Friday, June 18, 2010

Friday Five

1. Overall, which is the better franchise: the Lakers or the Celtics?

2. If you were at a game, and someone was playing that irritating horn from the World Cup right behind you....what would you do to them?

3. Where does Roy Oswalt end up?

4. Albert Haynesworth refuses to play NT, even though his contract is the biggest in NFL history for a defensive player. Is this the most obnoxious contract holdout in sports history? if not, who's was?

5. Can anyone explain to me—clearly and reasonably, how cutie, Jody Applegate ended up dating good broadcaster but Oscar Madison-type schlub, Michael Kay. Please, I really need an explanation.

8 comments:

Travis said...

1. Lakers. I think they have been better more consistently.

2. Take it and break any of them within arm's reach

3. Hell I dunno. Phillies?

4. It is definitely Haynesworth. He has been bitching since he got there.

5. Money.

Pete S said...

1. The Lakers, unless the 50's and 60's count as much as the last 30 years.

2. Pay them to stop blowing it.

3. The Phillies

4. Yes, it is.

5. Apparently, Kay's constant bragging about himself somehow convinced her that he's acceptable.

blmeanie said...

1- Biased opinion but the Celtics. In response to the answer from Pete S - do most of the Yankees championships from the 50's and 60's and prior count less?

2 - break it

3 - Phillies

4 - all holdouts are lame, under contract, show up, period.

5 - dunno

Pete S said...

In response to the response from blmeanie...yes, the Yankees success fifty or sixty years ago counts less (to me) when you ask a question similar to P-Cat's, which was "Overall, who has the better franchise, the Lakers or the Celtics?" It would be like asking, "Overall, who has the better college basketball program, Duke or UCLA? In my opinion, Duke is a better basketball program based (but not solely based) on recent history (say, 20-30 years). However, if you throw the '60's and 70's in there and give that era the same weight, then you can say UCLA easily. However, have you ever watched a college basketball game on ESPN Classic before 1980? A different, different game.

See my point? How far do you want to go back in history to crown the best franchise overall? Obviously, you have to interpret the question with a subjective interpretation of what goes into the equation, which is what I did.

And, by the way, we can cut off what the Yankees did before, say, any decade and they still smoke the Milwaukee / Atlanta Braves - head to head or in total championships. However, I'll just go with the past 20 years. Still the Yankees. Last 10 years, still the Yankees.

blmeanie said...

Pete S - let me square you away on something I think you misunderstand. While I post and comment about the Braves, they are my 2nd favorite team and where I have lived for the last 20 years. The RedSox are my #1. I totally agree with your statement with or without Milwaukee years added in. Without a doubt no team/franchise has the ability to touch the Yankees. That is all I was clarifying, I think the term Franchise adds the history to the discussion. As for the Celtics/Lakers I don't discard the 50's and 60's. Different game to your point about UCLA but in some ways a better game. All the way through the 80's the talent level per team was much better. Additional expansion added to the influx of too many high schoolers that ended up bombing (dumb GM's) has weakened the overall product.

So in the 90's and 00's I give you the Lakers are a better franchise.

Overall-Celtics.

Btw- in the 00's, I'd take the Sox over the Yankees :)

Pete S said...

I have to disagree with you on all your main points. If the Yanks had not won to close out the decade, you may have a point in saying the Sox were better from 2000 to 2009. However, the Yankees participated in 4 World Series compared to 2 by the Sox. Since they both won 2 WS, that's a wash, but the Sox won their 2 in a 3 year span. That's a cup of coffee compared to making it the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 10th years of that decade like the Yanks did. I don't see a valid argument for the Sox, unless it is second best team of the last ten years.

Also, the Showtime Lakers of the 80's were better were better than the Celtics of the 80's. The Lakers made the finals 7 times in the 80's and won 4 titles. The Celtics participated in 5 finals and won 3 titles. How were the Celtics better during the 80's? They split head to head, so that's obviously a wash. The Celtics were the second best team of that decade.

Also, if ancient history is going to be a major factor, The Lakers have made way more finals than the Celtics overall (if you include the 50's and 60's which, for this particular sport, is silly because they were putting up 2 hand set shots) and, while the Celtics domineted the 60's, they were never the best team during another decade. The Lakers were the best overall team during at least 3: 2000-2010, the 80's, the 70's (2 titles, 3 finals). And the Minneapolis Lakers were awesome in the 50's, but that means very little. The Lakers have made the finals 30 times and won 14 titles. The Celtics have been to the finals 21 times and have 17 titles. I have to go with the Lakers. Fewer titles, yes, but consistency counts. They have almost always been an elite team. No so with the Celtics.

blmeanie said...

correction - Lakers were 1 for 3 in the 70's while Celtics were 2 for 2. Splitting hairs. 9-3 head to head in finals is a nice stat too. While I still believe the Celtics are a better franchise overall (more titles) the two are probably the closest 2 best teams in any professional sport.

Pete S said...

Point taken on the 70's...my mistake. However, most of the Celtics success was enjoyed around 50 years ago. Different game altogether.