General Manager - Which Sport Is The Most Challenging To Turn A Sorry Team Into A Winner
Options
Comments
-
So lets get this straight, the Yankees are in the largest market and have 27 championships. I'm not suggesting that correlation means causation, but I do think being in a large market has helped the Yankees. You'd have to be foolish not to believe that.its....JOHN B wrote: »I don't know why you idiots are overthinking this and posting a bunch of nonsense, it's NBA and it's not close
Why is it the NBA? You haven't made an argument to support your thesis.
-
its....JOHN B wrote: »It's amazing yall really think it's football, more often than not in the history of the game you need a top tier superstar to even have a chance in the NBA and usually some stars around that star, football is more of a coaches game you don't need a top tier QB to win the superbowl you can win it with a Joe Flacco or most recently Peyton Manning (of 2015-16) as long as you're well coached and have a great defense, you can find all pro type talent in the 4th/5th/6th/7th round and you can find players who can play and be effective without experience right away, NBA it's more of a ? shoot even when you're drafting in the lottery you're drafting a player you hope will turn into a superstar after a few years of experience but more often than not it doesn't happen, in the past 5 years if you didn't have Lebron James on you're not even making it out the east, then you have teams that put superstars together and can barely make the playoffs, then you have teams that are talented and the core has been together for years hoping every year they take it to another level but in reality even making it to a conference final is a long shot, some teams are forever rebuilding, in the NFL a team that nobody saw coming could be a superbowl threat any given year
Are you blind? -
Stars had to align in order for the Celtics to win in 08, we aren't a free agent destination I'll admit that I'm hoping that changes in the near future, but sliding to the 5th spot in the draft turned out to be a blessing in disguise even though there were two guys who were considered generational type talents in the draft, one panned out (Durant) and one didn't (Oden), and still almost 10 years later Durant hasn't won anything, but lucky enough Sonics wanted to go into full rebuild mode and trade Ray Allen and only after that move did KG decide he would play in Boston, that got us one, through the 2000's you either had to have Shaq or Duncan for the most part outside of a few years, in the 90's it was Jordan or Hakeem, this decade it's Duncan, Bron or Curry, generational type talents are hard to come by and don't come around often
-
its....JOHN B wrote: »So what's the answer?
I'd say baseball. Here's why;
1. You have five starting pitchers that rotate. If you want a championship at least three of them have to be elite.
2. If you want to go to the playoffs/world series you'll need two or three elite closing pitchers to pitch the seventh, eighth and ninth (if necessary) innings .
^^^ Right there that's at least 5 elite pitchers
3. You'll need two left handed batters that bat .300+. Most teams generally have two left handed batters spaced throughout their line up.
4. You'll need an all-star catcher (who bats .300+) that can make a consistent throw from home to second (while squatting) when somebody is trying to steal a base. Your catcher can't let people steal bases.
5. You'll need an offensive player who can get on base and steal bases.
6. The rest of your team has to be solid, there can't be any weak links.
7. If you're an American League team you'll need a DH that bats .300+, if you're a National League team, your pitchers have to bat at least .180.
I forgot #8.
8. A left handed pitcher that can paint the corners -
I'm still sticking with nfl over NBA. Like you said, having a generational talent is HUGE. If you do land a Bron, that's a deep playoff run each year. No one in the NFL can do that for you. You need to put together a dominant group, and your team is always falling apart because NFL careers are short. Between the Broncos 2 SB's (just 1 year between them) they lost damn near their whole OL, J Thomas, that fat DT that went to WAS I think, Moreno, Decker, anf I forget who else. That's a lot of holes to be constantly filling. NFL GM's need to be constantly getting talent. You're always in rebuild mode and that's harder to me.
Here's an interesting question. No players are signed, and you get to pick your own roster. Someone says they'll give you a million dollars if you can put together a championship team and you get to pick if its an NBA or NFL team. Do you even have to hesitate on which sport's team you're putting together? Most NBA fans can probably do a list off the top of their head and win a ring. -
bow to royalty wrote: »I'm still sticking with nfl over NBA. Like you said, having a generational talent is HUGE. If you do land a Bron, that's a deep playoff run each year. No one in the NFL can do that for you. You need to put together a dominant group, and your team is always falling apart because NFL careers are short. Between the Broncos 2 SB's (just 1 year between them) they lost damn near their whole OL, J Thomas, that fat DT that went to WAS I think, Moreno, Decker, anf I forget who else. That's a lot of holes to be constantly filling. NFL GM's need to be constantly getting talent. You're always in rebuild mode and that's harder to me.
