The True Champion?

ESPN had a recent poll that was quite interesting: Which league's championship is most likely to produce a champion that was actually the best team for the season? Of the three major leagues - NFL, NBA, and MLB, voters overwhelming picked the NBA first, with MLB and NFL following. At first glance, I would rank them NBA, NFL, and MLB. But I'd rather do some research and analysis and get to the bottom of this. Therefore, we bring you the first of a three part article where we examine the last 25 years of Champions in each sport to try and determine which league's championship gives us the best and most accurate champion in each respective season. I chose 25 years because that's as far back as I can remember, and it would be useless for me to only evaluate W/Ls and other statistics without some relevant knowledge of what actually happened on the field/court. Let's start with the NBA:

1985 NBA Los Angeles Lakers over Boston Celtics

This was the year I fell in love with basketball. Michael Jordan entered the League and changed the way we all thought about hoops. But the Bulls didn't make the playoffs so I won't make this about them, even if I'd like to. No, the the Showtime Lakers (62-20) took the title. They did not have the best record in the League. The Boston Celtics (63-19) won that honor. They did not have the MVP (Bird) or sixth man of the year (McHale). No, Boston won those honors too. It's safe to say the best two teams in 84-85 were the Lakers and the Celtics. The top two records in the League. Both teams had defensive stoppers (1st Team All-D Cooper for LA; 2nd Team All-D Johnson for BOS). The 1st Team All NBA included Magic and Bird, while the 2nd Team had Abdul-Jabbar. Parish and Johnson joined Bird on the All-Star team. These teams were LOADED. They split during the regular season (each team winning at home) and the Lakers won 4-2 in the Finals, despite not having home-court advantage (LA won 2 games in Boston). LA won the head-to-head. Boston lost more games (4) in the first three rounds than LA (2). LA had a higher point differential during the regular season. I think it's close, but LA was the best team during the 84-85 season.

1986 NBA Boston Celtics over Houston Rockets

The Lakers (62-20) didn't show up for the rematch, losing to the Rockets (51-31) in five. This Celtics team (67-15) is considered one of (if not THE) best teams in NBA history - they brought Bill Walton off the bench for goodness sakes. No doubt about it: the Celtics owned the 85-86 season.

1987 NBA Los Angeles Lakers Boston Celtics
Was it boring or exciting to be an NBA fan during this stretch? Same teams, year after year. LA (65-17) ran away with the regular season (Boston was second, with a 59-23 record) and blew through the first three rounds (11-1) before beating the Celtics in six. Magic finally wrestled the MVP trophy from Bird and each team boasted 3 All-Stars. But the difference really lay in the bench: the Celtics were hit hard by injuries and their depth evaporated. LA was 86-87's finest.

1988 NBA Los Angeles Lakers over Detroit Pistons
Aaaaaaand the Celtics didn't show up for the rematch. Boston (57-25) fell to Detroit (54-28) in a brutal Eastern Conference Finals. This was not fun to watch. And it wasn't good basketball. I've never liked the Lakers (62-20), but I rooted for them pretty hard in this series, which was a seven game slugfest. The best team won, but it was a preview for how a slightly less talented team (Pistons) could bend the rules to equalize the talent level of their opponent.

1989 NBA Detroit Pistons over Los Angeles Lakers
This is the first truly difficult decision. The Pistons (63-19) had the best record in the league (LA was 57-25) but not a single player worthy enough to make the All-NBA team (there were 15 players on the All-NBA team). Further, only Isaiah Thomas made the All-Star Team. At the time, I looked at the Pistons and all I saw was a team of brutes who kept games close and had a great finisher (Thomas) take over at the end. This was completely and utterly effective, of course. In fact, just looking at the stats (best record, lost just 2 games in the playoffs, swept the Finals) this should be a no-brainer. But it isn't. They get the nod because this is the year Kareem fell off a cliff and LA couldn't rebound, but these teams were closer than you'd think.

1990 NBA Detroit Pistons over Portland Trail Blazers

This is another odd season. Who must we compare to the Pistons (59-23)? The Lakers (63-19) were shocked by the Suns (54-28) in the second round. The Blazers (59-23) had an excellent team. And the Bulls (55-27) were a year away from owning the League. I think it's the Bulls. They had the best player (MJ) at the peak of his powers (27). Grant and Pippen rounded out the best 2,3,4 in the League, bar none, including the most versatile and athletic (they were ahead of their time). The Bulls played Detroit closer (3-4 in the Eastern Conference Finals) than anyone else. And they lost Game 7 under suspect circumstances (Pippen came down with migraines and played poorly, especially in Game 7). This where you have to wonder: if Pippen is healthy, do I even write more than one sentence here? No, I don't. That's why I have to say that the Bulls were better than the Pistons this year, even though they did not win the title.

