The NBA title is the hardest title in Major sports to win. (1 Viewer)

[HennessyRob]

Y'all are crazy - the hardest sport to win is MLB. 162 games. Granted, it was harder before you had the wild card crap, but it is still the hardest to win.

.

If it's so hard, how come MLB has had 12 different teams win the Series in the past 20 years?

The NBA has only seen 6 different teams do it in 20 years.

 

[St. Widge]

If it's so hard, how come MLB has had 12 different teams win the Series in the past 20 years?

The NBA has only seen 6 different teams do it in 20 years.

Because it's easier to create a dynasty in the NBA than in MLB? Which would suggest it's harder to win the Series since there is more parity than in the NBA.

 

[MSUSousaphone]

Y'all are crazy - the hardest sport to win is MLB. 162 games. Granted, it was harder before you had the wild card crap, but it is still the hardest to win.

The most meaningful championship, however, is college football.

Key word being 'sport'. Games need not apply.

 

[St. Widge]

Key word being 'sport'. Games need not apply.

So then why are you talking about Soccer?

 

[HennessyRob]

Because it's easier to create a dynasty in the NBA than in MLB? Which would suggest it's harder to win the Series since there is more parity than in the NBA.

I understand your point.

 

[HennessyRob]

Because it's easier to create a dynasty in the NBA than in MLB? Which would suggest it's harder to win the Series since there is more parity than in the NBA.

MLB is easy enough to play 2 games in one day.

 

[SaintJ]

Because it's easier to create a dynasty in the NBA than in MLB? Which would suggest it's harder to win the Series since there is more parity than in the NBA.

How on earth can it be "easier" to create a dynasty in the NBA, which has a salary cap, as opposed to MLB, which does not, and which has seen the mega-payroll teams like the Red Sox and Yankees continually in contention, and usually in the playoffs?

It's harder to win a championship in the NBA because you don't have the opportunity to just load up on a disproportionate share of the best players other than by a combination of talent evaluation, salary cap planning and, of course, some luck. MLB? Just open the checkbook....

Except for the fact that twice in the last 10 years or so, low-budget Florida snuck into the playoffs and rode a hot-pitching short rotation right through the playoffs. The didn't work hard to build a superior team into a dynasty, they drafted decently and a bunch of young players got hot at the right time. That wasn't "hard" from an organizational standpoint, and neither was what the Yankees and the Red Sox did: spend tons of money other teams just don't have. Based on that analysis, it's neither hard to put yourself in contention, in the right circumstances, nor does it take any great talent or effort (at least compared to other franchises) to go blowing through the playoffs in the right circumstances.

In the NBA, on the other hand, you generally build laboriously, under salary cap rules that really hinder trading and free agency signings and through a draft that usually has a tremendous dropoff by the time you get to the already-decent teams. As a result, the best contending teams usually have a core of top-level talent that's also been together at least for a couple of years. So, when you do get to the playoffs, there's just too much of a gauntlet to run. Even the recent Bulls' and Lakers' dynasty had to flame out in the playoffs for a couple of years before breaking through.

From an organizational standpoint, starting on day one, the hardest league to win a title in is the NBA.

From other standpoints, like physically grueling playoffs, sure the NHL has some hard, hard working dudes.

But for gathering titles, the hardest one to fight to the top for is the NBA championship.

 

[SaintMeaux]

In the NBA, on the other hand, you generally build laboriously, under salary cap rules that really hinder trading and free agency signings and through a draft that usually has a tremendous dropoff by the time you get to the already-decent teams. As a result, the best contending teams usually have a core of top-level talent that's also been together at least for a couple of years. So, when you do get to the playoffs, there's just too much of a gauntlet to run. Even the recent Bulls' and Lakers' dynasty had to flame out in the playoffs for a couple of years before breaking through.

From an organizational standpoint, starting on day one, the hardest league to win a title in is the NBA.

From other standpoints, like physically grueling playoffs, sure the NHL has some hard, hard working dudes.

But for gathering titles, the hardest one to fight to the top for is the NBA championship.

Wow, you just described the same issues the NHL has to put up with.

Salary cap, no trade clauses, drop in talent after the fist few picks in the draft, players leaving to play in their native countries, farm systems to be managed, etc, etc.

I've never claimed that the NBA Championship isn't tough to win, I'm a Blazers fan for chrissake! (Curse you Pistons/Bulls!) But when you add up the organizational challenges, and the players actually playing the game, I've got to stick to my guns on this one.

 

[SaintJ]

Wow, you just described the same issues the NHL has to put up with.

Salary cap, no trade clauses, drop in talent after the fist few picks in the draft, players leaving to play in their native countries, farm systems to be managed, etc, etc.

I've never claimed that the NBA Championship isn't tough to win, I'm a Blazers fan for chrissake! (Curse you Pistons/Bulls!) But when you add up the organizational challenges, and the players actually playing the game, I've got to stick to my guns on this one.

But how do you account for all that hard work you just described getting junked up by an organization that didn't do nearly as well as yours did in all this and whose mediocre goalie just got hot for two months, and they won a Cup and drifted back to mediocrity and were never heard from again?

Didn't they win a Cup pretty easily, on a relative basis?

 

[SaintMeaux]

But how do you account for all that hard work you just described getting junked up by an organization that didn't do nearly as well as yours did in all this and whose mediocre goalie just got hot for two months, and they won a Cup and drifted back to mediocrity and were never heard from again?

Didn't they win a Cup pretty easily, on a relative basis?

I guess from my standpoint, I see two months of playoffs as the ultimate test. Some average teams/players excel in big moments, some great teams/players fold. There are countless examples of this throughout professional sports history.

What it comes down to for me, and this is strange coming from a fan of the Saints, Blazers, Reds/Mariners, and Flames, all smaller market icities, is what you do in the post season is what counts. As long as you get there, and do what you need to do to win, you deserve it.

Why does everyone get excited when big teams get bounced in the NCAA Tournament? Shouldn't we all be hoping that UNC or UCLA, etc. makes it all the way?

That's what makes sport great is teams and players doing what they aren't supposed to do, or no one thought they could do. IMO

 

[JOElittleBIGhorn]

Everyone is wrong.

There is only one answer.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tc0Ut5y-GRc&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tc0Ut5y-GRc&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

I played rugby. I can tell you first hand, rugby players are out of their ****ing minds.

 

[St. Widge]

How on earth can it be "easier" to create a dynasty in the NBA, which has a salary cap, as opposed to MLB, which does not, and which has seen the mega-payroll teams like the Red Sox and Yankees continually in contention, and usually in the playoffs?

I'm not sure, but the facts seem to show that it is far easier to do it in the NBA. 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. 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. One great player does nothing for you in MLB. Barry Bonds was probably the best hitter in the game ever for a 5 to 10 year period and his teams never won a Championship. Can you imagine the best player in the NBA for a 5 to 10 year period not winning a championship during that time? I can't because that one player means so much in the NBA when compared to MLB or the NFL and NHL for that matter.

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.

 

[keepoursaints]

MLB is easy enough to play 2 games in one day.

so true.

 

[keepoursaints]

Everyone is wrong.

There is only one answer.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tc0Ut5y-GRc&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tc0Ut5y-GRc&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

I played rugby. I can tell you first hand, rugby players are out of their ****ing minds.

You win.

 

[SaintJ]

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.