When did each of the 52 cities with a major sports franchise last win a title? ⁠6%

By Jimmy Kempski⁠14%

7/19/2026, 4:17:46 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Pessimism Bias, and Hasty Generalization, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 8.6% saturation with 47 hits. Analysis detected 535 faulty-reasoning hits from 548 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 22.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠6% (20,564 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 94.00% of the article peer group.

By my count, there are 52 cities in the United States and Canada currently with at least one franchise in the NFL, the NBA, the NHL, or MLB. 
When did each of them win their last championship? 
Is it a slow news day in the NFL, you might ask? 
Uh, yeah, it's been a slow news SIX WEEKS. 
Anyway, we did this 10 years ago, so a once per decade update feels about right. 
(For hockey and basketball, we'll use the actual year the championship was won. 
For football, we'll use what season it was, not the year the Super Bowl actually played. 
Good? 
Good.) 
City 
Last Championship 
Team that won 
Raleigh, NC 
2026 
Hurricanes 🏒 
New York 
2026 
Knicks 🏀 
Seattle 
2025 
Seahawks 🏈 
Los Angeles 
2025 
Dodgers ⚾ 
Miami 
2025 
Panthers (Sunrise, FL) 🏒 
Oklahoma City 
2025 
Thunder 🏀 
Philadelphia 
2024 
Eagles 🏈 
Boston/NE 
2024 
Celtics 🏀 
Kansas City 
2023 
Chiefs 🏈 
Dallas 
2023 
Rangers ⚾ 
Las Vegas 
2023 
Golden Knights 🏒 
Denver 
2023 
Nuggets 🏀 
Houston 
2022 
Astros* ⚾ 
San Francisco 
2022 
Warriors 🏀 
Atlanta 
2021 
Braves ⚾ 
Milwaukee 
2021 
Bucks 🏀 
Tampa 
2021 
Lightning 🏒 
Washington DC 
2019 
Nationals ⚾ 
St. 
Louis 
2019 
Blues 🏒 
Toronto 
2019 
Raptors 🏀 
Pittsburgh 
2017 
Penguins 🏒 
Chicago 
2016 
Cubs ⚾ 
Cleveland 
2016 
Cavaliers 🏀 
San Antonio 
2015 
Spurs 🏀 
Baltimore 
2012 
Ravens 🏈 
Green Bay 
2010 
Packers 🏈 
New Orleans 
2009 
Saints 🏈 
Detroit 
2008 
Red Wings 🏒 
Anaheim 
2007 
Ducks 🏒 
Indianapolis 
2006 
Colts 🏈 
Newark, NJ 
2003 
Devils 🏒 
Phoenix 
2001 
Diamondbacks ⚾ 
Montreal 
1993 
Canadiens 🏒 
Minneapolis 
1991 
Twins ⚾ 
Cincinnati 
1990 
Reds ⚾ 
Edmonton 
1990 
Oilers 🏒 
Calgary 
1989 
Flames 🏒 
Portland 
1977 
Trailblazers 🏀 
Buffalo 
1965 
Bills (AFL) 🏈 
San Diego 
1963 
Chargers (AFL) 🏈 
Ottawa 
1927 
Senators 🏒 
Charlotte 
Never 
N/A 
Columbus 
Never 
N/A 
Jacksonville 
Never 
N/A 
Memphis 
Never 
N/A 
Nashville 
Never 
N/A 
Orlando 
Never 
N/A 
Sacramento 
Never 
N/A 
Salt Lake City 
Never 
N/A 
San Jose 
Never 
N/A 
Vancouver 
Never 
N/A 
Winnipeg 
Never 
N/A 
*Caught cheating 
Notes: 
• I posted a poll on Twitter asking which Philly team would be next to win a championship. 
Unsurprisingly, the Eagles have a big lead. 
Next Philly team to win a championship... 
— Jimmy Kempski (@JimmyKempski) July 19, 2026 
• Before the Knicks won a championship last month, the last New York title was in 2012 (Giants), which is kinda pathetic since they have at least two teams per sport, and their baseball teams can way outspend their competition. 
• Technically, the Devils played in East Rutherford in 2003 when they last won a championship, but they play in Newark now. 
Those two towns are close enough, so I just put Newark in the chart above. 
• We did not consider Brooklyn to be its own city since it is a borough of New York City. 
• If we were to include the WNBA, Las Vegas, Chicago, Minneapolis, and Phoenix have all won more recently than any of the men's sports teams. 
And Sacramento would have a chip. 
• My (insincere) apologies to soccer fans. 
Follow Jimmy & PhillyVoice on Twitter: @JimmyKempski | thePhillyVoice 
Like us on Facebook: PhillyVoice Sports 
