Best Sports "City" - Last 15 Years

[IrishCanadian25]

With Chicago's Blackhawks winning the Stanley Cup last night, this means that since 1995, Chicago sports teams have won at least ONE championship in three of the four major North American sports. Here's the breakdown:

NBA: Chicago Bulls (3) - '96, '97, '98
NHL: Chicago Blackhawks (1) - '10
MLB: Chicago White Sox (1) - '05
NFL: Chicago Bears (0) - Won NFC Title in '07

So it begs the question - which sports "city" (and by City I mean City / Metropoliton Area / State) has had the best 15-year stretch in pro sports? Is it Chicago? Or one of these:

Boston / New England

NBA: Boston Celtics (1*) - '08, *currently in finals
NHL: Boston Bruins (0)
MLB: Boston Red Sox (2) - '04, '07
NFL: New England Patriots (3) - '02, '04, '05, won two other AFC Titles

New York / New Jersey

NBA: Knicks / Nets (0) -
NHL: New Jersey Devils (3) - '95, '00, '03
MLB: New York Yankees (5) - '96, '98, '99, '00, '09 (Yankees won two other NL pennants, and Mets won '00 NL pennant)
NFL: New York Giants (1) - '08

Cases could be made for Detroit (Pistons, Red Wings), Tampa Bay (Bucs, Lightning, Rays), or maybe some of you would like to make a case.

You can also consider college sports if you feel it's relevant.

 

[People's Champ]

I'm going to have to go with Boston/New England. There was point where the championships were just flowing there. The New England Patriots were a dynasty, something that shouldn't happen with the way free agency works now. The Boston Celtics reviving their storied tradition and winning a NBA best 17th championship, and doing it against their heated longtime rivals (and my favorite NBA team) the Los Angeles Lakers. Then the Red Sox ended their 100 year long (or however long it was) streak and the Curse of the Bambino and finally win a World Series. Then they go on to win another in 3 years later. For me, that run that Boston had was the best I've seen in the last 15 years.

 

[The People's Peep]

Homer Alert. I think its the New York/New Jersey Area. Just as Champ said above for Boston, there also was a time for NY/NJ where the championships just kept flowing. A cup in '95, and a World Series next year. Nothing in '97, but the next few years were huge.

World Series wins in '98 and '99. Another World Series and a Cup in '00, not to mention that the Giants made it all the way to the Super Bowl and the Mets were also in the World Series. In '01, no championships were won, but the Devils and Yankees made it to their respective finals. In '02, the Nets made it to the finals and again in '03 when the Yankees also made it to the World Series and the Devils won another Cup. Thats 6 straight years with at least one team in the finals and at least one championship in 4 of those 6 years.

So thats my case as for why NY/NJ has been the sports capital of the world over the last 15 years. Not only did they have a great stretch of 6 years, but it seems that good things are in the future, with the Yankees and Devils still winning, the Jets quickly becoming one of the best teams in the NFL, and even the owner of the Nets guaranteeing a championship in the near future.

 

[Stormtrooper]

I'm going to have to go with Boston/New England. There was point where the championships were just flowing there. The New England Patriots were a dynasty, something that shouldn't happen with the way free agency works now. The Boston Celtics reviving their storied tradition and winning a NBA best 17th championship, and doing it against their heated longtime rivals (and my favorite NBA team) the Los Angeles Lakers. Then the Red Sox ended their 100 year long (or however long it was) streak and the Curse of the Bambino and finally win a World Series. Then they go on to win another in 3 years later. For me, that run that Boston had was the best I've seen in the last 15 years.

The Championships may have been flowing in Boston, but they flowed harder in New York. You mention the Patriots forming a Dynasty, which is something that doesn't happen anymore? Well, The Yankees had a bigger Dynasty then the Pats, winning 4 championships in 5 years, and reaching the World Series all but 2 years between 1996 and 2003, and they have since won another championship outside of the Dynasty. They also made the playoffs all but 1 year, which no team in any sport can say. Similarly to Boston, New York also had a historically awesome team during that span. The only difference is that the 1998 Yankees actually won something, while the 2007 Patriots didn't. Boston's only trump card they had on New York was the whole 2004 ALCS, when the Sox came back from 3-0 down to win the series. Well, Boston fell victim to that this year, so that's gone now. Boston doesn't have anything on New York, so New York is the "Best Sports City"

