Welcome To Title Town

http://nesn.com/2013/10/boston-runs-away-with-title-town-moniker-with-eighth-title-since-2001-chart/


Boston Runs Away With ‘Title Town’ Moniker With Eighth Championship Since 2001 (Chart) by NESN Staff on Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 1:08PM Share this: Fancred Email The Boston Red Sox won the 2013 World Series on Wednesday night, adding yet another shiny trophy to the city’s already crowded trophy case. That makes eight titles (in the four major sports) since 2001, with the Sox and Patriots capturing three each and the Celtics and Bruins bagging one apiece. This means the city has won 15.7 percent of titles contested in that period, according to our pal Tony Manfred over at Business Insider. Check out his chart below for a clearer picture.




bob



.

Boston has obviously had a great run of titles since 2001 with the Patriots, Red Sox, Celtics, and Bruins, and there's nothing wrong with a little parochial pride, but "runs away with the title town moniker" isn't really accurate because LA is right there with Boston:

• It's bogus to separate LA and Anaheim when they're both part of the LA metropolitan area and are separated by only 30 miles according to Google maps. They don't do that for New York (they include the New Jersey Giants in with the Yankees) or any other city, including Boston, where the Patriots' stadium is in Foxboro and 29 miles from the TD Garden according to Google maps.

• To start the title counting in 2001 is of course arbitrary and is of course designed to make Boston look as good as possible. Going back just one year to 2000 gives LA another title (the Lakers' first in the Shaq-Kobe run).

Add LA and Anaheim together and you get seven titles, right behind Boston's eight. Go back one year to 2000, and they're tied with eight (Lakers 5, Kings 1, Ducks 1, and Angels 1). So I don't think "runs away" with the title crown is accurate.

Great run, but I'd say the Celtic-Laker rivalry extends to the two cities' claims for recent titles.

Outside

You didn't even factor how many titles the NFL team has had in LA over that time frame!

beat

Outside wrote:Boston has obviously had a great run of titles since 2001 with the Patriots, Red Sox, Celtics, and Bruins, and there's nothing wrong with a little parochial pride, but "runs away with the title town moniker" isn't really accurate because LA is right there with Boston:

• It's bogus to separate LA and Anaheim when they're both part of the LA metropolitan area and are separated by only 30 miles according to Google maps. They don't do that for New York (they include the New Jersey Giants in with the Yankees) or any other city, including Boston, where the Patriots' stadium is in Foxboro and 29 miles from the TD Garden according to Google maps.

• To start the title counting in 2001 is of course arbitrary and is of course designed to make Boston look as good as possible. Going back just one year to 2000 gives LA another title (the Lakers' first in the Shaq-Kobe run).

Add LA and Anaheim together and you get seven titles, right behind Boston's eight. Go back one year to 2000, and they're tied with eight (Lakers 5, Kings 1, Ducks 1, and Angels 1). So I don't think "runs away" with the title crown is accurate.

Great run, but I'd say the Celtic-Laker rivalry extends to the two cities' claims for recent titles.

outside,

Good points. As you might expect from NESN (New England Sports Network), it is a little Bahstahn-centric.

However:

1. I disagree that Anaheim and LA should be added together. If they were both "LA", then they'd be called the "LA Ducks" and the "LA Angels", like the way the Giants are called the "NY Giants" even though they play in NJ. There is only one football team in New England, so it's not the Boston Ballers and the New England Patriots (trying to suck up everywhere else in New England that isn't taken by the Ballers). You want to be part of a city, then call yourself by that city. San Diego is only 95 miles away. By California standards, that's a commute.

2. You're right, the 2001 number is arbitrary. It's done to make Boston look good and, of course, dovetail with the beginning of a new millenium. If you look at the just the last 10 years, not all the way back to 2001, just the last decade starting back from today, we've still won 6 championships. Is looking a decade back, starting from the end of the 2012-2013 sports season too arbitrary?


bob


.

Bob,

They are the LA Angels. They've been that for the last nine seasons.

San Diego is separated by geography and distance that makes it distinct from LA. On the other hand:

• Geographically, LA and Anaheim are both in the LA basin, which is essentially a big bowl surrounded by mountains. To go from the Staples Center or Dodger Stadium to Angel Stadium or the Honda Center is a straight shot down I-5 with nary a hill between them.

• The LA metropolitan area is defined by the Census Bureau and the Office of Management and Budget as a single metropolitan area consisting of LA and Orange counties. Even the larger "Greater Los Angeles Area" defined as a combined statistical area by the OMB doesn't include San Diego (it includes LA, Orange, Riverside, San Bernadino, and Ventura counties).

