The Strongest City In American Sports (leagues, fan, cups, NFL)

[pbergen]

Originally Posted by T-8

If you add NBA, NHL, NFL and MLB titles, which is the most winning American city ?

Checking stats, I've been able to build a descent-step titles list, in which you find not only biggest cities, but, surprisingly, also small cities.

1. New York > 46
New Jersey > 3

new jersey should not be separated from new york in this list. both of the pro sports teams that identify with new jersey (the nj nets and nj devils) actually represent the greater new york city metropolitan area - and of course, northern nj is a major component (primarily suburban) of this region and market.

so the 3 titles won by the new jersey devils should be counted toward new york city's total. after all, in trying to determine "the most winning american city," what you're really looking for is "the metropolitan area or market with the most titles."

then you need to take into account that the los angeles dodgers, who used to play in brooklyn, won 1 world series title during their time in nyc. and baseball's ny giants won 5 world series titles while based in nyc before moving to san francisco.

so here's the breakdown of championships won by major league sports teams based in the greater nyc metropolitan area:

-ny yankees: 26
-ny giants (mlb): 5
-brooklyn dodgers: 1
-ny mets: 2
-ny giants (nfl): 7
-ny jets: 1
-ny knicks: 2
-nj nets: 0 (note: the nets franchise captured 2 ABA championships in the 1970s prior to joining the NBA, but because the NBA does not recognize ABA records and statistics, the nets are officially considered by the league to have never won a title.)
-ny rangers: 4
-ny islanders: 4
-nj devils: 3

TOTAL
55 championships

final note:
before any geographically-challenged poster tries to claim that rochester and syracuse should be counted toward nyc's championship tally, keep in mind that both of those cities are hundreds of miles away from nyc and would take hours to reach by car from the five boroughs. same goes for teams based in buffalo, which is literally on the opposite side of the state.

these three cities have nothing to do with nyc's metropolitan area, just like san francisco has nothing to do with los angeles, houston is unrelated to dallas, and so forth.

[pbergen]

Originally Posted by 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)...

incorrect. new york didn't "need" multiple teams in each sport to top boston for most championships.
way to make this into a boston vs. nyc competition, though.

let's break this down to prove my point:

suppose that we were to limit the nyc championship tally to only the oldest or original team in each sport that is still based in the nyc area.

this means that we'd only count championships won by the yankees, nfl giants, knicks, and rangers, while excluding the dodgers, mlb giants, mets, jets, nets, devils, and islanders.

the resulting tally would be as follows:
-ny yankees: 26
-ny giants (nfl): 7
-ny knicks: 2
-ny rangers: 4

TOTAL
39 titles
that's still more than any other city, even without counting the championships won by new york expansion teams like the mets or long-gone teams like the dodgers.

fwiw, here's boston's tally:
-red sox: 7
-braves: 1 (as you know, the team relocated to milwaukee in 1953 and then to atlanta in 1966. nevertheless, the braves' lone world series championship in boston needs to be counted toward the total, even though the OP completely overlooked it.)
-patriots: 3
-celtics: 17
-bruins: 5

TOTAL
33 titles

undoubtedly an impressive total; boston has a great sports history.

that said, the next time you feel like taking a gratuitous shot at nyc, make sure you get your facts straight.

[pbergen]

Originally Posted by 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.

good point. the greater los angeles area has done quite well - far better than any other sunbelt city/region:

-dodgers: 5 (not counting their 1 title in brooklyn)
-angels: 1
-rams: 1 (not counting their 1 title in cleveland and 1 title in st. louis)
-raiders: 1 (not counting their 2 titles in oakland)
-lakers: 9 (not counting their 5 titles in minneapolis)
-clippers: 0
-kings: 0
-ducks: 1

TOTAL
18 titles (not 19, as the OP mistakenly indicated).
this tally doesn't include the LA galaxy's 2 mls cup wins, as we're only considering the "big 4" sports leagues in this discussion.

as charles pointed out, the LA region's total is pretty remarkable when you consider that it didn't have any top-level pro teams until mid-century - meaning that there's been a lot of winning in a relatively short period of time.

by contrast, the older northeastern and upper midwestern cities had a decades-long head start when it came to their pro sports teams.

consider that the dodgers moved to LA in 1958.
the rams arrived in 1946 and left after the 1994 season.
the raiders were only around between 1982 and 1994.
the lakers rolled into town in 1960.
the clippers arrived in 1984 (although if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? )
the kings were a 1967 expansion team.
the ducks were a 1993 expansion team.