Here's an interesting question. No players are signed, and you get to pick your own roster. Someone says they'll give you a million dollars if you can put together a championship team and you get to pick if its an NBA or NFL team. Do you even have to hesitate on which sport's team you're putting together? Most NBA fans can probably do a list off the top of their head and win a ring.
So 6th round pick Brady hasn't gotten the Pats to the last 5 AFC championships and multiple superbowl appearances? And there was nothing interesting about that question and it doesn't prove any point, matter fact it proves my point because you can put a bunch of stars together and more than likely you're going to win in the NBA and everyone knows it before the season even starts, you can put a bunch of stars together in football and it don't mean ? and it's still anyone's ball game -
its....JOHN B wrote: »bow to royalty wrote: »I'm still sticking with nfl over NBA. Like you said, having a generational talent is HUGE. If you do land a Bron, that's a deep playoff run each year. No one in the NFL can do that for you. You need to put together a dominant group, and your team is always falling apart because NFL careers are short. Between the Broncos 2 SB's (just 1 year between them) they lost damn near their whole OL, J Thomas, that fat DT that went to WAS I think, Moreno, Decker, anf I forget who else. That's a lot of holes to be constantly filling. NFL GM's need to be constantly getting talent. You're always in rebuild mode and that's harder to me.
Here's an interesting question. No players are signed, and you get to pick your own roster. Someone says they'll give you a million dollars if you can put together a championship team and you get to pick if its an NBA or NFL team. Do you even have to hesitate on which sport's team you're putting together? Most NBA fans can probably do a list off the top of their head and win a ring.
So 6th round pick Brady hasn't gotten the Pats to the last 5 AFC championships and multiple superbowl appearances? And there was nothing interesting about that question and it doesn't prove any point, matter fact it proves my point because you can put a bunch of stars together and more than likely you're going to win in the NBA and everyone knows it before the season even starts, you can put a bunch of stars together in football and it don't mean ? and it's still anyone's ball game
The Patriots team is legit. Brady is just the face of it. And the point you made is my point. In the NBA if you hit on a couple picks or get a couple FA you're set. Your team is a winner. In the NFL you're always rebuilding, so you're not ever really set.
And building around a player is important too. If 6th round pick (and arguably GOAT QB) Brady had gone to the Browns, Chiefs, Titans, etc. there's a decent chance he never even becomes someone noteworthy. Hell, with a less clutch kicker Brady may not be in the convo because he doesn't win all those SB's. In the NFL GM's have to fill 22 starting jobs. Then add to that depth players, special teams specialists, slot receivers, nickel backs. That's the harder job to me. -
Shizlansky wrote: »Once the playoffs start in the NFL. Anybody can win
The Giants won two super bowls and didn't even make it the playoffs the year before they won it. And they won it as a the last seed.
Any given Sunday
Cosign. They were wildcard teams and won the Super Bowl. And the Patriots were undefeated one of those years.
In football, all you have to do is make the playoffs and you can win a Superbowl. You can be 10-6 or 11-5 and have a realistic chance of winning it all.
In basketball there's too many seven game series' to get lucky.
Baseball there's too many games period (162) to get lucky, only the best teams make the playoffs.
The answer is football, if you have an above average team and a lot of heart you can win a Super Bowl.
Eli has two rings but otherwise doesn't have any stats that suggest he's a GOAT.
Wild card doesn't mean anything except you didn't win your division. You could still have a better record than division winners.
That 11-5 record you're mocking as a sorry record for a championship contender, is the same record the Cavs have this year down to the game basically. -
bow to royalty wrote: »Shizlansky wrote: »Once the playoffs start in the NFL. Anybody can win
The Giants won two super bowls and didn't even make it the playoffs the year before they won it. And they won it as a the last seed.
Any given Sunday
Cosign. They were wildcard teams and won the Super Bowl. And the Patriots were undefeated one of those years.
In football, all you have to do is make the playoffs and you can win a Superbowl. You can be 10-6 or 11-5 and have a realistic chance of winning it all.
In basketball there's too many seven game series' to get lucky.
Baseball there's too many games period (162) to get lucky, only the best teams make the playoffs.
The answer is football, if you have an above average team and a lot of heart you can win a Super Bowl.
Eli has two rings but otherwise doesn't have any stats that suggest he's a GOAT.