A brief Comparison of the 2 cities:
Baseball:
-Yankees won 5 World Series, 7 Pennants (including 6 in 8 years). Oh, and the Mets appeared in the 2000 World Series, losing to the Yankees Dynasty
-Red Sox won 2 World Series
EDGE: NY/NJ (and it's not really all that close)

Football:
-Giants won 1 Super Bowl, and appeared in 2
-Patriots won 3, appeared in 5 (losing to the Giants, and the Packers)
EDGE: Boston

Basketball:
-Knicks/Nets appeared in 3 NBA Finals, losing all 3
-Celtics won 1 championship, currently in a 2nd finals
EDGE: Boston, although it's closer then you think.

Hockey:
-Devils won 3 Stanley Cups, and appeared in 4 Cup Finals total.
-Bruins pretty much sucked, missing the playoffs 4 times, and never making it out of the 2nd round.
EDGE: NY/NJ, and it isn't anywhere NEAR close.

So the breakdown is 2-2, but it's pretty clear that in the 2 sports NY/NJ is better in, it's not even close. Hence why NY/NJ is a better Sports City.

 

[Big Sexy]

First of all, why the hell is NY/NJ combined? NY by itself already has 2 baseball, football, and hockey teams. Just because the football teams had their stadium in New Jersey doesn't mean the separate cities should be combined for all sports. It's easy to be the best when you have 9 teams in 4 sports.

I'll take the homer rout and go Detroit. They've had the best hockey team the last 15 years and a top 3 basketball team the last 10. The Tigers have also come back to prominence the last 5 years and made a trip to the World Series. The Lions suck, but at least they were able to make history with their sucking. That counts for something, right?

 

[People's Champ]

The Championships may have been flowing in Boston, but they flowed harder in New York. You mention the Patriots forming a Dynasty, which is something that doesn't happen anymore? Well, The Yankees had a bigger Dynasty then the Pats, winning 4 championships in 5 years, and reaching the World Series all but 2 years between 1996 and 2003, and they have since won another championship outside of the Dynasty. They also made the playoffs all but 1 year, which no team in any sport can say. Similarly to Boston, New York also had a historically awesome team during that span. The only difference is that the 1998 Yankees actually won something, while the 2007 Patriots didn't. Boston's only trump card they had on New York was the whole 2004 ALCS, when the Sox came back from 3-0 down to win the series. Well, Boston fell victim to that this year, so that's gone now. Boston doesn't have anything on New York, so New York is the "Best Sports City"

A brief Comparison of the 2 cities:
Baseball:
-Yankees won 5 World Series, 7 Pennants (including 6 in 8 years). Oh, and the Mets appeared in the 2000 World Series, losing to the Yankees Dynasty
-Red Sox won 2 World Series
EDGE: NY/NJ (and it's not really all that close)

Football:
-Giants won 1 Super Bowl, and appeared in 2
-Patriots won 3, appeared in 4 (losing to the Giants)
EDGE: Boston

Basketball:
-Knicks/Nets appeared in 3 NBA Finals, losing all 3
-Celtics won 1 championship, currently in a 2nd finals
EDGE: Boston, although it's close.

Hockey:
-Devils won 3 Stanley Cups, and appeared in 4 Cup Finals total.
-Bruins pretty much sucked, missing the playoffs 4 times, and never making it out of the 2nd round.
EDGE: NY/NJ, and it isn't anywhere NEAR close.

So the breakdown is 2-2, but it's pretty clear that in the 2 sports NY/NJ is better in, it's not even close. Hence why NY/NJ is a better Sports City.

First of all, I know the Yankees had a dynasty, but its so much harder to do that in football than in baseball. Baseball has no salary cap. So the Yaankees could buy any free agent they choose (and did). That helps. The Patriots' dynasty was during a time with a salary cap therefore not a lot of money to be spending on whomever they chose. Ask around. Everyone will tell you just much more improbable it is to do what the Patriots did during that span.

