Repeat Champions

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

I was listening to ESPN radio this morning, and they pointed out that this is the first time in a long time there is actually a chance for the reigning champion to repeat in each of the four major sports.

Baseball - Phillies - in the World Series
Football - Steelers - still pretty good
Basketball - Lakers - still very good
Hockey - Penguins - still very good

I would say the Steelers are the least likely repeat as the NFL is the least likely league to see a repeat champion.

EDIT: That and the Steelers are not considered one of the top teams right now. The Phillies are in the WS, so they obviously are one of the top teams. The Lakers are the prohibitive favorite in the NBA, and the Penguins are considered one of the top teams in the NHL (although not a prohibitive favorite like the Lakers).

[Déise]

Originally Posted by Aldeth the Foppish Idiot

I was listening to ESPN radio this morning, and they pointed out that this is the first time in a long time there is actually a chance for the reigning champion to repeat in each of the four major sports.

Baseball - Phillies - in the World Series
Football - Steelers - still pretty good
Basketball - Lakers - still very good
Hockey - Penguins - still very good

I would say the Steelers are the least likely repeat as the NFL is the least likely league to see a repeat champion.

EDIT: That and the Steelers are not considered one of the top teams right now. The Phillies are in the WS, so they obviously are one of the top teams. The Lakers are the prohibitive favorite in the NBA, and the Penguins are considered one of the top teams in the NHL (although not a prohibitive favorite like the Lakers).

That's a pretty miserable list of the four major sports .

[dmc]

Well, I'm a Lakers fan so, of course, I'd like them to repeat. That being said, the vagaries of the lengthy season, injuries and an insanely long playoff schedule means that even prohibitive favorites don't necessarily even make the finals, let alone win (i.e., Cleveland/Boston last year). Yes, the Lakers should cruise through the West, but it's not a given.

[Blades of Vanatar]

As long as Duncan and Parker are healthy, San Antonio always has a shot. But with the Lakers adding Artest, I think they are still the favored team to win the West. We all know Shaq won't last the full season, especially after playing most of last years season. So I doubt Cleveland will win the east, Boston is the top dog with picking up Rasheed.

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

Originally Posted by Déise

That's a pretty miserable list of the four major sports .

Well, I was speaking of major team sports in the US, and the pecking order is very clear. Its:

1. Football
2. Baseball*
3. Basketball
4. Hockey

* Baseball and Basketball are extremely close, and there are cities (like Los Angeles) where basketball is more popular than baseball. Heck, they are the only city with TWO professional basketball teams! Further, NASCAR is technically the second most popular "sport" in the US. How driving a car really fast around a circle for three hours is anything but a snorefest - much less entertaining - remains a mystery to me.

However, to placate the European members of the board, let me expand the list a little bit:

1,583,249: Soccer - FIIK the name of a single team in the US
4,174,682: Cricket - I love the sound of crickets on those long summer nights.

[Blades of Vanatar]

Wow, you have soccer that high on your list? I had soccer right below sliding down a hill of razorblades and right above Nascar.

---------- Added 2 hours, 13 minutes and 35 seconds later... ----------

I can't speak for the other teams, but I KNOW my Fighting Phils will repeat. J-Roll and Co. will not be denied!

[Kullervo]

Originally Posted by Blades of Vanatar

So I doubt Cleveland will win the east, Boston is the top dog with picking up Rasheed.

What about Orlando? They're slightly better than last year with some nice signings (J-Will bounces back ) and Nelson back on the court.

Is hockey considered a major sport in USA? I thought hockey players aren't household names.

[Blades of Vanatar]

Hockey has lust it's gusto in the US. Their strike a few years ago really hurt their fan-base.

Orlando is also looking good, but Boston had injuries last year and still won their division. Nelson isn't that good. Plus he's small, so that hurts him defensively, especially against a bigger team, like Bos/Cle. With the addition of Rasheed, Boston's offense will really spread the court, making scoring for Allen, Pierce and Garnett that much easier. Of course, that is only if Rasheed can hold his temper.... plus, who knows, maybe my Sixers will have a banner year, winning might get contagious in Philly all of a sudden!

[Saber]

I hope the Angels upset the Yanks and the Phils. That being said, it will probably be a Phillies-Yankees World Series, in which case I want the Phillies to win (as much as I resent them for beating my Rays last year!).

[dmc]

I think the Rasheed Wallace confidence is a bit misplaced. He's old (not as old as Shaq, but still . . . ). He has indifferent motivation at the best of times. He has a temper. He has completely fallen in love with the 3 pointer/ outside shot such that he is not a worry inside at all. About all I will give him is that, if properly motivated, he can be a defensive demon on other 4's and 5's because he's still reasonably quick and has long arms. I see him as being a better shooting Kevin Garnett without the psycho intense attitude on defense and without any inside presence. He'll probably help, but I don't think he's really going to be a difference maker.