1991 NBA Chicago Bulls over Los Angeles Lakers

1992 NBA Chicago Bulls over Portland Trail Blazers

1993 NBA Chicago Bulls over Phoenix Suns

There's no need to waste space here with entries on each of these years. The Bulls had the best player, one of the best teams ever ('92 - 67-15), lost just two playoff games in '91, and weren't threatened in '93 until they ran into the Suns, who Jordan promptly eviscerated with the greatest Finals performance of all-time (he was properly motivated when the media foolishly awarded the regular season MVP to Charles Barkley). During MJ's prime, he was simply unstoppable. This is why any comparison to him is foolish (MJ doesn't allow his team to win 34, 45, and 42 games during his prime, even if I'm starting next to him... *cough* *Kobe*). The Bulls owned these years.

1994 NBA Houston Rockets New York Knickerbockers

The strange thing is, the Rockets (58-24) weren't the best team. And neither were the Knicks (57-25). The Bulls (55-27) should have beaten the Knicks in Round 2, but for a TERRIBLE call on a desperation shot by Hubert Davis (you aren't a great team if Hubert Davis is taking that shot). But even the Bulls weren't the best team that season (no MJ, though they somehow had 3 All-Stars). No, the best team was the Seattle Supersonics (64-18), a team that had a ridiculously good 9-man rotation that was somehow knocked out in the first round by the Denver Nuggets (42-40). No 8 seed had ever beaten a 1 until this series. The Sonics won handily in games 1 and 2, but were crushed in Game 3. They lost on questionable calls in games 4 and 5, both of which were OT victories for the Nuggets. At the time, I couldn't have been happier (I loved how Mutombo talked and Ellis' game). Looking back, it opened the door for the Rockets and Olajuwon's meteoric rise in NBA lore (his career is evaluated much, much differently if Mutombo doesn't take Kemp out of this series).

1995 NBA Houston Rockets over Orlando Magic

I'm speechless on this one. The Nick Anderson game. The dismantling of the Next Great Dynasty before it got started. How did it happen? The Rockets (47-35) were on their last legs as a 6th seed in the Western Conference. Olajuwon and Drexler (both 32) carried the team during the regular season, but in the playoffs they succeeded because of huge games by Sam Cassell (9.5 ppg reg season, started one reg season game) and Robert Horry (10 ppg reg season). The Magic (57-25) boasted Penny Hardaway (1st Team All-NBA) and Shaq (2nd Team All-NBA). Facing the Rockets with Olajuwon (loan All-Star and 3rd Team All-NBA) didn't seem that imposing. Heck, I'm not sure how the Rockets beat the Suns (59-23) in an epic 7 game series in Round 2. In fact, the Rockets went 11-7 in the playoffs before reaching the Finals. I don't want to have to pick the best team (though I'd probably go with the Suns - Danny Manning made that team very, very good) but I do know one thing: the Rockets weren't the best team of the 94-95 season.

1996 NBA Chicago Bulls over Seattle Supersonics

1997 NBA Chicago Bulls over Utah Jazz

1998 NBA Chicago Bulls over Utah Jazz

Once again: No one was beating MJ. The Bulls won 72, 69, and 62 games during these seasons. Only Utah in 1998 (62-20) equaled them in wins. Nonetheless, despite what some people will tell you, EVERYONE knew the Bulls were winning the title these years. There never was any doubt, even when Pippen's back flaired up at the end of the run, everyone knew MJ would do anything to win. Since MJ could do anything, the Bulls would win the title.

1999 NBA San Antonio Spurs over New York Knickerbockers

A fluky season that forced Jordan's hand into a second retirement. A 50 game season that allowed the team that showed up in the best shape (San Antonio - 37-13) to take the title. Unsurprisingly, Utah (37-13) also finished the "regular" season tied with the Spurs for the best record (Malone and Stockton, Utah's stars, were known for being workout freaks). The Spurs rolled through the postseason (15-2) with a physical style that few teams could match (again, they were all out of shape). It didn't hurt that the Spurs' best player (Duncan) was in his second year in the league and, at 22, couldn't get out of shape if he had tried.

