ESPN's Ultimate Standings

07/05/2009 9:13 am
Rate this Blog
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
ESPN's Ultimate Standings

ESPN ranks all 122 teams based on a number of criteria.

Notables:
Milwaukee Brewers: 7
Green Bay Packers: 13
Minnesota Twins: 23
Minnesota Vikings: 89
Milwaukee Bucks: 110
Minnesota Timberwolves: 113
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
07/05/2009 @ 09:17:26 AM
 Quote this comment
A few other things to note. The "Stadium Experience" category has the Brewers ranked number 3, the Packers ranked number 1.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jon.jpgJon - 2847 Posts
07/05/2009 @ 06:37:44 PM
 Quote this comment
Not to defend or critique anything specific, but if I'm not mistaken, a team's rankings are largely determined by responses given by that team's fans. Which is fine, and even important in some respects, it just needs to be taken for what it is. So something like stadium experience isn't measuring how enjoyable it would be for anyone to go there, but rather how much that team's fans say they enjoy it.

So basically, the fact that the Brewers have large parking lots where people can tailgate probably garners great ratings from Brewer fans. Miller Park itself is icing on the cake. Miller park would still be high on a list of stadiums to go to by the general population, but 3 is a bit high. Then again, that view of the highway and warehouse-type building beyond the outfield really does make it sparkle. Eat your heart out PNC!

And I have one note on the Twins. (But don't get the wrong idea. I actually care very little about this ranking thing. I just like analyzing results sometimes.) The Twins rank 114th on stadium experience. No one closer to #1 on the overall list has a stadium ranking that bad. In fact, looking at the stadium rankings for teams above the Twins overall, the next worse stadium experiences are the Rays at 106 and the Penguins at 103. The next two down would be the Magic at 93 and the Red Wings at 82 for stadiums. Forgetting for now that the Rays' stadium shouldn't be ahead of the dome, you'll notice that each of these four teams played in the championship series in the most recent finals of their sport. The Penguins and Red Wings actually playing in the last two and each winning one. To be fair, the Magic were probably in the process of working toward the finals at the time of the survey. Of course, after those four, the next one down is the Celtics at 65 (which is already quite a distance from 114). They won the Championship in '08 and were probably still reigning champions when some of the responses were given.

So basically my point is that to rank above the Twins overall, your stadium experience has to be better than their #114. And even among teams who you could say have somewhat comparable stadium experiences, only those who won or competed very strongly for the title very recently could edge out the Twins. And that's stretching the definition of "comparable" all the way up to the Celtics' #65 stadium experience at TD Banknorth Garden, which is only half as old as the dome.

In conclusion, the Twins are the greatest franchise in all of sports.

And the Dome is awesome too, by the way. But for those who don't think so, Target Field will catapult the team a full two levels beyond any other team in sports.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jon screwed with this at 07/05/2009 6:40:40 pm
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
07/05/2009 @ 09:10:16 PM
 Quote this comment
Stadium Experience (STX): Quality of arena and game-day promotions as well as friendliness of environment.

The Stadium ranking isn't just about the stadium. Parking is a big part of what makes a stadium a good stadium. PNC might have a great, absolutely awesome view, unmatched by any, but if you have to park 24 blocks away because there is no parking, how does that benefit the fan? They take the quailty of the stadium, the fan-friendly environment, and the variety and breadth of game day promotions. The Brewers ranked high in all three categories, and in fact were the only team to rank in the top 10 in all three categories.

Bu either way, it's just something fun to look at. What I think this poll shows is the difference in Brewer Fans and Packer fans. While the Brewers are currently looking more promising than the Packers currently, I believe the popularity of the Brewers is more genuine than that of the Packers. In my opinion, being a Packer fan in Wisconsin is sort of like being a Christian in the South. "Of course I'm a Packer fan, I live in Wisconsin!" I'll bet half the people who have a Packer sticker on their car couldn't tell you who their current Quarterback is. The same hasn't always been true about Brewer fans. If you are declare to be a Brewer fan, you probably are more of a diehard than someone who claims to be a Packer fan.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
07/05/2009 @ 11:45:20 PM
 Quote this comment
All this shows, yet again, is Wisconsinite's complete lack of ability to be objective about anything that has even a little bit to do with their teams. Especially with the stadium experience thing, because for what ever reason, no doubt helped by the national media who plays along, they've convinced themselves that they invented tailgating, and are the only one's ever to tailgate, and the fact that they can stand by their cars and drink a 12 pack before noon is the greatest thing ever.