Wild card doesn't mean anything except you didn't win your division. You could still have a better record than division winners.
That 11-5 record you're mocking as a sorry record for a championship contender, is the same record the Cavs have this year down to the game basically.
I go further usually 11-5 is enough to win a division. Its equivilant to 55 wins in NBA. -
Wild Card means your playing on the road for the entire playoffs.
An 10-6 or 11-5 team is gonna be on the road for the divisional playoffs and the AFC/NFC Championship.
Anyway, my point is that a team that barely made the playoffs can win a Super Bowl. That doesn't happen in basketball or baseball.
When's the last time a 7th or 8th seed won a championship in basketball? or even made it to the championship? -
A 11-5 team is not a 7th or 8th seed.. More like a 4th seed.
-
Wild Card means your playing on the road for the entire playoffs.
An 10-6 or 11-5 team is gonna be on the road for the divisional playoffs and the AFC/NFC Championship.
Anyway, my point is that a team that barely made the playoffs can win a Super Bowl. That doesn't happen in basketball or baseball.
When's the last time a 7th or 8th seed won a championship in basketball? or even made it to the championship?
So being in a less competitive league makes it harder to put together a wining team?
And don't sleep on wild cards. An injury can take a team down to a wild card team. The Steelers were a wild card team last year (6 seed), and they were legit super bowl contenders.
You're assuming low seeds are sorry because you're not recognizing the league being deep with quality teams. This isn't the NBA where people are calling a whole conference a cake walk for years. -
This is a tough one... long read alert
*I'll start by saying my initial choice was football due to injuries n how hard it is to keep a team together..then I thought the way the league is set up to favor the offense a team w a good QB always has a chance to be a winner, bc that QB touches the ball on every play of every game he plays...TEAMS KNOW THIS..which is y GMs sell the farm for players like Goff and Wentz...NBA or MLB teams ain't giving up the farm unless is for a "sure thing"...a LeBron or a Bryce Harper.
So IMO is not football.
*NBA was my second choice due to the fact that ONE superstar can literally take over a game at any moment, but you obviously need more than one guy..hero ball at the most can get u a good regular season record, but it ain't gonna work in a 7 game playoff series against a coaching staff dedicated to ONLY stopping that one guy..but still in the NBA your best player can touch the ball on EVERY possesion
* which brings me to BASEBALL....finally (sorry I had to give this thought..good thread)
* my answer is baseball..you not winning a chip w/o an elite pitcher (maybe two) and a shut down bullpen. So if your best player is a pitcher..homeboy pitches then sits on the bench for a couple games (imagine LeBron n Brady sitting out whole playoff games lol)...the bullpen needs a lead or a close game to be relevant..if your best player happens to be a hitter he can easily be taken out Of the game..peeped what just happened to Bryce harper..he only gonna get up 4 or 5 times a game n can be walked n handled. -
There are a numerous amount of elite pitchers in the league though, there are numerous amounts of pitchers on the brink of becoming elite and there are always guys in the minors ready to come up and become elite, it's not nearly as difficult to find elite pitching in baseball as it is to find a generational type talent in basketball
-
This should shut down the argument, in the NBA you already knew it would come down to Cleveland, GS, San An or OKC and even OKC could be a considered a long shot but that's 4 teams that you already knew before the season started that had a realistic chance of winning, the rest of the teams are hoping on a miracle or injuries to those teams, in baseball you don't have a clue yea there are teams that are favored but there are a lot more than 4 teams that have a realistic chance and any team that makes the playoffs has a chance, football basically the same thing if you have an elite qb you have a chance if you have an elite defense you have a chance, I could tell you what teams are favored but there's more than 4 teams that have a realistic chance this year
-
natural born sinners wrote: »This is a tough one... long read alert
*I'll start by saying my initial choice was football due to injuries n how hard it is to keep a team together..then I thought the way the league is set up to favor the offense a team w a good QB always has a chance to be a winner, bc that QB touches the ball on every play of every game he plays...TEAMS KNOW THIS..which is y GMs sell the farm for players like Goff and Wentz...NBA or MLB teams ain't giving up the farm unless is for a "sure thing"...a LeBron or a Bryce Harper.
So IMO is not football.