I like how in the areas you have NY/NJ winning, its not close, while the areas you have Boston winning are what, barely? In football its nowhere near close. The Giants got absolutley smashed by Baltimore, and with a lucky catch, beat the Pats. And when it comes to basketball, the Celtics have the title that the Knicks don't have, and have been more consistant than the Knicks. In fact, I recall the Knicks been given the title of the worst franchise in sports not long ago. Since the 2000-2001 season, the Knicks have been to the playoffs twice, and only had one winning record since that season. The Celtics have had 6 winning seasons in that time, been to the playoffs 7 times, and have a ring with a chance at a 2nd.

Really not a blowout as you may think it is. In fact a strong case can be made for Boston just as much as New York.

 

[Stormtrooper]

First of all, I know the Yankees had a dynasty, but its so much harder to do that in football than in baseball. Baseball has no salary cap. So the Yaankees could buy any free agent they choose (and did). That helps. The Patriots' dynasty was during a time with a salary cap therefore not a lot of money to be spending on whomever they chose. Ask around. Everyone will tell you just much more improbable it is to do what the Patriots did during that span.

Spoken like someone who really doesn't follow baseball. Did you realize that when the Yankees won their championships, the majority of their players were either homegrown (like Jeter, Bernie, Posada, Rivera, Pettitte, etc), acquired vie trade, or were just role-players? The Yankees greatest team of that run (the 1998 Yankees) didn't even have the highest payroll, that belonged to the BALTIMORE ORIOLES. Yes, the Yankees had the highest payroll, but it wasn't like they were running away with that. The Rangers and Dodgers were up there too during that time. It wasn't until 2002 that the disparity between the Yankees and the #2 payroll got to be more then 10 million. The Yankee dynasty wasn't built on buying players, rather it was built on building the best team.

And you need to stop acting like the Red Sox are one of these small market teams that never get Free Agents. The Red Sox are consistently the #2 payroll in baseball, and they buy their players just like the Yankees. This anti-New York/pro-Boston crap is such nonsense. THEY ARE THE SAME FUCKING THING. The Yankees spend more, but the Red Sox spend a shitload too.

EDIT: Link to Payroll numbers from 1998. This link can also access payroll info from 1988-today.

I like how in the areas you have NY/NJ winning, its not close, while the areas you have Boston winning are what, barely? In football its nowhere near close. The Giants got absolutley smashed by Baltimore, and with a lucky catch, beat the Pats.

I didn't say anything about Boston barely edging out NY/NJ in football, because it isn't close. I said Boston had the edge, which they do, clearly. In baseball it isn't close, and you can't even act like it is.

And when it comes to basketball, the Celtics have the title that the Knicks don't have, and have been more consistant than the Knicks. In fact, I recall the Knicks been given the title of the worst franchise in sports not long ago.

Yeah, I would love to see the documentation for that. I know the Knicks suck as a franchise now, bu in the late 90's, they were one of the top non-title winning franchises. There were a bunch of franchises that were worse then the Knicks.

Since the 2000-2001 season, the Knicks have been to the playoffs twice, and only had one winning record since that season. The Celtics have had 6 winning seasons in that time, been to the playoffs 7 times, and have a ring with a chance at a 2nd.

I will admit to being off when I said it was close. I wasn't thinking about the current NBA finals. 2 appearances in 3 years (with a win) is impressive. Although the Nets had back-to-back appearances in the Finals (although they lost both). Yes the Nets suck now, but they were a VERY GOOD team in the early 2000's. And the Celtics were never considered a really good team until they got KG and Ray Allen.

Really not a blowout as you may think it is. In fact a strong case can be made for Boston just as much as New York.

No, a case can be made for Boston, but New York has had more success, and thus can be considered the better Sports City.

First of all, why the hell is NY/NJ combined? NY by itself already has 2 baseball, football, and hockey teams. Just because the football teams had their stadium in New Jersey doesn't mean the separate cities should be combined for all sports. It's easy to be the best when you have 9 teams in 4 sports.

Well, if that's the case, then we have to take the Patriots out of Boston, since they don't play there. They play in Foxborough, which is 22 miles out of Boston. The Devils and Nets (until last season) played in East Rutherford, which is 8 miles out of Manhattan. Now they both play in Newark, which is also 8 Miles from Manhattan, and in 2 years, the Nets will be playing in Brooklyn, which is in New York City.

If you take 1 team from each sport (Yankees, Devils, Giants, Nets), the New York Metropolitan Area STILL beats Boston, and hell ALL of New England.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

First of all, why the hell is NY/NJ combined? NY by itself already has 2 baseball, football, and hockey teams. Just because the football teams had their stadium in New Jersey doesn't mean the separate cities should be combined for all sports. It's easy to be the best when you have 9 teams in 4 sports.

