How do sports with a overly dominant team even work?

How do sports with a overly dominant team even work?

Pic related. Most MLB teams could win the next 20 World Series and still not have as many as the Yankees. I like the parity of the NFL, where a historically inferior team can suddenly have a dynasty and be on par with the all time greats like the Patriots did. But with a team like the Yankees it's like nothing even matters.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=h_Ol-UNAQW8
youtube.com/watch?v=VogFY9L4I78
youtube.com/watch?v=vWCGs27_xPI
youtube.com/watch?v=WTwE7xDZkPk
youtube.com/watch?v=tUlHKKNH4HI
twitter.com/AnonBabble

bump

yankees suck this year, 11th in the american league rn

0/10

Yeah but at this point Yankees fan will inevitably >muh royalty and there's nothing you can really do about it.
See above. Seems like that would kill the sport.

The Yankees have only won 5 world series since 1980

Contrary to popular belief, the vast majority of the Yankees championships weren't "bought". The vast majority of the Yankees' championships happened before Free Agency even existed.

With the exception of the 90's Yankees, there have been no dynasties in Baseball since Free Agency started (and no, the Giants aren't in a dynasty right now faggots). Parity is at the best it's ever been.

>nearly twice as many as any other team
>'only'

Not the point, the point is there is a team who is miles above every other one in historical success. Doesn't that ruin the sport a bit?

Yankees havent been THAT team for like a decade. I remember they were like a lock every year for the East. It was weird seeing others being competitive in the East at first.

Why would it ruin it? The Yankees being historically successful has no bearing on the fact that the league has at its best parity wise in recent years.

I don't give a shit about some yankees fan bragging about championships nobody was alive for

Not really. Anyone that goes to the playoffs has just as much of a chance of winning as everyone else, even when you consider their records. Basketball is much worse in terms of finals being ruined. I don't want to watch Lebron and the Warriors go at it ever year for the next three years.

The Yankees haven't been that dominant recently, so it's not a problem. In their first 100 years of existence, they won the AL 39 times and the WS 26 times. But in the last 15 years, they've only won the AL twice and the WS once.

MLB has the most parity of the big 4 sports.

The Yankees only make the sport better. I implore any baseball fan, or even just sports fan, to watch this video and not get chills (especially from those moments in the 70s).
youtube.com/watch?v=h_Ol-UNAQW8

World Series Championships before 1969 only count 1/4th as much as modern ones.
Rings between 1969-1993 count half as much.

The Yanks are still the best overall, but it's a lot closer.

It's not the 20's-70's anymore, and since then, the MLB has had the best parity with the variety of teams that make the playoffs/win the World Series.

What's cool about baseball compared to other sports is that team building isn't totally centered around marquee stars. You could sign a Clayton Kershaw and Bryce Harper, and still miss the playoffs by 20 games. You sign a marquee star in the NBA, you're guaranteed a playoff spot.

High draft picks also don't guarantee anything, so a team can't do what the Sixers are doing and just tank for 10 years and load up on young talent. You NEED to have a good farm, developmental and scouting system, which is why so many very late draft picks can become superstars (Jake Arrietta was drafted in 31st round. Chris Sale 21st round, etc), and why high picks are so often busts or never get out of the minor leagues.

MLB team building is really fascinating shit. Easily the most complex in all of sports.

>taking pre-salary cap championships in any major sports seriously

ISHYGDDT

Yes, that includes Futbol too.

>New York Yankees tribute

That's not going to appeal to anyone except >us, the Yankees are the most hated team in baseball.

Because we live in the present ya dingus

no, parity just cheapens success

look at leicester. that kind of cinderella story is impossible when parity and drafts makes it that bad teams will eventually come good

Baseball's parity isn't forced, though.

Still doesn't have a hard cap. The reason there is parity, is because team construction isn't stupidly obvious like in other sports.

No championship won before 1969 when they lowered the mound is relevant. Unless Bankees fags are actually going to claim that guys like Ruth and Gehrig beating up on poor starving factory workers during the depression is impressive.