It basically comes down to everybody giving props to the teams with the most alcoholic fans.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children.
07/05/2009 @ 11:54:37 PM
 Quote this comment
Oh, and I disagree on the Brewers/Packers thing. There might be more of a tendency to "default" Packers, where you might just say you don't care about baseball, because that's a little less blasphemous, but the Packers don't have a monopoly on the defaulting, and if the more important matter of your point is which team has more die hard fans, I think you're just being idiotic. (And really, even if it was true people are less likely to "come out" as non-football fans, it, just speaks to the overall die hardness of Packer nation.) Clearly you've been out of Wisconsin too long.

I will agree, however, with what seems to be your largest point, which is a huge percentage of Packer fans are know-nothing jackasses.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this 2 times, last at 07/06/2009 11:38:49 am
jon.jpgJon - 1 bajillion posts
07/06/2009 @ 01:40:16 AM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 09:10:16 PM
Stadium Experience (STX): Quality of arena and game-day promotions as well as friendliness of environment.


Wanna know what's really cool? I looked at the rankings of just the stadium quality. I noticed that the Giants and Pirates were 2 and 4 respectively. I was pretty sure Target field is being designed by the same people and is comparable to those. Check this out:

What architecture firm designed Target Field?
Target Field was designed by HOK Sport of Kansas City and HGA of Minneapolis. HOK Sport has designed many great sports venues including Baltimore's Camden Yards, San Francisco's AT&T Park; Pittsburgh's PNC Park and St. Paul's Xcel Energy Center.
source: http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/min/ballpark/new_faq.jsp

So not only is it those two stadiums, but the Xcel Energy Center, which is number 1, and Camden Yards, which has been regarded as one of the best stadiums for over a decade now and ranks number 6 on the stadium list. So, they designed the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 6th best stadiums according to fans.

Looking at their wikipedia page, HOK Sport (Now called Populous) also designed Busch.

Who's excited for 2010?

Of course, they also apparently designed Enron Field (now called minute maid), which I absolutely hate, though I've never set foot inside it or anywhere near it. Still, no giant hill is planned for Target Field, though there will be a working train just past left field, but I think that one is a little different.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jon screwed with this 6 times, last at 07/06/2009 1:45:14 am
jon.jpgJon - 1 bajillion posts
07/06/2009 @ 02:37:40 AM
 Quote this comment
Also, PNC, AT&T, and Camden are the top three stadiums if you're just looking at MLB.

A couple more interesting notes about just the stadium part of the ranking.

The Twins ranked 117 overall on just the stadium and the Vikings actually finished at 118. Understandable that they'd finish around the same, but right next to each other is interesting I think. If you look at the Giants and Jets, they actually ranked 97th and 108th respectively and they use it in the exact same way for the same sport. Which seems to fit with the Jets fan pessimism I guess. Also, Oakland had the Raiders at 115 and the Athletics at 121. Like the dome, those teams have different layouts for the different sports, but I imagine the fan bases aren't as overlapping as the Minnesota teams if I had to guess.

If you're wondering, I thought of three basketball/hockey crossover stadiums.
New York Knicks(9)/Rangers(50)
Chicago Bulls(61)/Blackhawks(41)
Boston Celtics(74)/Bruins(89).
There are more.
Philadelphia 76ers(99)/Flyers(53),
Denver Nuggets(40)/Colorado Avalanche(54),
Washington Wizards(101)/Capitals(36),
Atlanta Hawks(60)/Thrashers(85),
Toronto Raptors(92)/Maple Leafs(84).