NY City / NJ is a metro area. If you wanted to just say NY alone, you'd lose the Devils and the Nets - that's it. People consider the Giants and Jets to be NY teams, even though they play in NJ.

But if you eliminate NJ from the equation and say "no, New York only," then you have to add the Buffalo Sabres and Bills. Maybe they haven't won anything, but you'd STILL have the same # of teams.

I'll take the homer rout and go Detroit. They've had the best hockey team the last 15 years

TIED for the best hockey team of the last 15 years with the Devils. Those are the only 2 teams that have won 3 Cups in that span, and they met head to head once - in 1995. How'd that end up? Yeah, good talk.

Anyway, here's why I would take Boston / New England over NY / NJ.

In baseball, Boston has 2 championships to New York's 5. Boston has 1 baseball team, NY has two.

In hockey, Boston has done shit, and the Devils have 3 - out of the 3 hockey teams that play. And the Rangers and Islanders have missed the playoffs more times than they've made it.

In football, New England has dominated, the Giants won one Super Bowl, and the Jets have 0. That means Boston averages 3 titles per team playing there, whereas NY averages .5.

In basketball, the NY / NJ metro area has practically been the bane of all things, except for the Jason Kidd-led NJ Nets run of the early '00's. The Celtics are playing for their 2nd title in 3 years. They're gonna lose, but they are there.

Damn it's close.

Nobody mentions Tampa Bay? The Bucs have a Super Bowl, the Lightning have a Super Bowl, the Rays went to a World Series and are baseball's best team this year...no? Anyone?

 

[Big Sexy]

Well, if that's the case, then we have to take the Patriots out of Boston, since they don't play there. They play in Foxborough, which is 22 miles out of Boston. The Devils and Nets (until last season) played in East Rutherford, which is 8 miles out of Manhattan. Now they both play in Newark, which is also 8 Miles from Manhattan, and in 2 years, the Nets will be playing in Brooklyn, which is in New York City.

I don't really care about Boston but at least new England is in the same state. Taking them out helps my case for Detroit though so go ahead. I really don't care how close NY and NJ are to each other they are separate states.

If you take 1 team from each sport (Yankees, Devils, Giants, Nets), the New York Metropolitan Area STILL beats Boston, and hell ALL of New England.

That's what I'm talking about with this NY/NJ combo. NY by itself already has 7 teams for four sports and now you're adding in two New Jersey teams. It's really easy to find one successful team for each sport when you have 2-3 options for every one. How about instead of using the Yanks, Devils, Giants, and Nets you go with the Mets, Islanders, Jets, and Knicks? Even just sticking with an only NY theme of Yankees, Rangers, Giants, and Knicks doesn't look nearly as impressive as what you were arguing originally.

 

[Big Sexy]

But if you eliminate NJ from the equation and say "no, New York only," then you have to add the Buffalo Sabres and Bills. Maybe they haven't won anything, but you'd STILL have the same # of teams.

You can have the Sabres and Bills. 0 titles and only one championship appearance between them in the last 15 years is nothing.

TIED for the best hockey team of the last 15 years with the Devils. Those are the only 2 teams that have won 3 Cups in that span, and they met head to head once - in 1995. How'd that end up? Yeah, good talk.

I'm actually a huge Devils fan but technically the 1994-1995 season wasn't in the last 15 years. Even if you do include it because 2010 isn't over yet, the Wings still have more cups, 4 to 3. More finals appearances, 5 to 4, and a better regular season record over the last 15 years.

The Wings have made the playoffs every year in the last 15 and not counting the shortened season they have had over 100 points in all but 2 years. New Jersey has been great too but they did miss the playoffs once and they've been knocked out of the playoffs in the first round 7 times to the Red Wings 3. It's close but Detroit is the better team the last 15 years.

 

[People's Champ]

Damn Storm where do I start?

First off I'm from the bay area. I could give a rat's ass about pro Boston/anti N.Y crap. I don't know if that was directed at me or just a general statement, but that's my stance. In fact, I hate Boston.