2000 NBA Los Angeles Lakers over Indiana Pacers

Shaq's best season. The first season Kobe put it together. Phil. (You gotta love Phil Jackson - here his is yelling at Chris Rock last night for reminding Kobe that he couldn't beat Eddie Jones out for a starting spot when he entered the League). The Blazers should have defeated the Lakers in the Conference Finals (very VERY fishy referee work in Game 6), but the Lakers were the better team, overall, that season. While we're here:

2001 NBA Los Angeles Lakers over Philadelphia 76ers

This wasn't even close. Yes, the Bucks (52-30) had a shot , but they weren't beating the Lakers even if they had gotten the calls in the 76ers series.

2002 NBA Los Angeles Lakers over New Jersey Nets
The Nets were not good. In fact, the entire Eastern Conference was atrocious. But the West... Sacramento (61-21) had the perfect team to beat the Lakers: a talented PF (2nd Team All-NBA Chris Webber), a SF that could shoot the lights out (All-Star Peja Stojakovic), a sweet shooting PG who could penetrate (Mike Bibby), a lock-down defender (SG Doug Christie), and 18 fouls to throw at Shaq (C Vlade Divac, BU-C Scott Pollard, and Webber). This team also had two excellent scorers off the bench (Bobby Jackson and Hedu Turkoglu). I absolutely thought they were beating hte Lakers (58-24). Nope. Lost in 7 (more referee issues, though). Sacramento was the better team, and best team in the League. The Playoffs got it wrong this season.

2003 NBA San Antonio Spurs over New Jersey Nets

The West was so loaded during this period that it's staggering to look at today. The Nets (49-33) don't deserve the time of day, but the Mavs (60-22) and the Kings (59-23) do. The Kings brought everyone back, even getting an additional boost off the bench from Jim Jackson (don't ask, but he was pretty good). The Mavs vaulted into the elite with Nowitzki's breakout season (2nd Team All-NBA). In fact, it really was Nash's breakout year, too (3rd Team All-NBA). Throw in Finely (19ppg) and Van Exel off the bench (12.5ppg) and you had a squad you could go to war with. Unless you consider that Shawn Bradley started 39 games at center.

So what about the Spurs (60-22)? David Robinson's last dance. MVP Time Duncan. Tony Parker taking the reigns and running with it. Not an easy road to the Championship (16-8) but they made it (no series went seven games). The part I don't like about this team is it was in flux; Stephen Jackson took all the big shots because Manu was a rookie and wasn't playing yet. So, whether you think the Spurs were better than the Kings or the Mavs really comes down to how you feel about having Stephen Jackson taking all the big shots for you at the end of big games. That, and they won 3 games in Dallas to win the West. I'll take the Spurs here, in a nail-biter.

2004 NBA Detroit Pistons over Los Angeles Lakers

An Emphatic NO. The Pistons (54-28) were NOT the best team this season. The Lakers (56-26) were miles above everyone else, but the Shaq/Kobe drama eclipsed everything else. Injuries killed this team, too. They ended the year on a 14-3 run after beginning the year on an 18-3 run. But they had putrid stretches (end of December w/o Shaq and Malone: 1-6) when key guys were out. And, again, Shaq/Kobe feud. Heck, the Garnett/Cassell/Sprewell T-Wolves were better than the Pistons. The Playoffs got this one wrong.

2005 NBA San Antonio Spurs over Detroit Pistons

I'd have preferred the Suns (62-20) over the Heat (59-23), as both were superior to the teams they lost to in the Conference Finals. The Pistons (54-28) were down 3-2 and stormed back to win in Game 7 of the Eastern Conference Finals due to some great (rough) defense on Wade and Jones and getting a huge game from Rasheed Wallace. Meanwhile, the best Suns team of the "7 Seconds or Less" Era (each starter averaged at least 15ppg) suffered a terrible Joe Johnson injury that allowed the Spurs (59-23) to win in five. Again, the playoffs got it wrong.

2006 NBA Miami Heat over Dallas Mavericks

The Heat (52-30) made up for their crushing defeat in '05 with a win over a solid Mavs team (60-22). The Suns (54-28) were without Amare all year (microfracture surgery) and were forced to trade Joe Johnson. Nonetheless, Nash won his second MVP and the Suns made another deep playoff run, losing to Mavs in six in the Conference Finals. The Mavs, though, were the favorites heading into the Finals. If the Heat are to be compared to any other team that year, the Mavs are the team to compare them to. Now, there's a lot of hand-wringing over the officiating during the Finals, and with good reason. But more than anything, Miami's finisher (Wade) was better at the end of games than Dallas's finisher (Nowitzki). Enough said: Miami was the best team in 05-06.