Rondo is much more important for the C's from the perspective that he needs to shoot better and make free throws. He's got freaky skills on the dribble and defense (although not a complete burner like Tony Parker or Chris Paul, his defense makes up for that).

Ray, Paul and Kevin are getting older, so it behooves the other guys to step up if the C's want to make the finals this year.

[ChickenIsGood]

I saw an interesting analysis by the Mav's former statistician that basically said Rasheed Wallace was the tenth best player of the decade. Basically the stat was a combination of offensive and defensive efficiency, +- points while on the floor and bench, if they improve their teammates play while on the court, and a myriad of other factors. I wish I could adequately explain it, but I cannot.

The same statistic also has Dwayne Wade and LeBron James as better players than Kobe Bryant which is entirely accurate in my opinion.

To give more credence to it, the top player was Kevin Garnett, followed by Tim Duncan,

[dmc]

Yeah, except that Kobe has 4 rings, Dwyane has one and LeBron has zero. Garnett has one and Sheed has one. When you look at where it counts, you look at Shaq, Kobe and Timmy. (I wonder how that works for Robert Horry )

[ChickenIsGood]

I tend to undervalue rings compared to other people. Supporting cast is huge.

Bryant has a better jump shot that James, but that's about it. He also may have a mental edge, but his teammates are simply better. When I watch Wade he just seems like the best player in the league talent-wise. However, they are all very close, along with Anthony.

A dominant big man certainly helps and that's why O'Neal and Duncan certainly deserve all the accolades they recieve.

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

Originally Posted by ChickenIsGood

I tend to undervalue rings compared to other people.

Apparently so. Most people tend to value rings more - even Hall of Fame selectors. This is especially true in football. Take Tom Brady as an example here. He has had one monster statistical season and two other good (but by no means great) ones. However, he is considered a sure-fire Hall of Famer. Why? Because he won three Super Bowls and played in a fourth. And that's how it is all over football. Terry Bradshaw was an above average but by no means great QB statistically throughout his career. Same thing with Joe Namath. Why are they in the Hall? Super Bowl Rings. If you don't have a ring, you have to put up near legendary numbers to get in the hall. In terms of QBs, the only guys I can name in the hall without a ring who have played since the 1970s are Dan Marino and Dan Fouts - and they were regarded as the best players in their position...

[Blades of Vanatar]

Kobe is the best for one reason. When it's needed, in the big game, he comes thru. Just like MJ, Magic and Bird.... Until Wade and LeBron can do that, they won't get the recognition. You can talk supporting cast all you want, but Kobe had Derek Fisher as the other guard last year. The only other star was Gasol. LeBron can do more things on the court than Kobe, but that doesn't win championships, coming thru in the clutch during the playoffs does. That is what makes him great. I say this hating his guts by the way.

[Sir Belisarius]

Go Phillies!!! I was at game 5 in Philadelphia when they clinched against the Dodgers, and I have tickets to game 3 of the World Series! It's a great time to be a Phillies Phan! We have suffered for a long time...

[Saber]

I hope you guys win! Damn Yankees...

I do hate Charlie Manual with a passion though; he is a complete idiot - all the interviews during the All Star Game are absolutely horrendous to watch. He is worse with favoritism than Terry Francona...

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

Is Game 4 Sunday night in Philly? The reason I ask is that Sunday afternoon, the Giants are playing the Eagles in Philly. You could have two New York teams playing two Philly teams in two different sports!

[dmc]

We have suffered for a long time...

What, a whole year? You sound like a Red Sox fan now.

[Blades of Vanatar]

Originally Posted by Aldeth the Foppish Idiot

Is Game 4 Sunday night in Philly? The reason I ask is that Sunday afternoon, the Giants are playing the Eagles in Philly. You could have two New York teams playing two Philly teams in two different sports!

Yep. And it makes for some awesome tailgaiting! Talk about going on a bender!

[Triactus]

Originally Posted by Blades of Vanatar

Hockey has lust it's gusto in the US. Their strike a few years ago really hurt their fan-base.

They had a fan-base? Teams in the northern US fare well, but in the south, attendance is so low it's ridiculous. There is more and more talk of bringing struggling teams (like those in Nashville, Phoenix, for example) in Québec city and Winnipeg...

But going back on topic, the only sport I know, like any other good canadian, is hockey. So I can only say that with the season start Pittsburgh is having, they're still likely to win the cup, although like every other sport, upstart teams have a way of winning big...

@ Aldeth : Well, *I* can name a soccer team in my region. The Montréal Impact! HA!

[Splunge]

I'm shocked that nobody has mentioned the Calgary Stampeders

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

Originally Posted by Triactus

Teams in the northern US fare well, but in the south, attendance is so low it's ridiculous. There is more and more talk of bringing struggling teams (like those in Nashville, Phoenix, for example) in Québec city and Winnipeg.