Aren't like 22 of those from back when there were 4 teams and they had the only person with any black blood in the league

nope, ever since like 1903 there's been a minimum of 16 teams

it's impossible to have a rational discussion about the yankees without haters getting mad

This is true. The Yankees always seemed to beat up on Tomato Can World Series opponents who luckily lacked great starting pitching.

Look what happened when they ran into Koufax and crew.

My God.

Lmao. Dodgers never had to go into their bullpen.

Then the next season, the Yankees get Bob Gibson, and lose again.

NL teams the yankees haven't face in the WS

>rockies(been to one WS)
>nationals(never been to one)
>Brewers(never been to one as an NL team)

thats fucking it

>caring about luckswing

No, there were at least 16 teams in the league starting in 1900.

"T-titles before (year my own team started winning a bunch of titles) don't count!"

You have to go back.

>defending rundiamond

that's why baseball is GOAT

You learn to live with it, like terrorism.

>only

>only

Are Yankees fans this spoiled or are Yankees haters this delusional?

The Yankees won the majority of their titles before black people could even play, people really count those?

The majority of their championships came when there were 16 or fewer teams in the leagues. There are now 30.

I went to the baseball hof in May and there was a group of kids from a school there with a tour guide. The tour guide told the kids that in the negro leagues, the majority of players were better than Babe Ruth and Ted Williams.

It's more about being dominant in your division.Just look at the Cardinals.

In fact, look at their World Series wins: second in all of MLB.

But they also came from a time when you needed to have the best record in the league in order to reach the world series. You couldn't just win your division or meme your way into a wild card spot.

That isn't true though. Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in 1947. The Yankees won 16 of their 27 WS titles after that.

I thought the red sox had the second most

The Yankees won most of their titles after black people were allowed into the league. And either way, it's not really relevant since only 9% of the players in the league are black.

The tour guide is a liar. There were some players in the negro leagues who were great and would have torn up the majors (like Satchel Paige) but the majority were significantly worse than your average major league player. Often that was because of significantly worse nutrition and training, but still.

1. Yankees (27)
2. St. Louis (11)
3. Red Sox (8)
T-4: Philadelphia A's, New York Giants, Cincinnati Reds, Pittsburgh Pirates (5)
5. Detroit (4)

Remind me again why the Braves managed only one single ring with Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz, and Chipper?

...

But the Yankees never faced the braves in the WS retard

(You)

holy shit. this is one of the biggest BTFOs I've ever seen

youtube.com/watch?v=VogFY9L4I78

>only
That's almost twice as many as anyone else in that span. The majority of posters here were alive for and quite vividly remember all five of those.

even then the 90s yankees core were all homegrown drafted or traded guys. not MUH MONEY FREE AGENT BUYING

> jeter
> posada
> pettite
> rivera
> based bernie williams
> spencer
> el duque
> cone traded
> o'neill traded
> knoblauch traded

jesus they were stacked in the 90s. yankee haters are retarded in their revisionist history

>tfw the Yankees beat the Dodgers in the World Series so many times that they had to run away to Los Angeles

Extremely similar to Manchester United in the same time period. Weird.

user...

Okay, but that has nothing to do with OP's point. Nobody cried "MUH SPENDING" anywhere in this thread, retards.

Obviously the era before free agency made it much easier to become a dynasty because you would just retain your dominant team constantly.

>the Yankees never faced the braves in the WS

They did in 1996, about 10 years before you were born.

>NFL
37 of the 50 Super Bowls were won by 9 teams

NBA is even worse when it comes to parity. Almost Premier League tier

The Yankees also won 20 of their titles back before there were playoffs so they earned it

They did four times if you include Milwaukee

They beat them in 96 and 99

And they had to have the best record of the 8 in the league

Kek see the Orioles pitching in the 66 world series.
Dodgers only scored TWO runs in the whole series, which came in game 1

They faced them twice in the 1990s and beat them both times...

>How do sports with a overly dominant team even work?

In American sports it doesn't matter as much because all the leagues have historically high levels of parity.

The million championships that the Yankees/Packers/Celtics/Canadiens won back in the day came from very different eras. (The Canadiens won when there were only six teams in the league, for example.)

Having a team that has historically won a lot does give the league some flavor. A team like the Yankees crowing about all their decrepit rings is offset by a team like the Cusb and their century-plus of ineptitude.