Add Jimmy's RSS feed to your feed reader 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 1.3%Jimmy Kempski: 3.9%PhillyVoice: 2.7%Confirmation Bias1.3%This article: 2.9%Jimmy Kempski: 0.8%PhillyVoice: 1.1%Anchoring Bias2.9%This article: 7.3%Jimmy Kempski: 2.7%PhillyVoice: 3.0%Availability Heuristic7.3%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 1.3%PhillyVoice: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.7%PhillyVoice: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 5.1%Jimmy Kempski: 1.4%PhillyVoice: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias5.1%This article: 6.9%Jimmy Kempski: 1.8%PhillyVoice: 4.3%Framing Effect6.9%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.4%PhillyVoice: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 5.7%Jimmy Kempski: 0.7%PhillyVoice: 0.4%Status Quo Bias5.7%This article: 2.9%Jimmy Kempski: 0.4%PhillyVoice: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect2.9%This article: 1.1%Jimmy Kempski: 4.9%PhillyVoice: 4.7%Optimism Bias1.1%This article: 7.3%Jimmy Kempski: 1.0%PhillyVoice: 1.4%Pessimism Bias7.3%This article: 3.3%Jimmy Kempski: 3.7%PhillyVoice: 6.6%Negativity Bias3.3%This article: 1.3%Jimmy Kempski: 0.6%PhillyVoice: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias1.3%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.6%PhillyVoice: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.3%PhillyVoice: 0.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.4%Jimmy Kempski: 4.4%PhillyVoice: 3.5%Halo Effect0.4%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.4%Jimmy Kempski: 2.4%PhillyVoice: 1.6%Recency Bias6.4%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.6%PhillyVoice: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.4%Jimmy Kempski: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.4%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 1.2%PhillyVoice: 3.0%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 4.7%Jimmy Kempski: 0.5%PhillyVoice: 1.1%False Dilemma4.7%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.3%Jimmy Kempski: 3.6%PhillyVoice: 3.8%Hasty Generalization7.3%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.3%PhillyVoice: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 8.6%Jimmy Kempski: 0.9%PhillyVoice: 3.5%Appeal to Emotion8.6%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.3%PhillyVoice: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.6%PhillyVoice: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 1.3%Jimmy Kempski: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.0%Tu Quoque1.3%This article: 2.7%Jimmy Kempski: 0.2%PhillyVoice: 0.4%Burden of Proof2.7%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.5%PhillyVoice: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.7%PhillyVoice: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.9%Jimmy Kempski: 1.9%PhillyVoice: 1.6%Anecdotal2.9%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.9%Jimmy Kempski: 2.1%PhillyVoice: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.9%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.1%PhillyVoice: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.3%PhillyVoice: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.4%Jimmy Kempski: 0.6%PhillyVoice: 1.0%Unattributed Quote0.4%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.3%PhillyVoice: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 6.4%Jimmy Kempski: 3.9%PhillyVoice: 4.3%Biased Writer Voice6.4%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.1%PhillyVoice: 1.7%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Kempski: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.2%Jimmy Kempski: 1.8%PhillyVoice: 2.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.2%

548 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker1.3%attributed speech541writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageJimmy Kempski • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jimmy Kempski

0%flagged-word coverage
7 attributed words100% of attributed speech42% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Biased Writer Voice-6.5 ptsWriter: 6.5%Jimmy Kempski: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -4.3 ptsWriter: 4.3%Jimmy Kempski: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-0.4 ptsWriter: 0.4%Jimmy Kempski: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.