General Sports Blog Post

General Sports, Team News / Analysis

Did the 00's have more parity than dynasty?

1/29/10 in General Sports | redsox1002003 | 881 respect

I don't know if it's just me, but it seemed like last decade, a larger variety of teams were in the playoffs, and championship games than in the past. I did a little research, and looks like that theory is correct. I used the past 10 seasons in the four major American Leagues (NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL) The NFl and MLB facts include the previous season while the NBA and NHL facts include the 1999/2000 season. Here are the facts:
NFL:

Super bowl Appearances (14 Teams)

Ravens- 1

Giants- 2

Patriots- 4

Rams- 1

Bucs- 1

Raiders-1

Panthers- 1

Eagles- 1

Seahawks- 1

Steelers- 2

Colts- 2

Bears- 1

Cardinals- 1

Saints- 1

No AFC Championship Game Appearance (7 Teams)

Texans

Chiefs

Jaguars

Bengals

Browns

Bills

Dolphins

No NFC Championship Game Appearance (4 Teams)

Lions

Redskins

49ers

Cowboys

No Playoffs (3 Teams)

Bills

Lions

Texans

MLB:

World Series Appearances (14 Teams)

Yankees- 4

Mets- 1

Diamondbacks- 1

Angels- 1

Giants- 1

Marlins- 1

Red Sox- 2

Cardinals- 2

White Sox- 1

Astros- 1

Tigers- 1

Rockies- 1

Phillies- 2

Rays- 1

No ALCS Appearances (4 Teams)

Blue Jays

Orioles

Rangers

Royals

No NLCS Appearances (5 Teams)

Expos/Nationals

Pirates

Brewers

Reds

Padres

No Playoffs (7 Teams)

Expos/Nationals

Royals

Pirates

Blue Jays

Reds

Orioles

Rangers

NBA:

NBA Finals Appearances (11 Teams)

Lakers- 6

Spurs- 3

Mavericks- 1

Pacers- 1

76ers- 1

Nets- 2

Pistons- 2

Heat- 1

Cavs- 1

Celtics- 1

Magic- 1

No East Finals (5 Teams)

Raptors

Hawks

Bobcats

Wizards

Bulls

No West Finals (6 Teams)

Sonics/Thunder

Rockets

Grizzlies

Hornets

Warriors

Clippers

No Playoffs (1 Team)

Bobcats

NHL:

Stanley Cup Finals Appearances (11 Teams)

Devils- 3

Stars- 1

Avalanche- 1

Red Wings- 3

Hurricanes- 2

Ducks- 2

Lightning- 1

Flames- 1

Oilers- 1

Senators- 1

Penguins- 2

No East Finals (7 Teams)

Thrashers

Islanders

Rangers

Bruins

Canadiens

Panthers

Capitals

No West Finals (5 Teams)

Blue Jackets

Predators

Canucks

Kings

Coyotes

No Playoffs (0 Teams)

No One

Well, what's your opinion on this? Do you agree with my hypothesis, or not?

leave comment

2/3/10 | ML31 | 3528 respect

wrote:

The Braves were the best team in baseball that year. The Rockies were a first-year expansion team. What do you expect? This wasn't a case of "match up the best team and worst team, the best will win 60% and the worst will still win 40%"... I think this is a prime example of that not always being the case... just like the 1962 Mets only won a pitiful 25% of their games.

I know. I have encountered many a Giant fan who lamented the Rox not beating the Braves once. And I get it... It isn't asking much even of an expansion team to go 1-12 against one of the best team in the Majors.

But, in reality... I place the blame on that race squarely on the Giants. They blew the big lead. They were the ones who lost 8 in a row in mid September. Quality teams just don't falter like that.

I get a bit worked up over 1993 because that was the best Giants team I had ever seen and to watch them piss away the title like the did.... It was the single most disappointing thing I have ever seen the Giants do.

2/3/10 | ML31 | 3528 respect

wrote:

Funny how my "inherited" favorite team played a pivotal role in ensuring that title for my original favorite team. Then in 1995 Colorado became the very first NL wild-card... and lost to the Braves!