2007 NBA San Antonio Spurs over Cleveland Cavaliers

2008 NBA Boston Celtics over Los Angeles Lakers
2009 NBA Los Angeles Lakers over Orlando Magic
In the interest of time (mine, not yours), we'll handle it this way: no (Suns), yes, yes. We were one terrible rule (leaving the bench = suspension) away from a Suns/Cavs Finals. I'm convinced. Damn you, Stern!

Final tally: 18/25. 72%. Not bad. Will the NFL or MLB do better?

The Fall of LaTroy

This is an ODE exclusive. We caught up with Brewers RP LaTroy Hawkins for a post-game interview following the Brewers 7-6 loss to the Cubs.

ODE: LaTroy, it's great to get a chance to talk with you. Welcome to the Brewers.LaTroy Hawkins: Thanks for talking with me guys. It's great to be a part of this ball club.

ODE: Tough loss for the Crew today. What happened out there?

Hawkins: Yeah. I pretty much lost that game for us today. I wish I could blame it on my bleeding rectum or diarrhea or something. But honestly, I think what you saw out there was I'm not a very good baseball player.

ODE: You are no stranger to pitching poorly at Wrigley. Why do you think you struggle there so much?

Hawkins: Well, like I said, I'm a horrible pitcher. Sometimes I get lucky, like in my outings earlier this season. What's the saying? Even a blind squirrel finds a nut some of the time? As an ex-Cub, I've pitched a lot at Wrigley. I think it makes sense that if a bad player plays in a particular ball club's stadium with some frequency, you'll see some bad outings there.

ODE: So what's the take away from this loss? For you, and for the Brewers in this young campaign?

Hawkins: Well, anytime you send a shitty player out there you're putting your team in a position to lose. So for the Brewers, I think today is kinda a wake up call. If they want to win games, they should avoid calling my number, no matter the size of the lead. For me, huh. I've got 3.25 million reasons not to get too rattled by this. I mean, I've been a bad pitcher for awhile now and teams still keep seeing my upside.

ODE: How do you shake this one off and go back out and pitch well?

Hawkins: I'm fiendin' to catch up with my old girl I used to bone when I was here with the Cubs. She takes care of me real good. Sucks on my balls, lets me skeet on her face. I figure a night in her ass will do the trick.

ODE: Great talking with you LaTroy. Thanks for meeting with us.

Hawkins: Hey, no problem guys.

Stadium Full of Men in Jorts Applaud Cheater

Big Liar Mac was well received by a bunch of jobless bums also known as the Cardinals fan base. Supporting the home team officially trumps the sanctity of the game in St. Louis.

Hiring McGwire was a bad move for the Cards. In addition to the obvious distraction and PR issues, what does this guy really have to offer as a coach? Let's face it. McGwire was a successful HR hitter for one big fucking reason - PEDs. This guy fucked around with anything he could get his hands on. Steroids, hGH, who knows what.

So, what is McGwire's big tip as a hitting coach? Here's how you shoot a bunch of garbage in your ass and get away with it, break records, lie to Congress about it, then retire to a cushy MLB job. Worked for me.

Black out blame game continues

Yet another follow-up on the Cubs opening day black out on ESPN:

Unsatisfied with the explanation I got from ESPN, I called them for clarification. Their prompt email reply is posted in full below.

This time ESPN blamed Charter. They claim Charter customers in Madison are on the same grid, if you will, as customers in South Bend and Chicago, which "fall within the protected area." No elaboration on "the protected area." Likely they are referring to the area affected by MLB local blackout policy, but they could feasibly be talking about the ESPN "regional sports networks" black out policy

Thanks for contacting ESPN.

Charter Communications provides ESPN programming locally to customers within and outside of the protected market for the Cubs vs Braves game. In this case, Charter Communication's customers in Madison WI were unable to see the Cubs vs. Braves game because neighboring areas (portions of South Bend and Chicago- serviced by the same Charter Communications affiliate - fall within the protected area.

Sincerely,
John
ESPN Viewer Response

To recap: MLB blamed ESPN, ESPN blamed "regional sports networks", and now ESPN blames Charter. How much you wanna bet Charter blames MLB?

Charter should have the capacity to provide regional black outs with a little better resolution than this. Clearly Madison is not the same market as South Bend and Chicago.