When I brought up the Yankees and their ability to pick up any free agent, that was not meant as a they bought their championship crap. Please read the context in which I discussed this. I mentioned that in comparasion to the Pats dynasty which was much more harder to do in the NFL with the rules in place about free agency and salary cap. That is not debatable. That's it. Never did I say Boston lowly Boston won with not buying players and the big bad Yankees spend spend spend. Never. So there's no reason to argue with me on that.

And at the end of you post you said it was 2-2 but the areas N.Y won were not even close. Well I sucessfully made the argument that the areas that Boston had the edge were not close either. I never once said that it was close in baseball or hockey. Don't twist my words. I agree with your post, just different in which city I think was better.

 

[Stormtrooper]

First off I'm from the bay area. I could give a rat's ass about pro Boston/anti N.Y crap. I don't know if that was directed at me or just a general statement, but that's my stance. In fact, I hate Boston. When I brought up the Yankees and their ability to pick up any free agent, that was not meant as a they bought their championship crap. Please read the context in which I discussed this.

It wasn't really directed at you, but it likely comes off that way. I seem to get agitated when people bring up the Yankees and "buying" Free Agents. Mainly because 99% of them seem to think that no other team in baseball can afford any FA's, when in truth I would guess 29 out of the 30 teams CAN, and only a few CHOOSE to.

I mentioned that in comparasion to the Pats dynasty which was much more harder to do in the NFL with the rules in place about free agency and salary cap. That is not debatable.

Actually, I understand your point, and generally you may be right, but why is it that the Cowboys were able to have a dynasty in the early/mid 90's, and then some people would try (and fail) to argue about the Stealers Dynasty right now? Dynasties really can happen regardless of a Salary Cap. All it takes is quality ownership, GM, and coaching (talent on the field helps too). The Cowboys and Pats were able to achieve this, and so were the Steelers to a lesser extent.

That's it. Never did I say Boston lowly Boston won with not buying players and the big bad Yankees spend spend spend. Never. So there's no reason to argue with me on that.

You're right, and if I lashed out at you, my bad. Whenever people bring up a lack of a Salary Cap in Baseball, I always tend to assume that is people trying to say the Yankees buy championships. I shouldn't do that, but since 90% of the time it happens that way, I get defensive. You don't know how many times I'm sitting at the bar watching the Yanks and some Roody Poo Candy Ass says some shit about how they suck because they "buy their championships." If you heard it as much as I do, you'd get defensive. That's what happens when you live in Pennsylvania with a lot of Jealous Pirate fans and dumbasses.

And at the end of you post you said it was 2-2 but the areas N.Y won were not even close. Well I sucessfully made the argument that the areas that Boston had the edge were not close either. I never once said that it was close in baseball or hockey. Don't twist my words. I agree with your post, just different in which city I think was better.

I had already admitted that I was off on the Basketball comparison. I also amended my first post and said it's CLOSER THEN YOU THINK, instead of "close." People think it is an easy runaway because the Celtics have been good for the past 3 years (and were they all that good last season?). They weren't good for a while, and the both the Knicks and Nets made finals appearances, but they seem to get forgotten over time.

 

[People's Champ]

8 hear ya Storm and i understand the defensiveness. I hate hearing people claim that the Yankees spend "bought" their championship. I appreciate an owner who is willing to spend to win because that's his concern, winning. So I completely hear you on that and agree with you view 100%. Most owners are just too cheap to do anything.

So it looks like we will agree to disagree on this. I guess its all just perspective.

 

[Mitch Henessey]

It has to be Boston. The New England Patriots pretty much dominated the NFL for a good while, and the Red Sox finally broke "the curse" and won a pair of World Series. After acquiring Garnett and Ray Allen, the Boston Celtics once again became a force in the NBA.

The Patriots came closer than anyone has in along time to breaking the 1972 Miami Dolphins undefeated streak. Tom Brady slowly became on of the NFL's best QBs, and although this guy can be a real dick, Bill Belichick has become one of the best coaches in the NFL over the years.

The Red Sox usually had solid teams throughout the years, but they were never able win the big one. They've been able to capture two World Series this decade, and they're always in the hunt for another title.

The Celtics are once again a dominant team. Ever since their title win in 2008, they have been one of the top teams in the NBA along with the Lakers, Cavaliers, Magic, and Suns. The rise of the Celtics has also helped renew the great Celtics VS Lakers rivalry.