Yeah... And I'm not just talking about the Braves final four games of the season in Denver. I mean all 13 games! The Braves went 13-0 against the Rox!

2/3/10 | ML31 | 3528 respect

wrote:

Debatable... the Yankees won 103 this year and won the AL East by 8 games. Boston won 95 and took (I won't say "won") the AL Wild Card by 8 games-- they didn't exactly have to fight for it in late September. Without the WC, do the Red Sox win more games? Maybe not eight more, but at least a few, I'd bet.

Different situation. There were many days where one team knew the other team won and knew that they HAD to win. It was a great race. Giants blow a 9 game lead.. Even lost 7 in a row in September! Fell back as far as 3 games and still came back to be deadlocked that last week. If only the Rox could have won ONE game against the Braves.... I always felt that Swift would have won the 163rd game had it been played.

2/2/10 | ML31 | 3528 respect

wrote:

I'll always concur with you that the 1993 pennant race was definitely the best. 104 wins to 103. How coincidental that it would also be the last. It's nearly inconceivable now that a team could win 100 or more games and not make the postseason.

I've always felt that it should serve as a reminder of how great a pennant race can be. To this day I strongly believe that if there was a wild card then, neither team would have won 100 games.

2/1/10 | ML31 | 3528 respect

(Edited by ML31)

True. When AOL Time Warner took over, that was the end of the extravagant spending.

But still... 14 division titles in 15 seasons is quite a feat. And three of them were from when winning the division was even more impressive than it is today!

2/1/10 | ML31 | 3528 respect

wrote:

OK, I'm not going to nitpick the numbers, 14, 11. After the 1991 World Series, I was one of 750,000-- yes, three-quarters of a MILLION-- people lining the streets of downtown Atlanta for the Braves parade. And that was after they LOST the Series (one of the best WS ever played). People were going crazy. Atlanta was starved for a winner-- no franchise there had ever been to the championship round before. The Falcons were laughable, the Hawks not much better, the Flames had left town and the Thrashers were still years away from replacing them. The Braves' success went far beyond baseball. It helped garner civic recognition that emboldened officials there to make the successful bid for the 1996 Summer Olympics. It was a very special thing for three years, a historically mediocre team finally making good, a team that had never done much since moving south from Milwaukee, although it did have the privilege of featuring indisputably one of the greatest players of all time and the magical moment when he unseated the Babe. But Ted Turner took over and wasn't exactly the savviest baseball executive, until he made the wise moves of hiring John Schuerholz and re-hiring Bobby Cox. There were three glorious years, and then there was 1994. We all know what happened... and the game just wasn't the same afterward. The magic was lost somehow. I wonder just how special the Braves' run could have been if that year were not lost. If I remember correctly, the Expos, yes, the Expos were in first place in the East on the day the players walked out, and the Braves were on the verge of becoming-- the first NL wild card. Just think, if the Braves had been the Yankees, if they had the bottomless wallet, they could have kept Maddux, Glavine, and Smoltz together ad infinitem. Instead, they end up playing a supporting role in the new Yankees dynasty, becoming the losing Series opponent in both 1996 and 1999.

I can certainly understand losing enthusiasm after '94. After a thrilling pennant chase in '93... And then knowing such a think will never happen again... That can dampen any fans enjoyment.
Could the Braves have caught the Expos in '94? Sadly we will never know.

Make no mistake... The Braves did indeed have a dynasty that will be hard pressed to ever happen again. Even the rich Yankees had their streak reach 9. Close... But no cigar.

PS... While the Braves didn't generate tons of money, the team at that time was always among the top spenders in those days. This was because Ted was able to take money from his other money making industries and shove it into the Braves payroll.