*NBA was my second choice due to the fact that ONE superstar can literally take over a game at any moment, but you obviously need more than one guy..hero ball at the most can get u a good regular season record, but it ain't gonna work in a 7 game playoff series against a coaching staff dedicated to ONLY stopping that one guy..but still in the NBA your best player can touch the ball on EVERY possesion
* which brings me to BASEBALL....finally (sorry I had to give this thought..good thread)
* my answer is baseball..you not winning a chip w/o an elite pitcher (maybe two) and a shut down bullpen. So if your best player is a pitcher..homeboy pitches then sits on the bench for a couple games (imagine LeBron n Brady sitting out whole playoff games lol)...the bullpen needs a lead or a close game to be relevant..if your best player happens to be a hitter he can easily be taken out Of the game..peeped what just happened to Bryce harper..he only gonna get up 4 or 5 times a game n can be walked n handled.
Teams sell the farm for a chance at QB. Look what the Skins did for RG3 and he didn't even work out. Decent chance at least one of the 2 this year won't work out. And even a top QB isn't helpful without a line to block. And they can't win games without a defense to stop someone. Word to the Saints and Drew Brees. Or Andrew Luck and the Colts. Matt Ryan (not elite but a good QB to have), and the Falcons too. -
its....JOHN B wrote: »This should shut down the argument, in the NBA you already knew it would come down to Cleveland, GS, San An or OKC and even OKC could be a considered a long shot but that's 4 teams that you already knew before the season started that had a realistic chance of winning, the rest of the teams are hoping on a miracle or injuries to those teams, in baseball you don't have a clue yea there are teams that are favored but there are a lot more than 4 teams that have a realistic chance and any team that makes the playoffs has a chance, football basically the same thing if you have an elite qb you have a chance if you have an elite defense you have a chance, I could tell you what teams are favored but there's more than 4 teams that have a realistic chance this year
Ya, but as a GM that dude put together one team, and he has a winning combo for who knows how long. In the NFL it's harder than just finding 2 or so players.
Bron could go to most teams in the East and have a solid chance at going to the Finals, or at least conference championship. That's the GM trying to get ONE player, and he has a winning team. Brady can't carry the Titans, Browns, Eagles, etc to the SB. Very possibly not even the playoffs. The supporting cast is too bad. The GM has to do more than get one great player. -
bow to royalty wrote: »its....JOHN B wrote: »This should shut down the argument, in the NBA you already knew it would come down to Cleveland, GS, San An or OKC and even OKC could be a considered a long shot but that's 4 teams that you already knew before the season started that had a realistic chance of winning, the rest of the teams are hoping on a miracle or injuries to those teams, in baseball you don't have a clue yea there are teams that are favored but there are a lot more than 4 teams that have a realistic chance and any team that makes the playoffs has a chance, football basically the same thing if you have an elite qb you have a chance if you have an elite defense you have a chance, I could tell you what teams are favored but there's more than 4 teams that have a realistic chance this year
Ya, but as a GM that dude put together one team, and he has a winning combo for who knows how long. In the NFL it's harder than just finding 2 or so players.
Bron could go to most teams in the East and have a solid chance at going to the Finals, or at least conference championship. That's the GM trying to get ONE player, and he has a winning team. Brady can't carry the Titans, Browns, Eagles, etc to the SB. Very possibly not even the playoffs. The supporting cast is too bad. The GM has to do more than get one great player.
LBJ is harder to find that 30 good role players in the NFL
Just look at the playoffs in the NFL. Like 50% of the teams in it ain't in it the next. -
bow to royalty wrote: »its....JOHN B wrote: »This should shut down the argument, in the NBA you already knew it would come down to Cleveland, GS, San An or OKC and even OKC could be a considered a long shot but that's 4 teams that you already knew before the season started that had a realistic chance of winning, the rest of the teams are hoping on a miracle or injuries to those teams, in baseball you don't have a clue yea there are teams that are favored but there are a lot more than 4 teams that have a realistic chance and any team that makes the playoffs has a chance, football basically the same thing if you have an elite qb you have a chance if you have an elite defense you have a chance, I could tell you what teams are favored but there's more than 4 teams that have a realistic chance this year
Ya, but as a GM that dude put together one team, and he has a winning combo for who knows how long. In the NFL it's harder than just finding 2 or so players.
Bron could go to most teams in the East and have a solid chance at going to the Finals, or at least conference championship. That's the GM trying to get ONE player, and he has a winning team. Brady can't carry the Titans, Browns, Eagles, etc to the SB. Very possibly not even the playoffs. The supporting cast is too bad. The GM has to do more than get one great player.
