PDA

View Full Version : 4 Sport Cities Quick Analysis


Scholes
05-01-2006, 12:02 PM
After the fantastic Twins v Tigers weekend we just had, my brother and I were talking about the general poop-like status of Minnesota sports at the moment, and whether this was the low point of Minnesota sports history. I haven't really gotten into the past yet, and my memory is fuzzy at best, but I did do a study of the current status as compared to other cities with a franchise in the 4 major sports (MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL). I added up each team's records from their last complete season, then threw the current season's baseball record in there as well. Here are the rankings: (NOTE: I threw out all overtime/shootout losses/ties from the books. Simply wins and losses, so these are not exactly ironclad, but should give you a good idea of each cities' success.)(NOTE #2: If I missed any cites/regions I apologize in advance. This was done quickly and I may have missed someone.)

1. Detroit 214-145 .596 pct The Pistons and Red Wings do more than enough to offset the Lions and Tigers 2005 season, and the Tigers hot start to the baseball season adds fuel to the fire.

2. Dallas 214-147 .593 pct I included the Texas Rangers with Dallas, due to their proximity. The Mavericks and Stars, like Detroit's winter sports, carry the load here.

3. New York/New Jersey 420-366 .534 pct Included are the following teams, Devils, Islanders, Rangers, Jets, Giants, Knicks, Nets, Yankees, Mets. Pretty impressive due to the amount of teams in the area, especially throwing in the Knicks and Jets' records.

4. Chicago 286-252 .532 pct The White Sox and Bears are the big timers in Chi Town, actually, if you take the White Sox out and just use the Cubs, Chicago goes under .500 (.480). I used both the Cubs and Sox.

5. Philadelphia 167-168 .527 pct The Flyers are the only non-mediocre squad of the bunch, but they did well enough to push Philly into the top five.

6. Phoenix 186-176 .517 pct See Philly's recap and substitute the Suns for the Flyers.

7. Boston 181-170 .516 pct I included New England football in the mix, and thanks to them Boston remains above .500. The winter sports squads, the Bruins and Celtics, are dragging the successes of the football and baseball teams down.

8. Denver 182-176 .508 pct Denver had a winning season in every sport other than baseball, where the Rockies' 95 losses last season put a huge dent in the winning percentage, accounting for more than half of the cities' losses. Their 15-10 start this year bodes well for the Mile High city.

9. Atlanta 175-183 .489 pct Atlanta was at .500 or above in everything until you hit the Hawks and their soul-sucking 26-56 record. In fact, as I was doing this, I didn't include Atlanta at first because I forgot that they had a basketball team.

10. Washington 170-185 .479 pct Once again, see Atlanta but subsititute the Capitals for the Hawks and you have the second worst winning percentage amongst cities with four major league franchises.

11. Minnesota 172-186 .478 pct You guessed it, bringing up the rear is my beloved Twin Cities area. Just barely edging out Washington, the Twins pathetic start doesn't help matters. The thing is, the Wild, Vikings and last year's Twins were all over .500. They were all close to .500 though, and the awesome season from the Wolves and mint Twins start drag them to the cellar. The Minneapolis/St. Paul region is also the only one out of the eleven to not have a single playoff team in the last year. The Vikings and Wild (with some promised off-season activity) are probably the closest to returning to post-season play, but I don't think either of them have a good shot at advancing very far if they do.

Only 3 out of the 11 areas are under .500, which leads me to believe that if your market can support 4 teams, you should have the resources/stadiums/fanbase available to compete.

KevinNU7
05-01-2006, 12:06 PM
So football makes up less then 5% of the scoring. Seems pretty lame to me

Pumpy Tudors
05-01-2006, 12:08 PM
Also, on a completely unrelated note, 4 of the top 5 on the list have Arena Football teams, plus Detroit has had two teams in the AFL, but they lost the Fury after the 2004 season.

So, through my VooDoo-colored glasses, I'd say that Arena Football is responsible for a city's overall pro sports success! If you have the AFL in your city, you can expect to WIN (exception: Kansas City).

Toddzilla
05-01-2006, 12:08 PM
Yep -- you need to normalize the scores across the major sports, maybe even weight them somewhat, since hockey != football.

Bee
05-01-2006, 12:09 PM
If I were doing this, I'd do winning percentage of each sport and average that instead of just total wins-losses. Under your method, football is undervalued quite a bit while baseball is overvalued because of the number of games in a season. Interesting results in any case.

edit: looks like with my slow typing, a couple others beat me to the point. :D

ice4277
05-01-2006, 12:17 PM
If I were doing this, I'd do winning percentage of each sport and average that instead of just total wins-losses. Under your method, football is undervalued quite a bit while baseball is overvalued because of the number of games in a season. Interesting results in any case.

edit: looks like with my slow typing, a couple others beat me to the point. :D
Also, and I'm not sure exactly how you would do this, tying in each team's popularity/importance to the city would be informative. For example, in Detroit, the Tigers don't have the following of the other three teams. Their 162 games are much less important to the overall sports scene than the 16 games the Lions play.