So basically, there's some, but not a ton of similarity in the rankings. The closest one was Toronto which is 8 spots apart. Others are 14, 15, 20, 25, 41, 46 spots apart and in Washington they're 65 spots apart. And in the 8 arenas, 4 rank higher for basketball and 4 for hockey. What does this mean? I don't know. If I wanted to keep going, I suppose I'd find how each ranks in their respective sport and compare the numbers.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jon screwed with this 4 times, last at 07/06/2009 2:44:07 am
IMG_3063[1].jpgjthompto
07/06/2009 @ 07:02:01 AM
 Quote this comment
I just wanted to point out the crossoever stadiums you left out.

Dolphins/Marlins.
Lakers/Clippers/Kings
Mavs/Stars
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
scott.jpgScott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it.
07/06/2009 @ 07:25:19 AM
 Quote this comment
Is Jeremy the official hater of all things Wisconsin?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - On your mark...get set...Terrible!
07/06/2009 @ 07:34:42 AM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:54:37 AM
...if the more important matter of your point is which team has more die hard fans, I think you're just being idiotic...


I wouldn't say that the Brewers have a larger quantity of diehards, but I feel like it's a much higher percentage of diehards. But honestly, I think the fanbases are fairly close. It's just that football fans are so much more vocal than baseball fans, so they seem so much more numerous.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
07/06/2009 @ 09:59:19 AM
 Quote this comment
Well, look at it this way. You take 10 people. 7 of them claim to be Packer Fans and 5 of them claim to be Brewer fans. Upon further inspection only 5 of the Packer fans are "real" fans, and 4 of the Brewer fans are. Even if the poser to diehard ratio is lower, it's hard to spin that as a compliment to the Brewers because all it really means is less people claiming to be any sort of fan of the Brewers.

As to the matter at hand, I was very surprised to see the Twins as high as they were, and I also immediately noticed, as Jon seems to, that the Twins are only being "held back" by the Dome. (Though throwing Target Field into the mix might effect the affordability.) The Brewers have bang for your buck, and Ownership, in their favor. I don't really get how BNG is a comparable stat.

Team one wins 10 games and makes $5000, Team two wins 20 games and makes $11000, so team one is clearly the better team. Other than being a loose indicator of wins despite market, it's nonsense. The number of wins is capped, the money isn't. (And to a certain extent, unless you're an epically bad team, like the Nationals, the number of realistic losses is capped.) The adage is every team will win 60, and lose 60, and everything comes down to what teams do with the remaining 42. Long story short, this is, more or less, a reverse ordering of teams by market size with the occasional epically good team moving up, or epically bad team moving down.

And who gives a crap about ownership?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 07/06/2009 10:00:27 am
jeremy.jpgJeremy - No one's gay for Moleman
07/06/2009 @ 10:48:39 AM
 Quote this comment
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/magazine/features/si50/states/wisconsin/

Favorite pro team
Green Bay Packers 77%
Chicago Cubs 4%
Milwaukee Bucks 3%
Chicago Bears 3%

That's gotta hurt, though it's not really what you're talking about.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings
07/06/2009 @ 11:11:44 AM
 Quote this comment
Yeah, I don't think that particular poll is relevat in any way. Especially because in a poll with mutually exclusive choices including Packers AND Brewers, obviously the Packers would win out. Anyone who is a wisconsin fan most likely would choose Packers, so those in wisconsin who aren't Packer fans chose Cubs, because if they aren't Packer Fans they probably aren't Brewer fans either. In my opinion, that is a seriously flawed poll.

Just face it, your average Brewer fan knows more about the Brewers/baseball than the average Packer fan knows about the Packers/football. Go ahead, just ask 20 packer fans what a 3-4 defense is. How many would you have any idea what it is, and how many would know that the Packers are employing that defense this season.

Just FYI: I'm not trying to start an internal war between Brewer Fans and Packer Fans; I am a fan of both. But I'm trying to dispell the myth that the Brewers don't have a good fan base, because clearly with a stadium averaging around 37,000, they are doing pretty good for themselves. And it would be hard for the Brewers to compete with the Packers seeing how the Packers date back to the depression and the Brewers date back to the Vietnam War. There's a lot of history to overcome. Plus, football is just plain easier to follow casually since they only play once a week.