[svg210]

Originally Posted by pbergen

good point. the greater los angeles area has done quite well - far better than any other sunbelt city/region:

-dodgers: 5 (not counting their 1 title in brooklyn)
-angels: 1
-rams: 1 (not counting their 1 title in cleveland and 1 title in st. louis)
-raiders: 1 (not counting their 2 titles in oakland)
-lakers: 9 (not counting their 5 titles in minneapolis)
-clippers: 0
-kings: 0
-ducks: 1

TOTAL
18 titles (not 19, as the OP mistakenly indicated).
this tally doesn't include the LA galaxy's 2 mls cup wins, as we're only considering the "big 4" sports leagues in this discussion.

as charles pointed out, the LA region's total is pretty remarkable when you consider that it didn't have any top-level pro teams until mid-century - meaning that there's been a lot of winning in a relatively short period of time.

by contrast, the older northeastern and upper midwestern cities had a decades-long head start when it came to their pro sports teams.

consider that the dodgers moved to LA in 1958.
the rams arrived in 1946 and left after the 1994 season.
the raiders were only around between 1982 and 1994.
the lakers rolled into town in 1960.
the clippers arrived in 1984 (although if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? )
the kings were a 1967 expansion team.
the ducks were a 1993 expansion team.

Add 1 to LA's total for The XFL it was actually a legit sport, the LA Xtreme's Championship.

[pbergen]

Originally Posted by T-8

9. Oakland > 13
San Francisco > 10

oakland and san francisco (as well as san jose) should be counted as a single sports market (just like nyc/north jersey); there's no need to separate these cities.

also, your championship tally for these cities is way off due to the fact that the athletics won 5 of their titles while they were based in philly, the raiders won 1 of their championships in LA, the giants won all 5 of their titles in ny, and the warriors captured their first two titles in philly.

like many sunbelt cities/regions, there are several teams in the bay area that relocated from elsewhere. any titles won in those other cities don't count toward the bay area's total.

so here's what the san francisco bay area's championship count should be:

49ers: 5
raiders: 2
giants: 0
athletics: 4
warriors: 1
seals: 0 (this was a short-lived nhl expansion team that eventually moved to cleveland)
sharks: 0

total: 12
off the top of my head, that might be the second highest championship tally among sunbelt cities/regions (after LA).

[pbergen]

Originally Posted by svg210

Add 1 to LA's total for The XFL it was actually a legit sport, the LA Xtreme's Championship.

oh yeah - how could i forget the league that gave us the likes of "he hate me"?

[thefinalsay]

Originally Posted by T-8

Hi everybody !

I'm from Southern Italy and I'd like to show you something that really made me curious about.

If you add NBA, NHL, NFL and MLB titles, which is the most winning American city ?

Checking stats, I've been able to build a descent-step titles list, in which you find not only biggest cities, but, surprisingly, also small cities.

Please note that some data could be wrong, especially those referred to the city of Phoenix, which include 2 NFL titles won by the Cardinals when the team was not based in Phoenix. I didn't know where the Cardinals were at the time they have won, so I've added their titles to that won by the Arizona Diamondbacks in 2001.

Enjoy and criticise !!