Franklinnoble
05-01-2006, 12:24 PM
No love for the fact that the Diamondbacks actually won a World Series more recently than all the cities listed above them (except Chicago). Pathetic list.

Pumpy Tudors
05-01-2006, 12:26 PM
The real reason Minnesota's at the bottom? The AFL's Minnesota Fighting Pike only lasted one year (1996). :D

Maple Leafs
05-01-2006, 12:27 PM
I think you need to add Toronto to the list. Argoooos!

And on a related note, I think you need to give absolutely no weight to post-season performance. Really, why keep score?

Pumpy Tudors
05-01-2006, 12:29 PM
I think you need to add Toronto to the list. Argoooos!

Why bother? The Phantoms only lasted in the AFL for two years. Even with the Argos, Toronto is clearly a second-rate sports city.

That last sentence of mine is so full of comedy that I can't keep my pants on.

Subby
05-01-2006, 12:37 PM
Just happy to be on this list... :)

stevew
05-01-2006, 12:41 PM
Yep -- you need to normalize the scores across the major sports, maybe even weight them somewhat, since hockey != football.

What do you normalize them at, even? Cause for instance 10-6 in football is not the same thing as 100-60 in baseball.

A better metric might be to do something such as take the best team from each of the cities, in each sport and then rank them from 1 to 11. With the best record getting a 1, and the lowest total points being the "best city." Or somesuch.

Scholes
05-01-2006, 12:48 PM
If you do it strictly based on winning percentage:

1. Dallas .600
2. Detroit .591
3. Denver .5906
4. Chicago .562
5. New York .534
6. Boston .522
7. Philadelphia .486
8. Phoenix .484
9. Washington .474
10. Minnesota .473
11. Atlanta .469

Atlanta is your new champion. And I only did standings from the last season + current baseball season, so I'm not sure where that Arizona rant comes from. This is a current snap-shot. And it's very unofficial and disorganized. And it's written by a douchebag who can't believe how bad the Twins and T-Wolves have been run into the ground. Take it for what it's worth.

Franklinnoble
05-01-2006, 12:53 PM
I think the San Francisco bay area should be on this list. The San Jose Sharks are probably as close to San Franciso as some of the teams that play in the outlying areas of these other cities.

Scholes
05-01-2006, 01:05 PM
Wow, the bay area (A's, Giants, Raiders, 49ers, Golden State and San Jose) racked up an impressive .448 winning percentage, which is last by a good deal.

stevew
05-01-2006, 01:06 PM
The Wolves are shit, I'll agree with you there. McHale actually came out and said the season was "his fault" the other day. Like who the hell else's fault would it be? Collect a bunch of headcase mediocre guys, all on disproportionate salary to ability contracts, and you're capf*cked.

Karlifornia
05-01-2006, 01:09 PM
Let's count titles over the course of, say, the last 40 years and see who comes out on top.

Scholes
05-01-2006, 01:12 PM
The Wolves are shit, I'll agree with you there. McHale actually came out and said the season was "his fault" the other day. Like who the hell else's fault would it be? Collect a bunch of headcase mediocre guys, all on disproportionate salary to ability contracts, and you're capf*cked.

Not to mention trading away most of your upcoming first round draft picks for aforementioned headcase mediocre guys.

sterlingice
05-01-2006, 09:02 PM
So, through my VooDoo-colored glasses, I'd say that Arena Football is responsible for a city's overall pro sports success! If you have the AFL in your city, you can expect to WIN (exception: Kansas City).

Hey, we're new to this whole arena league thing. Give us a season or two :)

SI

Logan
05-01-2006, 09:31 PM
Atlanta is your new champion. And I only did standings from the last season + current baseball season, so I'm not sure where that Arizona rant comes from. This is a current snap-shot. And it's very unofficial and disorganized. And it's written by a douchebag who can't believe how bad the Twins and T-Wolves have been run into the ground. Take it for what it's worth.

Seriously...that's a lot of criticism directed at a guy who's just looking for a scientific way to say his teams suck. :)

Scholes
05-01-2006, 10:28 PM
I wrote that about myself.

saldana
05-02-2006, 01:46 AM
Seriously...that's a lot of criticism directed at a guy who's just looking for a scientific way to say his teams suck. :)


post of the year material