The NBA title is the hardest title in Major sports to win.
I'm not sure, but the facts seem to show that it is far easier to do it in the NBA.
Great. Let's see the facts.
I suspect it's because you only put 5 players on the court at a time and one player can make you into a great team very quickly. That doesn't happen in the NFL, MLB or the NHL.
1. The NBA plays five guys at a time. The NHL six. Whoa. What was I thinking? Yes, the NHL requires more depth, but if you don't think NBA teams need to go 8-9 deep to get through the playoffs, you've never watched the NBA.
2. Hot pitchers don't do it for you? Beckett in 2005 -- one guy on a roster of 25, on the field only 1/2 the time. Gibson in 64 and 67, Viola won three for the Twins in the 87 WS; how many times did he pitch three starts in seven games in the regular season? Hershiser in 88. Schilling and Johnson (IIRC) starting four of the seven games in 2001 for Arizona. You're telling me one player doesn't make you a great team very quickly? I won't even begin to try to catalogue the hot goalies (my personal favorite was a young van Biesbrouck for the Rangers in 85-86) carrying them deep into the playoffs. Ken Dryden's first year the Canadiens won the Cup with him between the pipes? "He stood on his head" doesn't even begin to describe it. Do you read what you type?
So although they have all of those constraints, you only need to hit on one player i.e. Shaq, Kobe, Tim Duncan, Chis Paul (hopefully) or Jordan and you are a Championship team.
Try Shaq + Kobe after years of building the Lakers. With one of the best coaches ever. Or Shaq + Wade. With one of the best coaches ever. Or Duncan + Robinson (no. 1 pick overall), or Duncan + Ginobili + Parker. With one of the best coaches ever. Chris Paul + a number of solid pros, with this team 3 years in the making, and they have yet to do ANYTHING.
One great player does nothing for you in MLB.
Not if he's a pitcher and you squeeze in with a wild card or as champ of one of those weak-sauce small divisions.
Whatever the reason, you see dynasties more often in the NBA. In MLB, even the money the Yankees spend doesn't get them the ring. When they were on a hot run in the 90's it was because they spent years building a great farm system, not because of the money spent on free agents. And the Sox have been spending money for years and were only succesful when Theo Epstein came in, built the farm system and made some brilliant trades. Look no further than the Cubs and Redskins to see that you can't buy a championship in the NFL or MLB.
lm**ao.
The Yankees and Red Sox had the highest payrolls in the league AND the money to sign draft choices and stock farm systems. Just because it's home grown in baseball doesn't mean you didn't waaaay overpay to get it. And FA acquisitions, or the ability to pay top dollar for players received in fire-sale trades, spurred every one of those runs. Red Sox: Schilling, Beckett, Martinez and Ortiz all came out of other organizations. Think they win any titles without those guys? Just because the Yankees panicked and misspent after 2001 doesn't mean their spending doesn't always leave them in the running for a title.
Please don't ever stop posting.