Both Quebec and Winnipeg were hockey towns, and should never had lost their teams. And I also will put Harford on the list as a city that shouldn't have lost their team (and yes, I'm aware that Harford is not in Canada). It would be the equivalent of an NFL team like Buffalo that has a strong fan base, but plays in a small market losing its team.

I'm stuggling at the moment to remember where those teams relocated to. IIRC, Denver got the Nordique franchise, and I'm pretty sure that the Jets moved to Phoenix to become the Coyotes - although I could be wrong there, but I don't THINK the Phoenix team was an expansion team. If Phoenix is one of the stuggling teams it should be doubling infuriating to Canadians, as Phoenix is one of the locations of the "stolen" franchises. Of course, I'm not at all familiar with the entire history. Were those teams relocated becuase they were stuggling in their previous locations?

Back on topic, it looks grim for a repeat champ in Philly. I am surprised that the Phillies did not go back to Lee in Game 4. I understand the sentiment that Lee has never pitched on short rest before, and ideally the World Series is not the time when you want to find out if your pitcher can perform on short rest. However, I don't buy that line of reasoning. You never make a pitcher go on short rest unless it's the post season or the very end of the regular season and you're making a playoff push. So ALL pitchers find out how effective they are on short rest in very important games. If the game was not particularly important, you wouldn't play a guy on short rest.

I felt from the onset of this series that the Yankees had the better team. However, I thought the Phillies best chance was to put Lee out there in Game 1, 4, and, if necessary, 7. Lee has been damn near un-touchable in the post season, and it wouldn't be a stretch to think that the Phillies could win all three of those games. That would mean the Phillies would only need one other win from one of their other pitchers. Lee pitches tonight, and it wouldn't surprise me if the Phillies send the series back to New York. I just don't see them winning three games in a row.

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

Originally Posted by Triactus

Teams in the northern US fare well, but in the south, attendance is so low it's ridiculous. There is more and more talk of bringing struggling teams (like those in Nashville, Phoenix, for example) in Québec city and Winnipeg.

Both Quebec and Winnipeg were hockey towns, and should never had lost their teams. And I also will put Harford on the list as a city that shouldn't have lost their team (and yes, I'm aware that Harford is not in Canada). It would be the equivalent of an NFL team like Buffalo that has a strong fan base, but plays in a small market losing its team.

I'm stuggling at the moment to remember where those teams relocated to. IIRC, Denver got the Nordique franchise, and I'm pretty sure that the Jets moved to Phoenix to become the Coyotes - although I could be wrong there, but I don't THINK the Phoenix team was an expansion team. If Phoenix is one of the stuggling teams it should be doubling infuriating to Canadians, as Phoenix is one of the locations of the "stolen" franchises. Of course, I'm not at all familiar with the entire history. Were those teams relocated becuase they were stuggling in their previous locations?

Back on topic, it looks grim for a repeat champ in Philly. I am surprised that the Phillies did not go back to Lee in Game 4. I understand the sentiment that Lee has never pitched on short rest before, and ideally the World Series is not the time when you want to find out if your pitcher can perform on short rest. However, I don't buy that line of reasoning. You never make a pitcher go on short rest unless it's the post season or the very end of the regular season and you're making a playoff push. So ALL pitchers find out how effective they are on short rest in very important games. If the game was not particularly important, you wouldn't play a guy on short rest.

I felt from the onset of this series that the Yankees had the better team. However, I thought the Phillies best chance was to put Lee out there in Game 1, 4, and, if necessary, 7. Lee has been damn near un-touchable in the post season, and it wouldn't be a stretch to think that the Phillies could win all three of those games. That would mean the Phillies would only need one other win from one of their other pitchers. Lee pitches tonight, and it wouldn't surprise me if the Phillies send the series back to New York. I just don't see them winning three games in a row.

[Splunge]

Originally Posted by Aldeth the Foppish Idiot

Both Quebec and Winnipeg were hockey towns, and should never had lost their teams.
.
.
.
I'm stuggling at the moment to remember where those teams relocated to. IIRC, Denver got the Nordique franchise, and I'm pretty sure that the Jets moved to Phoenix to become the Coyotes - although I could be wrong there, but I don't THINK the Phoenix team was an expansion team.

Well, since I live in Winnipeg, I can confirm that the Jets did indeed move to Phoenix. And while it really was depressing to lose the Jets (and talk still comes up occasionally about getting a team again), to be honest, I don't think Winnipeg can support a team (and I'm not the only one here who thinks so). We lost the Jets for financial reasons, and that was before players' salaries went through the roof. Winnipeg is basically a wholesale city - people here don't pay retail for anything, and the thought of spending $100 for a ticket to a hockey game is just incomprehensible for most people. Yes, there are some who would pay that, but not enough to support a team. The problem is compounded by the fact that Winnipeg is a "fair weather" town - there is a small core of people who will go regardless of how the team is doing, but when they're losing, the stands are mostly empty.