For what it’s worth the Packers at least look sort of alright. McCarthy’s a decent coach and, you know, maybe somewhere down the road….

I know about the Brew Crew but who’s your third?

Judd:

#3 = The Toronto Maple Leafs, aka the worst team in hockey right now.

I also root for the Milwaukee Bucks, but only when they’re doing well. When they aren’t doing well (which is usually), I don’t really follow pro basketball at all.

tgirsch´s last blog ..Number of the Day: 3.59

I was reading something about George Karl the other day, which prompted me to take another look at his coaching career. I had totally forgotten that the Bucks made the Eastern Conference Finals in 2001, right before they let Ray Allen go. Of course this is somewhat mitigated by the fact that their opponent may have been the worst team ever to make an NBA finals. (The 2001 Sixers, aka Allen Iverson and 11 guys who he found in the parking lot on his way to the game.)

Anyway, rooting for teams that existed prior to major expansion is a big advantage in terms of “your” teams having an impressive number of titles under its belt. In the older days, there were just fewer teams and it was easier to build dynasties. Also there were weird goings on back then with ownerships and what not, there were seasons when the A’s sent literally like half their roster to the Yankees, ditto Cleveland to Boston.

Personally, my teams have won 5 in my lifetime; 60% of them by the Giants; they are my lone source of recurring sanity. The Mets got me one in ‘86, and the Rangers in ‘94. Though my relationship with hockey is like yours with basketball. The Knicks have definitely caused me immeasurable pain over the years.

Anyway, rooting for teams that existed prior to major expansion is a big advantage in terms of “your” teams having an impressive number of titles under its belt.

Tell that to Cubs, White Sox, and Red Sox fans.

Anyway, baseball’s modern-era expansions were in 1993 and 1998, and in the 16 WS played since ‘93 (remember, none in 1994), the Yankees have won five, or one every 3.2 years. In other words, their record since expansion is better than their overall record. [ Insert small sample size BS here. ] As you doubtless remember, they also appeared in a sixth WS in 2001, which they blew lost in 7 games. (My favorite part of that WS: the home team won every game. Go forth, baseball boy, and tell me how many times that’s happened. And has it ever happened that the road team has won every game?)
tgirsch´s last blog ..Number of the Day: 3.59

Answering my own question: 1987 Twins-Cardinals series, every game won by the home team. Also 1991 Twins-Braves. Also several series in which the home team won every game except for game 7. But none I could find where the road team won every game.
tgirsch´s last blog ..Number of the Day: 3.59

“Tell that to Cubs, White Sox, and Red Sox fans.’

And Blackhawk fans.

Though, in my life time, I have had 10 championships. 6 Bull, 3 Cowboys and one White Sox, which was especially nice considering that my Grandfather lived his whole life and never saw that. But not in my favorite sport, hockey. This Hawk teams is pretty good and pretty young so there may even be hope of that in the next few years. And, again, it would be cool because they haven’t won in my lifetime.

@Kevin: I suppose the Red Sox aren’t your primary team, but you got two championships from them, as well. And one from the Bears.
tgirsch´s last blog ..Number of the Day: 3.59

“I suppose the Red Sox aren’t your primary team, but you got two championships from them, as well. And one from the Bears”

Yeah, but those don’t really count. I am not s fan of those teams in any meaningful way – -I just have a soft spot for them because of past geographic association.

Actually, the Red Sox have done quite well in the grand scheme of things. After the Yanks, I think the most number of titles goes like this:

Cards: 10
A’s: 9
Red Sox: 7

Of course, one of the takeaways here is that the Yanks have more titles than the next three most successful franchises combined. Certainly there was a long drought in between period of high success for the Sawx, but their general existance hasn’t been unsuccessful at all.

I was thinking of the meaningful beginning of expansion as starting in ‘72, with the Padres and that group. Another logical benchmark to use might be 1969 as that was beginning of divisional play, which changed the whole dynamic of the postseason and made it more difficult to win the whole thing.

The question is whether the greater financial imbalance is mitigated by the increased access to the playoffs (which is necessarily accompanied by added difficulty to get through them). In terms of pure heterogeniety of teams making playoff appearances over the last dozen years or so, baseball doesn’t fare as poorly in comparison to the other major sports as one may be inclined to think, especially when you consider that the number of teams making the playoffs is half that of the NHL and NBA, and a third smaller than the NFL.

I don’t believe there’s ever been a been a WS in which the road team has won every game, but home field advantage in baseball is overrated, in my opinion. And, for that matter, referring to it as home field advantage is also misleading. I think most of the advantage is rooted not in playing in your own building, but in hitting in the bottom half of the inning.

Digg could probably come up with a detailed and wonky explanation as to why there’s no such thing as home field advantage, thus taking all the fun out of yet another sports topic. He’s really good at that.

It’d be interesting to do a statistical analysis of the correlation (or possible lack thereof) of team payroll vs. playoff appearances / playoff success.
tgirsch´s last blog ..The Libertarian Solution to Poverty

I’m sure I can dig one up. I just have to remind myself to look when I get home.

And, for the record, I didn’t say home field advantage doesn’t exist, just that it is less important in baseball than in football or basketball. I don’t think you’d argue that. Also, that the advantage that does actually exist doesn’t have as much to do with the field, but with the strategic benefit of being in a situation where you bat last, and never have to hold a lead in extra innings. It’s not a red herring, IMO, just something of a misnomer.

Regarding the advantage of batting last, that ought to be easy to verify or debunk statistically. Simply eliminate all games which were tied in the middle of the 9th inning, and see how the home team does overall. Or look at just the games that went to extra innings to see if the home team has a statistically significant advantage there.
tgirsch´s last blog ..The Libertarian Solution to Poverty