I feel like the way you're trying to prove your point is hurting your argument more than helping, there's no denying Bron could take any franchise to the finals but 29 out of 30 teams don't have a chance to get Bron and 26 out of 30 teams start the season with a minuscule chance of winning it all because they don't have that top tier talent, Browns, Eagles and Titans can address weaknesses in different ways and depending on the progress of the two young qb's in Philly and Tennessee and the transition for RG3 to Cleveland any one of those teams could be a sleeper and within the next couple years could be a serious threat to be in the superbowl, it's not out of the realms of reality for that to happen if their coaches can get it done but it is out of the realms for 29 teams to sign/trade for Bron or find him in the draft -
All good points
-
its....JOHN B wrote: »bow to royalty wrote: »its....JOHN B wrote: »This should shut down the argument, in the NBA you already knew it would come down to Cleveland, GS, San An or OKC and even OKC could be a considered a long shot but that's 4 teams that you already knew before the season started that had a realistic chance of winning, the rest of the teams are hoping on a miracle or injuries to those teams, in baseball you don't have a clue yea there are teams that are favored but there are a lot more than 4 teams that have a realistic chance and any team that makes the playoffs has a chance, football basically the same thing if you have an elite qb you have a chance if you have an elite defense you have a chance, I could tell you what teams are favored but there's more than 4 teams that have a realistic chance this year
Ya, but as a GM that dude put together one team, and he has a winning combo for who knows how long. In the NFL it's harder than just finding 2 or so players.
Bron could go to most teams in the East and have a solid chance at going to the Finals, or at least conference championship. That's the GM trying to get ONE player, and he has a winning team. Brady can't carry the Titans, Browns, Eagles, etc to the SB. Very possibly not even the playoffs. The supporting cast is too bad. The GM has to do more than get one great player.
I feel like the way you're trying to prove your point is hurting your argument more than helping, there's no denying Bron could take any franchise to the finals but 29 out of 30 teams don't have a chance to get Bron and 26 out of 30 teams start the season with a minuscule chance of winning it all because they don't have that top tier talent, Browns, Eagles and Titans can address weaknesses in different ways and depending on the progress of the two young qb's in Philly and Tennessee and the transition for RG3 to Cleveland any one of those teams could be a sleeper and within the next couple years could be a serious threat to be in the superbowl, it's not out of the realms of reality for that to happen if their coaches can get it done but it is out of the realms for 29 teams to sign/trade for Bron or find him in the draft
Elite basketballs players change teams, and give other squads a chance to win though. NFL QB's rarely change teams unless their career is basically over, something extreme happens (Manning neck surgery), or they're below average. Durant is probably changing teams, Shaq changed teams, Bron changed teams, Ray Allen changed teams, Melo changed teams, Chris Paul changed teams, Kevin Love changed teams, Garnett changed teams...the list goes on forever. So it's not really right to act like other GM's don't have a chance at getting team changing talent in FA. Brady, Big Ben, Rodgers, Wilson...not changing teams. Even non-elite QB's like Eli, Romo, Flacco, Ryan, Stafford, Luck, Dalton...Probably not changing teams. So the struggle to find team changing talent is harder in the NFL I'm my opinion -
Did this dude just did this? Elite qb's don't change teams? Really? Most of these teams are an elite qb away from contending for a superbowl, put an elite qb on Philly or Houston and that doesn't change the whole landscape of the organization? So Brady didn't change the Pats? Brees didn't change the Saints, Luck didn't bring a 1-15 team to the playoffs? Cam didn't change the Panthers? I could go on how could you think some dumb ? like that
-
its....JOHN B wrote: »Did this dude just did this? Elite qb's don't change teams? Really? Most of these teams are an elite qb away from contending for a superbowl, put an elite qb on Philly or Houston and that doesn't change the whole landscape of the organization? So Brady didn't change the Pats? Brees didn't change the Saints, Luck didn't bring a 1-15 team to the playoffs? Cam didn't change the Panthers? I could go on how could you think some dumb ? like that
Change like switch, not change like impact. I get the confusion...I used it both ways in my post. Quarterbacks that are difference makers rarely go to another team. Beyond that, QB's that are even just above average rarely switch teams. -
Oh, well the amount of difference making qb's compared to superstars in the NBA you can call a wash, but you don't have to have a difference making qb to win, it's not rare to win with a game manager but it's extremely rare to win without a top tier superstar in the NBA
-
To me it's NBA and no ones going to change my opinion on that, but baseball vs football is a good debate
