Should We Feel Sorry for New York Sports Teams?
The New York Times wants us to feel sorry for the fate of New York sports teams, who have had a difficult time winning championships. Except for the Yankees, of course, whose dominance in Major League Baseball history is such that no other team has won even half as many titles as they have. The poor Rangers haven't won a Stanley Cup since 1994. The Mets haven't won a World Series since 1986*. The Knicks haven't won an NBA title since 1973, while the Jets haven't won a Super Bowl since 1969! How about the New York Giants? Oh yeah, they won a Super Bowl just three years ago.
I suppose one could argue that as the nation's largest city New York is somehow entitled to a greater share of titles, but the fact is its distribution across the four major sports is not in the slightest bit unusual, and that's even if you don't count the New Jersey Devils and New York Islanders, two successful NHL teams who play in the New York metropolitan area.
The problem with this article is that it could have been published in virtually any other newspaper in the country without looking out of place. In the Bay Area, take away the 49ers five Super Bowls and you're left with four titles by the A's, two by the Raiders, one each by the Warriors and Giants and none yet by the Sharks. LA's record seems less impressive without the Lakers, as does Chicago's without the Bulls or Dallas' without the Cowboys. Philadelphia's four sports teams haven't exactly set the world on fire lately, and the city of Cleveland hasn't had a championship parade since the 1960s in any sport. The only city that truly seems to punch above its weight is Boston, whose four teams are all among the best in their respective sports.
I realize it's a slow period for sports but surely the NYT could have done better than that?
*An earlier version of this post incorrectly stated that the Mets' last World Series title came in 1996. It was in 1986, as anyone with a Bill Buckner memory should know.
January 29th, 2011 - 08:24
I will give the obvious “no” answer, but then I want to argue with your characterization of the A’s.
The A’s were a .500 team last year, but it wasn’t all the pitching. The hitting was not amazing, but it is not terrible either. When looking at offense, you can’t just look at “Runs allowed”. The A’s play in the Coliseum. Therefore, for half the games their offensive production is suppressed massively for this penalty. The A’s actually have a lot of about average hitters for their position. Barton was way better than most first basemen, Ellis is about average, Pennington average, Kouz lower, Crisp better, Cust way better, and the corner outfield way worse. It averaged out to… about average. And they are all great fielders, greatly improving the stats the pitchers generate. Actually, our pitching was not that amazing, but a product of our spectacular defense. This year, we upgraded the corner OF positions, which was by far our greatest weakness. And they are both good defenders. If the A’s stay healthy (a very large if), I say watch out. Texas is probably slightly better, especially with the Napoli fiasco and Beltre, but don’t discount the A’s.
Citing a good source: http://www.athleticsnation.com/2010/12/7/1860598/the-top-three-misconceptions-about-oaklands-2010-season
January 29th, 2011 - 08:25
Also, bullpens are incredibly inconsistent. We had almost the same bullpen last year as the year before, and we went from one of the best to one of the worst.
February 14th, 2011 - 23:54
The Mets last won in 1986, not 1996.
February 15th, 2011 - 00:13
Good call, Wade. I’ve fixed it.