2/1/10 | ML31 | 3528 respect

wrote:

That's 14 titles in a row. 1994 doesn't count because no division champions were recognized. Other than that they merely changed divisions in realignment-- they're still division titles. Believe me, as a Braves fan, I am tremendously proud of what they accomplished. But it wasn't a dynasty, and hardly anyone in Atlanta felt it was. It became more like a running joke. You could see it watching the NL playoffs and seeing hundreds if not thousands of empty seats in Turner Field, especially during the NLDS (first round). Braves fans became jaded. I'd rather be jaded than success than failure, mind you. I'd take what the Braves did during that stretch, single championship notwithstanding, a thousand times over enduring being a, say, Pirates fan during that time. (And not coincidentally, it was the Braves who ended the Pirates' last run of decency, beating them in both the '91 & '92 NLCS. After Bonds's throw home was just a hair tardy as Sid Bream slid under the tag... well, he left soon after that, and Pittsburgh has been looking up at .500 ever since. Amazing-- in a completely different way).

11. The 1994 season was indeed played. All player stats counted. All players got credit for a full season played. There were even season awards dished out. But the Braves didn't win that year. Since the season was played but no one officially won, the division streak was officially over.

I figured that the reason the Braves had trouble selling out post season games was a couple of reasons... First, Atlanta has never really had a reputation of being a good sports town. And 2nd, I got the feeling that the fans started taking the post season for granted. I honestly don't blame anyone for not wanting to go to a Division Series Game. I sure as hell wouldn't want to.

But the idea that it was becoming a joke tells me that they were letting their emotions get in the way.

It's kind of like the attitude the Sharks have. For the last 7 seasons the Sharks have been at or near the top of teh NHL. But the furthest they have advanced is ONE time to the Conf. finals. At this point, people are expecting the team to fail in the post season. So I can kinda sorta understand the Braves fans frustration. But... They DID win a title in that stretch. Seems to me that 11 straight division titles, playing in the LCS 6 times and the World Series 3 times winning once, qualifies as a baseball dynasty. No matter how annoyed the fans are at exiting the DS the last 4 times they went. To snub one's nose at that is a slap in the face to the Royals, Pirates and Expo/National fans of the world.

1/31/10 | ML31 | 3528 respect

wrote:

I was a Braves fan first, as I grew up in Atlanta and lived there until I was 25 (in 2000)... and I remember a lot of talk about just the opposite... how the Braves could not be considered a dynasty despite all those division titles (it was ultimately 14 consecutive, btw) because they only managed to win it all once (and even that had to be in a strike-shortened season, when probably fewer people than ever outside of Atlanta and Cleveland were paying attention to that World Series in '95). The Yankees consecutive division streak was slightly less, but they won six AL pennants from 1996-2003 and won four of those World Series, including three straight from 1998-2000. Much as I hate to, I have to say New York was the only baseball dynasty to have existed in the post-strike, Wild Card Era.

I am forced to disagree. Not calling the Braves a dynasty belittles the amazing accomplishment they achieved. 11 division titles in a row (and it IS eleven, not 14, BTW) is quite a feat. If someone claims that doesn't qualify means they are letting the emotion of the lack of post season success get in the way. The only way I can think of that could cause someone to question 11 divisions in a row and 14 out of 15 would be if they didn't win a WS once in that span.

I think what the Braves did was more impressive than what the Yankees did. Just by the mere fact theirs was a longer streak.

The Braves and the Yankees had the only real dynasties in the post '94 strike era.

(The streak was 11 because they won from 1995-2005. And 14 out of fifteen when you include the three western titles won before 1994.)

1/31/10 | dukie911 | 50 respect

Well, I guess you can only have 1 ten year dynasty in 40 years, as proved by the niners

1/31/10 | ML31 | 3528 respect

wrote:

You can look at this information so many different ways. (In fact, I published a similar article at the end of the World Series... but can't find the link now). The NHL & NBA have the largest postseason fields (16 teams), so it's not surprising that almost every team has made the playoffs during the past decade. Yet, you could say hockey & basketball have less true parity, because there's only been 11 different teams in the Finals, as opposed to 14 in football and baseball, and more repeat champions as well.