1. New York > 46
2. Boston > 31
3. Montreal > 24
4. Chicago > 23
5. Detroit > 21
6. Los Angeles > 19
7. Toronto > 15
8. St. Louis > 14
9. Oakland > 13
10. Green Bay > 12
Pittsburgh > 12
12. Philadelphia > 10
San Francisco > 10
14. Cleveland > 6
Dallas > 6
Washington DC > 6
17. Baltimore > 5
Cincinnati > 5
Edmonton > 5
Indianapolis > 5
Miami > 5
Minneapolis > 5
23. Denver > 4
San Antonio > 4
25. Atlanta > 3
New Jersey > 3
Phoenix > 3
28. Houston > 2
Kansas City > 2
Tampa > 2
31. Anaheim > 1
Calgary > 1
Milwaukee > 1
Portland > 1
Raleigh, NC > 1
Rochester, NY > 1
Seattle > 1
Syracuse, NY > 1

it's kind of unfair to include NY. they have two teams in the NFL, MLB, and the NHL. they should have the most titles since they are like 2 cities. that list probably also includes the brooklyn dodgers!

[ogre]

Los Angeles has certainly done well during the several decades that they've had major-league teams, but actually it appears that they still fall a bit behind the top two finishers, based on how the three cities have done since the Lakers moved to L.A. To truly "normalize" this, you'd have to account for the fact that each city has had more than one club in at least a couple of sports, and account for the difference in the number of years each sport has had the current top professional leagues. To keep it simple, though, you can just look at total championships since 1961. I chose '61 because that was the first year of NBA playoffs with the Lakers in LA. This makes '61 the first year when LA had clubs in all three sports except hockey. The Kings came later, but since they've never won a title, their total makes no difference. Whether to count teams in different cities in the same metro area is a debate in itself, but, once again, in the interest of keeping it simple, I'm counting all the clubs in each metro.

So, since 1961, the Lakers have won nine NBA titles, the Dodgers have won the World Series four times, and there has been one championship apiece for the LA Raiders, the Angels, and the Mighty Ducks (sorry, that name, and the fact that a team by that name has actually won a major sports championship, strikes me as funny enough that I have to pause and LOLOLOLOL!). So that's a total of 16 titles for greater LA since they've had clubs in all three sports where they've won titles. The one other title by the LA Dodgers, in '59, and the one by the Rams in '51, gives a grand total of 18 championships, but then you're getting into the complicated territory of counting championships for years when the three cities being compared here did not all have clubs in every sport.

So, let's look at how the other two cities have done since '61. For greater NYC, you've got eight titles by the Evil Empire, four by the Islanders, three by the Giants, three by the Devils, two each by the Mets and the Knicks, and one each by the Rangers and Jets, for a total of 24. For Boston since '61, there have been fifteen titles by the Celtics, three by the Patriots, and two each by the Sox and the Bruins; total: 22. Um, by the way, I'm going with the sports the OP counted, so no, I'm not counting the, um, XFL. I wouldn't be inclined to count it under any circumstances if I were counting major championships. Also would not count Arena Football, WNBA, or MLS. For those who enjoy those sports, more power to you, but I can't see counting them as "major" sports.

As I said earlier, if you really want to accurately normalize this, you have to account not only for number of years each city has had a club in each sport, but also number of clubs, and come up with a ratio of championships to club-years. At a casual glance, it appears to me that Boston wins in that scenario, though you'd have to do the calculation to be sure. If you do it the most simple way, and count total championships for each city or metro area since LA had teams in all three sports in which they've won titles, LA still does not win. Pretty impressive record for a city of transplants and expansion clubs, though.

[pbergen]

Originally Posted by thefinalsay

it's kind of unfair to include NY. they have two teams in the NFL, MLB, and the NHL. they should have the most titles since they are like 2 cities. that list probably also includes the brooklyn dodgers!

no, it's not unfair to include nyc on this list. please read post #22 above to see why.

and the nyc metro has more teams than the ones you mentioned. there are 2 nyc-area teams in the nba (knicks and nets) and three in the nhl (rangers, devils, and islanders).

and no, the original poster did not include the brooklyn dodgers (or the baseball ny giants, for that matter) in his list. i already addressed this in post #21 above.

[camelot05]

Someone other than me should break it down titles per team. NY has multiple teams for multiple sports, while most are lucky to have 2 teams total