In summary, I stand by my comments that Brewer fans are more diehard fans in general than Packer fans.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this 2 times, last at 07/06/2009 11:20:33 am
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - I hate our freedoms
07/06/2009 @ 11:45:27 AM
 Quote this comment
There was a multi-response question:

Favorite sports to watch on TV**
Football 86%
Winter Olympics 43%
Summer Olympics 39%
Basketball 34%
Golf 31%

Considering only 3% of the polled said the Bucks were their favorite team, things aren't looking good for the Brewers. (You could interpret that as "baseball is boring to watch on TV," however 46% of people in MN included baseball on their list, and 31% of people like watching Golf.)

Like I said, I'm with you on the "Packer fans are know-nothing idiots" trolley, but I don't think you've made any sort of case that a larger portion of Brewer fans are "better" fans. Ticket sales wax and wane depending on how good the Brewers are doing just like any other team.

http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2008/07/11/everybodys-new-favorite-team-the-brewers/
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 07/06/2009 11:49:43 am
newalex.jpgAlex - 3618 Posts
07/06/2009 @ 01:33:44 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:48:39 AM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/magazine/features/si50/states/wisconsin/

Favorite pro team
Green Bay Packers 77%
Chicago Cubs 4%
Milwaukee Bucks 3%
Chicago Bears 3%

That's gotta hurt, though it's not really what you're talking about.


I am pretty surprised by that, in that the Brewers didn't poll better. Although I'm not sure how they can claim that an online poll of 415 people only has a 4.8% margin of error. Doesn't the fact that it's an online poll knock out 80% of the population over age 40? Considering that the Brewers went forever and a day without making the playoffs and the Packers enjoyed 10+ years of general goodness I find it hard to imagine there aren't some generational differences between bigger Packers or Brewers fan.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - Ignorance is bliss to those uneducated
07/06/2009 @ 01:37:02 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 09:59:19 AM
And who gives a crap about ownership?


Seriously? Who cares about the guys who sign the checks and determine if it's time to sell off/trade the team's best players so they can save a couple bucks by replacing them with rookies? Or make threats to relocate? Or possibly undermine the GM in other roster moves?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Super Chocolate Bear
07/06/2009 @ 01:51:12 PM
 Quote this comment
Well, there's also a Players and Fan Relations Category. Has anyone ever said something along the lines of "Well I wasn't really a Brewers fan, until the ownership decided to donate $5mil to a local charity."

I guess though, given that they did somewhat define it as "loyalty to core players," which you could consider somewhat separate from your feelings on the core players, and that you can have a BAD owner, (I'm looking at you, Red McCombs) I withdraw my statement.

(My original thoughts were sort of along the lines that it's kind of silly to determine how good an owner is, since the ideal ownership, as far as the team goes, would be almost invisible.)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this 2 times, last at 07/06/2009 1:54:58 pm
sarah.jpgSarah - So's your face
07/06/2009 @ 05:08:52 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 07:25:19 AM
Is Jeremy the official hater of all things Wisconsin?


I wish. Then we could move to Seattle like I want to.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - On your mark...get set...Terrible!
07/06/2009 @ 07:03:26 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:45:27 PM
but I don't think you've made any sort of case that a larger portion of Brewer fans are "better" fans. Ticket sales wax and wane depending on how good the Brewers are doing just like any other team. http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2008/07/11/everybodys-new-favorite-team-the-brewers/


It might just be my perception anyway. I've been a diehard Brewer fan since I can remember; just as diehard through the 90s and I was 2000 and beyond. And it simply been my perception the entire time that anyone could say they were a Packer fan, but those that said they were Brewer fans were easier to take seriously. It's not something that's necessarily provable, but from a guy whose been a a pretty big fan of both, it's easy to tell the real fans from the not so real.