• There are special Angel Express trains set up to get to Angel games from downtown LA and Riverside as well as south Orange County. They do that because they draw fans from all around the LA area.

• The LA Rams played for years in the same stadium the Angels play in now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_metropolitan_area

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Los_Angeles_Area

http://www.metrolinktrains.com/news/promotions_detail/title/Angels_Express_2013

You likely wouldn't have an issue with saying the Rose Bowl is in LA, yet it is in another city (Pasadena) that is more geographically distinct from LA than Anaheim is from LA. The geographical name associated with the team isn't an issue or you'd have to eliminate the Patriots, who no longer have "Boston" in their name. Separating Anaheim from LA was done in this case just to make the line for Boston in the bar chart appear better than the others.

Boston has had a great run of titles that they can rightly celebrate. They can even rightly say no other city has done better. But they're going overboard when they say that Boston "runs away with the title town moniker". It's the "runs away with" that I take issue with.

beat wrote:You didn't even factor how many titles the NFL team has had in LA over that time frame!

Beat,

Yeah, that's one fourth fewer titles available over the time period (that sounds vaguely like a light beer commercial), but they do have six teams in the other three major sports compared to four total for Boston, and they benefited from double-dipping with the Kings and Ducks, so I'd say it's all a wash.

Another thing Boston has that none of those areas has - ALL of our teams have won at least 1 title in the last 12 years.

In LA, they have no football team and their baseball team has been mediocre at best.
Miami, had 3 basketball and 1 baseball.....their hockey and football teams have been awful.

As for Outside's contention

First off - there isnt one baseball fan in Los Angeles who roots for the Angels. And I think you would be hard pressed to find any Dodgers hats driving around Orange County. Totally different fan bases, who vehemently dislike each other. Dont see the connection at all...so Los Angeles doesn't get to claim the Angels title, any more than NY should claim a title when the NJ Devils win.

As for the Patriots. They are the ONLY professional team in New England - so nothing at all like the Anaheim Angels and Dodgers.

In the end, I agree it was cut up to make Boston look the best they possible could. But Boston is clearly the best sports city in the country and no matter where you start that chart - we are on a historic roll.

mrkleen09 wrote:First off - there isnt one baseball fan in Los Angeles who roots for the Angels. And I think you would be hard pressed to find any Dodgers hats driving around Orange County.

Really? How well do you know Southern California? I was raised in Northern California and keep my allegiances there, but I've lived in Southern California for 37 years, in both LA County and Orange County, and currently reside in Orange County.

While there are more Angel fans in Orange County than in LA County and more Dodger fans in LA County than Orange County (duh), there is significant crossover. In my family alone, I'm a SF Giants fan, but two of my sons are Dodger fans and one is an Angel fan.

The Dodgers have the more longstanding fan base, but the Angels have made inroads throughout the LA market for several reasons.

• Fan support for the Dodgers withered after the team was sold by the O'Malleys. It was in sort of a malaise during the Fox era, but a lot of people turned on the Dodgers during the despicable McCourt era.

• The Angels have generally been the better team in recent years. The Angels had a better record seven of the nine years during the McCourt era (2004-2012), and the Angels have the more recent World Series title (2002 vs. 1988).

• The Angels' current owner, Arte Moreno, is the first Mexican-American to own a major sports franchise in the U.S. Part of their marketing strategy is to attract fans in the Latino market in both LA and Orange counties, and the team has made a major effort to sign Hispanic/Latino players as described in a Fox Sports article:

The Angels can afford to pay more because of their market size and because they believe the ethnic connection between Pujols and the Latino community of Los Angeles and Orange Counties will help the organization maximize the return on its investment.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/albert-pujols-will-have-special-appeal-to-los-angeles-angels-latino-fanbase-120811

The same article notes that 48% of LA County is of Hispanic/Latino descent, while that applies to only 34% of Orange County.

mrkleen09 wrote:Totally different fan bases, who vehemently dislike each other. Dont see the connection at all...so Los Angeles doesn't get to claim the Angels title, any more than NY should claim a title when the NJ Devils win.

Even if it's true that they vehemently don't like each other (I don't agree with that as a general statement), what does that have to do with the discussion? Just because Yankee fans and Met fans don't like each other doesn't mean they aren't both New York teams.

I can't speak to the situation regarding the New Jersey Devils' proximity to New York City, but I can regarding the LA area teams, and while allegiances may be divided because the LA area is big enough to support multiple teams for the same sport, it's all one major sports market.

mrkleen09 wrote:In the end, I agree it was cut up to make Boston look the best they possible could.

