Why Boston is the Most Successful Sports City

While whittling away my existence on Twitter back in December, I came across a tweet from Keith Olbermann stating


“Yankees 27

+ NFL Giants 8

+ Rangers 4

+ Mets 2

+ Knicks 2

+ Jets 1

= 44 


Shall we add in the ex-NY teams?  Dodgers (1), MLB Giants (8)?  Make it 53?” and then added, in blunt fashion, “You guys are morons.”


This, as my scanning eyes would soon confirm, was in response to a picture tweeted by Joe Giza of a Dunkin’ Donuts sign in Boston stating, “Boston Runs on Dunkin’, Hard Work, The Sweat From 37 Championships #Titletown!  And the Tears of New Yorkers.”

Now, setting aside the fact that the New York (MLB) Giants won five and not eight World Series titles before moving to San Francisco following the 1957 season (the other three were won in 2010, 2012, and 2014) and that Olbermann did not mention the Boston (Miracle) Braves’ World Series title in 1914, 44 championships certainly beats 37, no? (To say nothing of 50 (not 53) beating 38.)

I obviously assumed New York would be the more successful sports town but, as is my wont, decided to try to come up with an interesting counterpoint.  After rudimentary research, I tweeted back that Boston was ahead 27-19 in championships won after Olbermann was born (January 27, 1959).  Looking further, I noticed that it was only going back to 1940 (before Citizen Kane was released, before Teddy Ballgame batted .406, before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor) when New York pulls decisively ahead of Boston in the championship count, 31-30, (or 1947, if you include the Brooklyn Dodgers 1955 and NY Giants 1954 World Series titles) to get to the ultimate 44-37 totals (or 50-38 totals, if you include the relocated franchises.)


And, yet, despite the 44-37 (or 50-38) difference, Boston is still the more successful sports town when one considers how many championships have been won as a percentage of opportunities each city had.  As of December 31, 2018, the New York Yankees have played in all 115 seasons that a World Series has been played (excluding the 1994 strike year- I’ll get to the non-1904 World Series later), the Mets in 56 seasons (as of 1962), the NFL Giants in 94 seasons since 1925, the New York Jets in 53 seasons from Super Bowl I on, the New York Knicks in 72 seasons of NBA Championships from 1947 on, the Brooklyn Nets in six seasons from 2012, and the New York Rangers in 92 seasons from the 1926-27 season, which means that New York teams in the four major sports won only 44 championships out of 488 opportunities, or 9.016%.  Contrast this with Boston, who won 37 championships (Boston Red Sox: 9 World Series titles, New England Patriots: 5 Super Bowls, Boston Celtics: 17 NBA Championships, Boston Bruins: 6 Stanley Cups) in only 334 opportunities (the Boston Red Sox played in the same 115 seasons as the Yankees, the New England Patriots in the same 53 seasons as the Jets, the Boston Celtics in the same 72 seasons as the Knicks, and the Boston Bruins in 94 seasons from the 1924-25 season), or 11.078%.


Adding the five World Series titles won by the New York Giants and the one Series won by Brooklyn does not help because you’re adding six titles, yes, but you are also adding 55 seasons for each team (50/598= 8.361%).  The gap narrows if you include the Boston Braves (1 title in 50 years before that franchise moved to Milwaukee), which Olbermann overlooked, but Boston still comes out ahead, 38/384= 9.896%.  And none of this even counts 1904, when the BOSTON baseball team should have been declared World Champions after the NEW YORK Giants refused to play them for the title!  


Of the cities with teams in all four major sports leagues, Boston is #1. (Postscript:  since the Olbermann tweet, the New England Patriots won Super Bowl LIII to end the 53^rd season of Super Bowls, thus improving Boston’s superior winning percentage still further, franchise relocations or not.)

Donald Trump is My President

You may not like it.  As an environmentalist, I CERTAINLY do not like it, but it is an irrefutable fact that Donald J. Trump is our duly-elected U.S. President, and attempts by some on the Left (even two years later- I’m talking to you, Michael Moore) to delegitimize this by pointing out that Trump lost the popular vote are ultimately found wanting.

The Electoral College is delineated in Article 2, Section 1 and in the 12^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Donald Trump, by the only legal barometer both major parties were aware of prior to Election Day, earned 304 electoral votes versus the 227 won by Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton to win the presidency.  There are arguments for and against the Electoral College which I do not wish to rehash here.  Instead, I’d like to stress that one cannot repudiate a victory reached under the lawful rules both sides were playing under initially by pointing out that a different result could have been achieved using a different barometer.  

To demonstrate this, a Reddit user cited (in the Reddit user’s words) “a great analogy” from Rush Limbaugh’s November 14, 2016 show (a segment I heard live, by the way) that, predictably, is simple enough for his core audience to grasp but not subtle enough to truly drive the point home.  Rush recalled the classic 1960 baseball World Series when the heavily-favored New York Yankees (Mantle, Berra, Ford, Maris, Richardson, Howard, et al) were beaten by the Pittsburgh Pirates in seven games, despite outscoring the National League representatives 55-27 in the seven games.  Rush’s simple point is to say, hey, the ground rule to determine the World Series winner is the first team to win four games in a best-of-seven series and, if we change the rule post-Series to say, na’ah, let’s declare the Bronx Bombers (Hillary) the Series winner because they scored more runs in the Series than the Pirates (Trump).  A simple analogy, yes, but not “great” because strategy (What do I need to do to get to 270 electoral votes?) is ignored.

A better, deeper (for me) analogy would be to compare the 2016 Election to one single baseball game.  Current official baseball rules dictate the winner of a game to be the team that scores the most runs.  Usually, but not always, the baseball team (or presidential candidate) who gets the most hits (votes) wins the game (the election).  However, as five U.S. Presidential elections and countless baseball games show, the candidate (team) who gets the most votes (hits) does not always win the election (game).  Just as there is strategy involved in earning the most electoral votes (what are the swing states, and which are in play for us?  How do I allocate my time and resources?  What message do I craft to appeal to those states?) beyond winning the popular vote, there’s strategy to winning a baseball game beyond getting the most hits.  In some situations, laying down a sacrifice bunt or grounding out to the right side of the infield to advance a baserunner into better scoring position makes strategic sense, although you are giving up an out (in other words, a chance to get a hit).  Trying to hit a sacrifice fly to score a baserunner from third, although again giving up an opportunity for a hit, makes strategic sense.  Ordering a stolen base attempt to move a runner into scoring position is another strategy that, depending on circumstances, might make sense even though the subsequent opening of a base may lead to an intentional walk to the next hitter, thus “taking the bat out of their hands,” or the runner may even get thrown out, which means your team has one less opportunity to get a hit.  In these examples, a team is implementing strategies (and I can think of multiple others that would also apply to this analogy) to attempt to win in ways other than focusing on getting hits alone because they realize that hits alone do not ensure victory, just like getting the most popular votes ensures nothing.  It would be absurd for a team that wins 4 runs to 3 to have the result overturned because they were outhit 8-6.

So, anti-Trumpers:  please stop alluding to the popular vote!  Antiquated or not, the Electoral College determines our U.S. President and will continue to do so in perpetuity.  So, learn the lessons of the bitter 2016 defeat (which, if my Twitter feed is any indication, pundits on the Left have not yet fully grasped), draw the necessary conclusions as to why the Rust Belt states who decided the election favored the message of a scion whose businesses filed bankruptcy on multiple occasions over the message (or lack thereof) of the more progressive party, cease with the stupid “Drumpf” stuff, and win an election.