I can see the Europeans and their soccer leagues having a much bigger problem with this. If you support a smaller club, you basically have no hope
>inb4 b-b-but Lester
unless it's a once-in-a-lifetime freak occurrence.

Your options in the Euro leagues are to support a big club, or be content with your little club to win a couple games here and there and maybe beat your cross-town rival, knowing that they will never have so much as a sniff at any real success.

winning 21 championships in the late 1800s isn't impressive or relevant. They only have 5 titles in the era that matters.

Since the salary cap came to the NFL (1994) there have been 12 different teams to win the Super Bowl. That's close to half the league.

In the Major Leagues, after the Luxury Tax was introduced (2003) there have been eight different World Series champions, only two of which were from the list of high-spending teams that had to pay the Luxury Tax.

>How do sports with a overly dominant team even work?

It's fun to have a villain to cheer against when your own team is on a down stretch.

And that era is?

Also, baseball is kind of an anomaly. Of course, baseball has evolved and things like free agency, the designated hitter, and the playoff have changed things - but by and large, it's pretty much the same game with similar strategies we've been seeing for more than a century.

On the other hand, football and basketball would probably be unrecognizable to a fan from 1916.

the modern era, I don't recognize any statistic or record before the 1960s. None of those people matter or relevant anymore. Babe Ruth would be a bust in this era. None of the supposed HOFers from those days would last one season now.

I hate the Red Sox and even the Dodgers more than the Yankees and I'm a Twins fan

Exactly. Truly a team effort (though the game revolves around a 1-on-1 confrontation between the pitcher and batter). To win a title, you don't need a stacked roster, but you also don't can't rely on one. sensational player.

Ernie Banks and Ted Williams are proof positive of that. Excellent players, in the hall-of-fame - primarily played on decent to horrible teams.

So no one's gonna comment on this bullshit ok alright

>I-It's not like I want you Burgers to actually see a consistently successful team ruining the sport they're involved with in this modern age b-bakas!

They change the uniforms to cotton
And they're hired some Gorge guy.
youtube.com/watch?v=vWCGs27_xPI

You can't possibly expect us to know what sport that is or what those teams are. The only name on that page I recognize is "Dublin". Is this Irish soccer or something?

youtube.com/watch?v=WTwE7xDZkPk

Yeah, that's an overly simple worldview. Absolutely there were Negro Leaguers that would have been superstars in the Majors (Cool Papa Bell, Satchel Paige, Buck O'Neill, etc.) but like anything else, you had role players and "tweeners" that served their purpose and were less than awesome.

Is it a shame those great Negro Leaguers never had a chance to show what they could do in the Majors? Absolutely. Was everyone in the Negro Leagues a cut above the rest? Doubtful.

See
Also, that '91 Series against the Twins. Not sure how they lost the '92 series against the Jays, though. Someone with more insight may be able to set me straight there.

>Being a Baltimore sports fan in the late 1960s
>Colts kicking ass (despite being Bridesmaid to the Packers)
>Dem Oreos
Outside of the rampant crime and dwindling infrastructure, that must have been awesome.

And a majority of those wins are still mostly the teams in the 9 I mentioned

MLB has more parity in the post season as opposed to the NFL

Also you're comparing 22 years vs 13 years
8/13 vs 12/22
Which means the MLB has a better percentage of parity for champions
61.5% vs 54.5%

>overly dominant team
not the 60s anymore, MLB has the best parity I'd say currently

See, I'm not sure about that. I mean, yeah, there were some pretty big changes in the '60s (162 game season in '61, the implantation of the division system and lowering the mound in '69 - after it had been raised back up not that long before hand, if memory serves), but outside of that, Major League Baseball hadn't really changed that much at that point, especially in terms of on-field play. One might say that further integration was another factor, but let's not forget Ruth (and his peers) played against Negro Leaguers during the off season. It wouldn't have been that much of a shock to them on the field if baseball were integrated a couple decades early.

Baseball is (in the most fundamental ways) the same game its been for about a century, since the start of the live-ball era (maybe even since the establishment of the National League in 1876).

youtube.com/watch?v=tUlHKKNH4HI

Poor George, best sitcom ever btw