So we agree on that.

mrkleen09 wrote:But Boston is clearly the best sports city in the country

I understand why a passionate Boston fan might want to say that, but that doesn't mean it's not debatable.

mrkleen09 wrote:no matter where you start that chart - we are on a historic roll.

Yep. It's too bad that's not enough to make the folks at NESN and the Boston fan base happy and they have to take it a step too far.[/quote]

Really good post Outside.  And good points about the Yankees / Mets fans and NY getting to claim each title in spite of a bitter rivarly.

I have family in the OC and have been there 10 times.  My uncle and cousins are strongly anti Dodgers and resent Dodgers fans jumping on the Angels bandwagon when they won.  But I see your point about it not being about who you like but where you are situated.  I still thinking claiming Anaheim as a team that counts for Los Angeles wins is off base, but you made your point well.

Los Angels is a great city, but when it comes to sports - the come in the 2nd inning/ 2nd quarter  and leave in the 7th inning/ end of the 3rd quarter isnt far off.  In addition, I can't see any city that doesn't have a professional football team, cant be considered a great sport town.  Championships aside, Boston sticks by their teams and supports them through thick and thin.  Seeing the attendance as a % of capacity of Dodgers Stadium (72%) vs Fenway (90%) over the last 20 years, they are not even in the same discussion.

In the end however, your conclusion is correct in that - Boston is a great sports city and arguably the greatest.  Yet that alone isnt enough for many Boston fans, and I can see why the might rub those from other cities the wrong way.

Wow... Gary Tanguay is a moron. He just referred to the city of Boston as a "pressure cooker."

A rather unfortunate choice of words, especially from one that lives there.



KJ

Terms such as "Greatest Sports Town in America" make me laugh.  A team wins a title and all of a sudden their town jumps in the "ratings."  I believe we Bostonians have been absolutely blessed with a decade replete with thrills and titles.  But what makes one town a "greater sports town" than another just because of the number of titles their pro sports teams have won recently?  Especially since some areas have (a) more pro teams in a given sport or (b) more highly visible sports than other areas.

In my book, given the speed with which the complexions of team can change from year to year to year, the most constant indicator of being a "great sports town" involves the fans.  To a large extent, the knowledge and passion of fans tends to be a more stable barometer than title results.  So it could be argued that the "sports culture" of an area may very well be defined more thoroughly by the nature of the citizenry of the area than by the ability of the area's sports teams to win titles..

I believe another factor in "sports greatness" of a city is the knowledge, analytical skill, and reporting comprehensiveness represented by the local media.  Another is the impact of collegiate or even high school sports on an area.  Another might be the caliber and number of unusually intense, high-profile sports rivalries with teams from other areas.  I'm sure other posters could identify additional factors.  I have no idea what weight of importance should be assigned to each factor in identifying the "greatest sports town."  All I know is that I don't believe the singular measure of number of pro titles won by local teams, in and of itself, necessarily makes one city's sports culture "greater" than another's.

I'm not proposing any formula for evaluating a given city's sports ""greatness."  Frankly, I think the whole concept of "greatest sports town" is mainly a convenient vehicle for fans to go on vicarious ego trips.

I will say that, having personally researched the cultures of most major markets in the U.S. has always left me with a warm, comfortable, excited feeling about being a very active and involved sports fan in the metropolitan area of my native city of Boston.  I expect many others would say something similar about their cities.

Sam

sam wrote:

In my book, given the speed with which the complexions of team can change from year to year to year, the most constant indicator of being a "great sports town" involves the fans.  To a large extent, the knowledge and passion of fans tends to be a more stable barometer than title results.  So it could be argued that the "sports culture" of an area may very well be defined more thoroughly by the nature of the citizenry of the area than by the ability of the area's sports teams to win titles..


Sam

Given the size of the arenas and other factors seems the Boston Bruins, Celtics, Sox and Patriots draw near sell outs ever game. Not sure if any other City with those sports can say the same thing. Heck in looking at the attendance figures sometimes we average over 100% of capacity.

http://espn.go.com/nba/attendance/_/year/2013

http://espn.go.com/mlb/attendance/_/sort/homePct

http://espn.go.com/nfl/attendance/_/sort/homePct

http://espn.go.com/nhl/attendance/_/sort/homePct

beat

Sam,

I think Atlanta is the exception.

The Hawks have basically no fans, even though they are a playoff team. The arena is often empty.

The Braves and the Falcons, for the most part have loyal fans. But when they start losing, people won't show up to games. I really think the loyalty in sports is to college teams like UGA.


KJ