The Strongest City In American Sports (hockey, pro, athletics, Champion)

[T-8]

Originally Posted by ogre

T-8, it is an interesting idea to do what you are trying to do here... [...]
Good idea the OP has here, but wow, does it get complicated.

Dear ogre,

nice pointing out, I've really appreciated it.
The research you mentioned has undoubtedly to be done, but I think it won't take so much time since Wikipedia can help me to reach the goal I'm aiming at.
Let me show you, one by one, this research's features:

1. "The more I look over your list, the more I realize that you've credited several cities with championships their current teams won in other cities".
Nothing but true. It's my fault, because I firstly haven't thought about crediting features. My intent is to credit each city with every title any pro team has won while staying there. Then, Oakland A's, Arizona Cardinals, Indianapolis Colts and Atlanta Braves (and perhaps others) digits are surely wrongly credited.

2. About NL: I think that Wikipedia - as well as any pro baseball yearbook - considers each NL title (assigned when AL wasn't still estabilished) as a clear MLB title. The same thing comes to be told about the NFL Championships assigned before SuperBowl was born.

3. About how-to-credit-titles: due to the nature of this list, which shows a city-by-city report, it comes to be kind of unnatural crediting titles to a metro area instead of to a city. Hence, San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose are going to be separately credited. Anaheim has to be similarly credited: I wrongly typed "1" (considering the Stanley Cup won by the Mighty Ducks in 2002), instead of typing "2" (adding to that Stanley Cup the World Series won by the Angels).

4. Doesn't seem to me to be this complicated. Succeeding in this research means checking title-by-title the teams both I and you have mentioned (plus, maybe, the Chicago Bears and/or someone else), just by reading Wikipedia's articles or checking SI.com out.

5. Glad that I've been criticized - and somehow surely helped - by your clever post.
Ever thought about the possibility that "Mighty Ducks" could be referred - somehow - to Walt Disney's belonging to the city of Anaheim ??

Up the Suns !!

[ogre]

When I said this was "complicated," I meant simply that there is more to this than looking at the total number of championships each club has in its history and then crediting those championships to the city where the club happens to be located at present. You also have to decide whether individual cities within metro areas get credit, or the entire metro area gets credit for all teams in the area, no matter which city they are based in. Finally, you have to decide what to do about championships in the early years of professional sports leagues, before championships were decided in the way they are at present--for example, National League champions in baseball before the American League existed. Different people will have different ideas on the best answers to these questions. All you need to do is specify which championships, from which eras, you are and are not including, and what you are doing about metropolitan areas, so people know the basic guidelines you've established.

I can see how it makes sense in some cases to credit championships to individual cities within metro areas, but I'm curious about how you want to credit some of the teams in the New York City area, which play their home games in New Jersey. Not to mention, the Islanders, who play in a NYC suburb in New York State. Again, I think it's just a matter of making clear how you have decided to acknowledge credit for championships.

If you want to credit each city for championships that teams have won when they have been located in that city, you have some research to do, because many clubs, not just the Arizona Cardinals, have played in more than one city. I've mentioned the Colts and the Braves as examples, but there are others. Another I can help you with off the top of my head is that the A's have won the World Series four times in Oakland. They never won it in Kansas City, so all their other championships besides those in Oakland were won when they were in Philadelphia.

That's about all I can think of at the moment. Interesting idea for a thread you have here. Good luck with your research.

[Mike Peterson]

Originally Posted by nl2134

I personally think Boston is the city to beat right now.

MLB - Boston Red Sox (Champions)
NBA - Boston Celtics (64-16 so far. Nuff said)
NFL - New England Patriots (CHEATED)

Fixed that for ya

[ogre]

Originally Posted by Mike Peterson

Fixed that for ya

Gotta disagree. People who really believe any of that made any difference in the Patsies' championships don't know pro sports very well. They don't know how much a part of the game (football, baseball, basketball, you name it) sign-stealing is.

A reminder, though, to my fellow Boston fans. Enjoy it while it lasts. This kind of thing never lasts forever.

Of course also, the original post was much more about all-time performance. That would take some extensive research to get right, because of the number of clubs that have moved around, and won championships in more than one city.

[Mike Peterson]

Originally Posted by ogre

Gotta disagree. People who really believe any of that made any difference in the Patsies' championships don't know pro sports very well. They don't know how much a part of the game (football, baseball, basketball, you name it) sign-stealing is.

A reminder, though, to my fellow Boston fans. Enjoy it while it lasts. This kind of thing never lasts forever.

Of course also, the original post was much more about all-time performance. That would take some extensive research to get right, because of the number of clubs that have moved around, and won championships in more than one city.

If you break the rules you are cheating.

They were caught breaking the rules.

It is pretty simple, if the video taping did not benefit the Patsies they would not have done it. They video taped because it gave them a competitive advantage.

I understand that teams steal signals, some ways are legal and some are not and some, like video taping from the sidelines, was explicitly brought up to all the teams again before this season. The Pats still felt they needed to do it.

To claim that someone does not know sports if they think the Pats cheated is just inane. The lost a first round draft choice and were fined over $500,000.
That is your proof right there that they cheated.

I purposely put "cheated" in there rather than say "it made a difference" as you put it.
I did this because as I stated, if it did not benefit them they would not have done it.

[ogre]

Apologies for reading something into your post. Guess I'm still reacting to how out of hand it got during the football season, with a whole bunch of posts about how now all their championships had to be called into question, even quite a few posts that basically said that for sure they must have been cheating for a number of years and for sure they would not have won any of their championships without cheating, all of which is pretty ridiculous. The only thing I will say about your post is . . . this cheating Patsies stuff has pretty much been done to death. Maybe it's time to give it a rest.

[giannimo]

Interesting that New York needed at least two teams in each of those sports to top Boston (which by the way is now at 32 after the 2008 Celtics)...

[giannimo]

PS, as far as that Pats thing goes, to say they wouldn't have done it without sign stealing is ridiculous and shows a complete ignorance of the facts. Number one, other teams admitted that the practice was pretty much standard operating procedure in the NFL, though only NE was rung up for it. Number two, as you may or may not recall, NE went undefeated in that season after the tapes were confiscated in the first game.

[jazzy jeff 11]

Originally Posted by Canes2006Champs

And dont forget the Bruins, their still in the playoffs, but It seems like they are about to get knocked out.

The only team outta the Boston teams that i like and Respect are theBruins. Classic team. the Red Sux aren't event Boston's origianl team.

[Charles]

If you normalize the number of championships with the number of years a city was eligible to win (had a team there), then Los Angeles wins easily.

Keep in mind the Lakers didn't play in LA until 1961, the Dodgers in 1958.

Of course New York and Boston will rise to the top in total count but only because they've had so many teams for so many years. Kind of like Babe Ruth leading the league in strike outs too.