Considering baseball has the smallest field (only 8 postseason teams) I'd say it's actually fairly impressive that only 7 of the 30 teams didn't make the playoffs. Of those seven teams, only the Nationals, Pirates, and Royals are truly sad-sack cases. Teams like Cincinnati and Texas have fielded talented teams and spent some money to do so (don't forget, it was Texas that originally gave A-Rod his quarter-billion-dollar deal), and have suffered from mismanagement as much as anything else. Toronto and Baltimore also suffer from being in the AL East, the same division as New York and Boston. Because no more than two teams can qualify for the playoffs in one MLB division, their chances were slim.

Overall, the only multiple-championship teams in the past decade (I think) were the Yankees, Red Sox, Patriots, Red Wings, Spurs, and Lakers, and only the Lakers won more than two, which is as close to a "dynasty" as currently exists in pro sports. But we certainly did not see anything like the 1990s Bulls, the early 90s Cowboys, or the late 90s/early 00s Yankees.

Dynasties are measured differently in different sports. In baseball, a team can be a dynasty even if they only win one Series. In the '90's, the Braves were certainly a dynasty. Winning 11 division titles in a row qualifies them as one.
But a hockey team can make the playoffs 10 straight years but if they only win the Cup once, they can hardly be considered a dynasty.

1/30/10 | ML31 | 3528 respect

wrote:

It is exactly what the powers that be want it to be.The years of the dynasty are dead. Free agency killed something special. It turned it from a "this is the team you signed with and unless you are traded you will play here". To "Me,me,me, gimme, gimme, mine, mine, mine." Believe me, there will be a day when the fans will be so far disconnected with these over payed brats that they will be forced to salary cap and cut budgets. It is already getting to that point where your average fan cannot even afford to go to a game. Corporate America is buying season tickets and taking all their "clients" to the game who don't even know who is playing much less who wins or looses...

Well, TV ratings are down. But teams are still making money. Which is the bottom line. I don't think owners care of the popularity of the game keeps dropping so long as the money keeps coming. The reason why the owners were willing to sacrifice the post season in 1994 was because too many teams were losing money. That is not happening today. The only way a cap will get installed is if teams start losing money again. And they probably will get there in the future. Player costs rise much faster than other incomes. Be patient. They may yet reach a breaking point again one day in the future. And hopefully, they will handle their business right that time.

1/30/10 | ML31 | 3528 respect

wrote:

Closest thing to a dynasty in MLB was the Cardinals, who made the playoffs 7 times (6 NL Central titles & 1 co-title in 2001, where they had to be the wildcard). The Braves were probably next with the tail end of their playoff streak. In hockey, you had your Detroit & Pittsburgh.

But, yes, it was a more interesting time frame (I refuse to say decade, since that runs from 2001-10) because there were a lot of fresh faces for a change!

I hate to say it, but the Yankees did win their division 8 times, winning the World Series twice.

1/29/10 | Dream_Machine | 11555 respect

Did The Mariners Just Fall Off The Face Of The Planet? Just Sayin'!

1/29/10 | BluDevil | 618 respect

Wow, it sucks to be one of the 4 teams with no NFC title game appearance... here's to the new decade and a change of luck!

1/29/10 | redsox1002003 | 881 respect

ML31 wrote:

There was no parity in MLB. It was pretty much the same 8 teams in contention every year in the '00's with the occasional team that happened to catch lightning in a bottle.

Hard to judge parity in the NHL. So many teams make the playoffs and the regular season is so very different from the regular one.... It's just hard to gauge. But I will say this... There were far fewer dominant teams in the NHL over the last 10 years than there have been in MLB.

i agree with all that. the MLB is probably due to the lack of a salary cap? anyway another disturbing stat is that only three western conference teams have made the NBA Finals (Lakers and Spurs, with the Mavs going once in 2006) The NHL does seem more spread out, although the Blue Jackets made their first postseason last year, and the Panthers havent been since 1999/2000. also gotta addin the lockout

1/29/10 | marcus_nyce | 22973 respect

It's almost like there is parity among the "haves" and parity among the "have not's" with sort of a gap between them. For most teams just making the playoffs a solid goal. They get a little boost financially and in fan excitement, but championships are pipe dreams to most franchises at the outset of each season. Those are pretty interesting numbers tho.

1/29/10 | ML31 | 3528 respect