And just for the record, I think Target Field is already ruined for me, for all the hype that it's getting already.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 3 times.
scott.jpgScott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on?
07/06/2009 @ 07:25:03 PM
 Quote this comment


One last thing and I'll let this go. How do you explain this then? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-Star_Final_Vote#Winners The year was 2003, the Brewers were on route to another 96 loss season, the previous year they lost 106 games. Yet they had a player voted into the all star game in the final vote.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this at 07/06/2009 7:25:31 pm
sarah.jpgSarah - 4091 Posts
07/06/2009 @ 07:57:29 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 07:25:03 PM


One last thing and I'll let this go. How do you explain this then? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-Star_Final_Vote#Winners The year was 2003, the Brewers were on route to another 96 loss season, the previous year they lost 106 games. Yet they had a player voted into the all star game in the final vote.


I think the voters thought they were voting for Brett Favre.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - 3618 Posts
07/06/2009 @ 08:40:13 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 01:51:12 PM
(My original thoughts were sort of along the lines that it's kind of silly to determine how good an owner is, since the ideal ownership, as far as the team goes, would be almost invisible.)


Right, I was thinking that too, but it wasn't too hard to think of the pains that a "bad" owner can inflict on a fan base. Attanasio has made all the difference, "On January 16, 2004, Selig announced that his ownership group was putting the team up for sale, to the great relief of many fans who were unhappy with the team's lackluster performance and poor management by his daughter, Wendy Selig-Prieb, over the previous decade." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/index.html?curid=20152#2004.E2.80.93present:_Attanasio_era
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jon.jpgJon - 2847 Posts
07/07/2009 @ 03:59:00 AM
 Quote this comment
jthompto Wrote - Yesterday @ 07:02:01 AM
I just wanted to point out the crossoever stadiums you left out.

Dolphins/Marlins.
Lakers/Clippers/Kings
Mavs/Stars


Good call. Although I can't remember really wanting to be complete on the football/baseball one, though I think I assumed I had been. It's a dying breed.

Dallas Mavericks(30)/Stars(42)
Los Angeles Lakers(29)Clippers(36)/Kings(62)

That basically continues the trend of some closeness and some not that close. Though it upsets the even split between the sports. Now basketball wins 6-4. Though, I don't really think the sport alone is a factor as much as other things. Namely, what team is more favored/been there longer, etc. For instance, the southern cities (L.A., Atlanta, Dallas) naturally lean toward bball (or away from hockey) and along the same lines, have had the bball team for longer anyway, since hockey really didn't even expand that far south earlier on. Still, it's odd in the sense that it's only grading the stadium supposedly and all three of those arenas are new, and so likely were built with both sports in mind and not retrofitted for hockey or anything. Though the influence either team had in the design could be related to the weight they carry in $ and general support of the community. In other words, Staples was built primarily for the Lakers, right? I mean, not all is equal when the Lakers, Clippers, and Kings are involved.

And just to complete it, Dolphins ranked 90 and the Marlins 120. That's the furthest apart a baseball/football combination is if I'm not mistaken. Though it's hardly a fair fight. It's a huge case of the Marlins being a square peg in the round hole that is Joe Robbie ProPlayer Dolphins We obviously don't even care anymore Stadium.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jon messed with this 8 times, last at 07/07/2009 4:14:25 am
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
07/07/2009 @ 07:22:41 AM
 Quote this comment
Jon Wrote - Today @ 04:59:00 AM
And just to complete it, Dolphins ranked 90 and the Marlins 120. That's the furthest apart a baseball/football combination is if I'm not mistaken. Though it's hardly a fair fight. It's a huge case of the Marlins being a square peg in the round hole that is Joe Robbie ProPlayer Dolphins We obviously don't even care anymore Stadium.


Unfortunately, they rejected my bid of $35 to name the stadium.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Leave a Comment of your very own
Name:
Comment:
Verify this code
Verify the Code in this box, or sign in, to post a comment.
click me!
There's an emoticon for how you feel!
click me!
My Files
Sign up, or login, to be able to upload files for Nutcan.com users to see.