The NBA is the hardest looking back both 10 years and 25 years. You see decades dominated by teams in the NBA. The only organization to have won a championship and not won another is the Miami Heat. The NBA is the absolute hardest to win in.
If you have sustained excellence, it's harder for a non-contender to become a contender. Look at the top 4 seeds in the NBA and MLB - you'll see much more variety in the MLB on a year to year basis. Outside of the Rockets once, no 5+ seed in the NBA ever wins, so they are kind of irrelevant (and even more so now with the 7-game first round). Having it more difficult to sustain excellence means that it's easier for new teams to constantly spring up into the mix. This is why you have so many championship dynasties in the NBA, some in the NFL, but very few in baseball. I'm arguing that once you make the playoffs in baseball vs. a top 4-seed in the NBA, you have a better chance to win in the MLB. And the previous point of sustained excellence makes it easier to make the elite-level playoffs in the MLB. You have to be amongst the two or three best teams in the NBA to realistically win a title. You have to be amongst the eight best teams in MLB to have a realistic shot to win a title there. If you're the very best, you have a better chance of winning in the NBA; if you're amongst the top tier, you have a better chance of winning in MLB. Sure, but a part of the reason that those teams are more "evenly matched" is that a sport that has a higher element of luck will naturally have teams gravitate towards 0.500 and have less of a win % differential between teams. Beyond that, ignore the first round of the NBA playoffs and look at the 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 matchups and you'll see the same results with more "upsets" in MLB.
juicystream: NBA is easiest to make the playoffs, by far. I mean, by far. You can be under .500 and make it. But I see your point--it may be easy to make the playoffs, but it's not easy to emerge as the champion, at least according the history you lay out. Great discussion! Good points by all.
Yes, by far the easiest to make the playoffs. When over half the teams make it, that is scary. I'd be pissed if baseball tried to pull that off. Then again the Astros would still be in the hunt.
Well it would definitely be the Rockets if selfish geriatric Hakeem wasn't asking for so much damn money, trying to ruin the team's ability to sign anyone else. Signed, This board 8 years ago
Astros. If we can just acquire some quality starting pitching, we're good enough to make the playoffs. From there, it's just about which team is the hottest. Basketball and football are more team-oriented, so it's harder to have flukish championships or finals appearances.
Instead of looking at each team in their current form, I think you have to ask which GM has the best chance of putting a championship team together. My vote - Rockets.
Honest the Dynamo are one of the top teams in MLS, so I'm willing to bet on them getting the next championship. Following them, I'd wager on the Texans being the only other team in position to make a legit non-miracle run to a championship. Next the Rockets but the Astros are so deep in rebuilding mode, it isn't funny.