Let's see what the folks at Charter have to say. I fully expect the blame will come full circle, that Charter will blame MLB. More to come.

ESPN blames black out on regional sports networks

Another update on the ESPN black out of the Cubs opener:

ESPN got back to my email inquiry in just over 4 hours. Not bad. The full reply below.

Basically, they claim they are obligated to black it out because the game was available on another "regional sports network." For the Cubs it lists Comcast Sports Net Chicago (CSNC) and WCIU, a local Chicago station. Comcast is not available in Madison. WCIU isn't licensed to broadcast outside of Chicago. But it is available in Madison via AT&T UVERSE, DirecTV, and Dish Network.

Dear [HBC],

Thank you for writing.

During the Major League Baseball season, ESPN is obligated to occasionally provide alternate programming in some markets due to local/regional coverage.

On Opening Day, ESPN must provide alternate programming in each team market during its MLB telecast window. Following are the regional sports networks which will televise the game(s) in your area:

St. Louis Cardinals (FSMW)
Cincinnati Reds (FSOH)
Cleveland Indians (STO)
Chicago White Sox (CSNC or WCIU)
Chicago Cubs (CSNC or WCIU)
Atlanta Braves (SS)
San Francisco Giants (CSBA)
Houston Astros (FSNH)
Minnesota Twins (FSNO)
Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (FSW)

Each of these team markets will receive ESPNEWS during the local MLB telecast window.

Sincerely,

Eric
ESPN Viewer Response

Really? Ten teams subject to black out in the Madison market? That doesn't seem right.

ODE I-Team Exposé: Cubs Black Out in Madison

A brief follow-up on why I was blacked out from the Cubs opener in Atlanta on ESPN:

I contacted MLB customer support this morning. A customer service agent named Carrie told me that the Madison area is only subject to black out of Brewer games. No other MLB club should be subject to MLB local black out policy in the Madison market. Basically, she confirmed MLB is not responsible for the black out. She said it was most likely ESPN. Sorry for blaming MLB in the previous post.

I contacted ESPN TV customer support and spoke with ESPN TV customer service agent Allen. He is "expediting" this issue. He thinks the black out is a mistake, but cannot confirm that at this time.

We will get to the bottom of this. I know the suspense is brutal, but I assure you I will promptly pass along any information as it trickles in.

Blacked out by MLB

I'm not talking about the kind caused by too much fun.

I live in Madison. I get Charter digi cable with ESPN. According to my digi guide, Monday's Cubs-Braves game is on ESPN at 3pm. I tune in, I'm blacked out. Instead of the game, I get ESPN News.

Why won't MLB let me watch their shit? This baffles me. Seriously, WTF. This game is in Atlanta. The Brewers, the closest team to Madison, are not even playing right now. They played at Miller Park earlier that day, but not now.

Why does MLB not want me to watch their product? Let's entertain some reasons. Feel free to add your own ideas in the comments.

MLB is afraid I will stay at home and watch the Cubs game instead of buying Brewers tickets.
I'm pretty sure the Brewer game was live on FSN earlier, though. If you're going to black out a game in Madison to try make people go buy tickets to watch it, you'd probably black out the one that is 80 miles away, not 800.

MLB wants me to buy tickets to the Cubs game in Atlanta instead of watching it at home. In Wisconsin.
I don't know if the Cubs game was blacked out on ESPN in Chicago. I doubt it. So why would it be blacked out in Madison? Can't say I know any Cubs fans in Madison that made the trip to Atlanta. If they're that hardcore, I doubt a black out would somehow change their behavior.

MLB wants Cubs fans in Madison to buy something more. Because they can.
Cubs fans are so rabidly enthusitic they'll do anything to see their Cubs. Money is not an issue for these trust-fund enabled youths. MLB.TV::Crack. Actually, I've heard MLB.TV has some nasty home market blackout restrictions. If you live in Iowa City, you can't watch the Twins, Cubs, White Sox, Brewers, Cards, or Royals. Nope. What you really need to do is open up your wallet and buy DirecTV and order the MLB Extra Innings package.

Who cares. If I'm going to take in a Cubs game, I'd rather listen to Ron and Pat on the radio. That's still free.

There's a hole in Bernie's arm where all the money goes

Worried you over-paid on your taxes? A quick look at the Brewers' 2010 payroll might put things in proper perspective. The Brewers spent more than $38 million combined on 6 players that aren't named Braun or Fielder (Suppan, Wolf, Hart, Riske, Bush, Hawkins).