PDA

View Full Version : Greatest Teams of All Time-#1



Honus Wagner Rules
03-28-2006, 08:19 AM
Ok, let's begin. I'll give a week for each poll.

Blackout
03-28-2006, 10:44 AM
1-1927 Yankees (nuff said)
2-1998 Yankees (best team I ever saw in my lifetime)
3-1906 Cubs* (Brown has legendary season, best pitching staff ever number wise)
4-1929 Athletics (imagine if they still had Ty Cobb around)
5-1936 Yankees (Gehrig's MVP; Dimaggio's rookie year)
6-1961 Yankees (career year for Maris, great Mickey year)
7-1975 Reds (stacked lineup, Joe Morgon somehow found a way to hit .300)
8-2004 Red Sox (great line up plus 2 Cy Young candidates)
9-2001 Diamondbacks (career years by Johnson, Schilling and Luis Gonzolez)
10-2001 Yankees* (this team was so good)

I'll admit I'm limited to only what teams I've been able to watch in my lifetime, but this is balancing that out and balancing out everything I've ever read about great teams in the past.

*-didn't win World Series

Cyclone792
03-28-2006, 11:47 AM
I'll take a crack at this ...

1. 1939 New York Yankees
2. 1927 New York Yankees
3. 1975 Cincinnati Reds
4. 1998 New York Yankees
5. 1942 St. Louis Cardinals
6. 1976 Cincinnati Reds
7. 1909 Pittsburgh Pirates
8. 1929 Philadelphia A's
9. 1906 Chicago Cubs
10. 1910 Philadelphia A's

One thing I do not like about my list is the dominance of teams from the first half of the 20th century, but I guess you'll have that. The 1942 St. Louis Cardinals may be one of the most overlooked and underrated great teams of all-time, IMO.

RuthMayBond
03-28-2006, 12:35 PM
The 1942 St. Louis Cardinals may be one of the most overlooked and underrated great teams of all-time, IMO.There's another team near there that may be BETTER, and even MORE overlooked

leecemark
03-28-2006, 12:42 PM
1) 1975 (or 76) Reds
2) 1998 Yankess
3) 1984 Tigers;)
4) 1927 Yankees
5) 1955 Dodgers

RuthMayBond
03-28-2006, 12:43 PM
1) 1975 (or 76) RedsWow, these guys just continue to get overrated. Even with time period adjustments, I wonder

leecemark
03-28-2006, 12:49 PM
--What makes you say they are overrated? They dominated their league and won the World Series in back to back seasons. Basically the same cast won the division 4 times in 5 years. Half their starting lineup is in the Hall of Fame and the rest were All Star caliber players. They had the best bullpen of their decade (which the best in hisotry up to that point). Admittedly their starting pitching was less than great, but they were solid.

RuthMayBond
03-28-2006, 12:53 PM
--What makes you say they are overrated? They dominated their league and won the World Series in back to back seasons. Basically the same cast won the division 4 times in 5 years. Half their starting lineup is in the Hall of Fame and the rest were All Star caliber players. They had the best bullpen of their decade (which the best in hisotry up to that point). Admittedly their starting pitching was less than great, but they were solid.The 75 Reds only led their league by 46 adjusted batting runs and had an OPS+ 5% than the 2nd best team. Good but not best ever. The pitching was so poor on the 76 Reds. And I guess it does depend upon how much we weight the postseason.

leecemark
03-28-2006, 01:05 PM
--Having an OPS+ only 5% better than the next best team doesn't mean you aren't a great offensive team. That would depend on who the #2 squad was. You can have more than one great hitting team in a league you know.
--Poor is also not a good description of the 76 Reds pitching. It was (by ERA+ anyway) dead average. I actually listed the 75 club which had an ERA+ well above league anyway.
--As to the postseason, I suppose it is possible to have been the best team ever and not won it all in that season. It is a substantial burden to overcome though.

RuthMayBond
03-28-2006, 01:09 PM
--Poor is also not a good description of the 76 Reds pitching. It was (by ERA+ anyway) dead average.Sounds poor for the best team ever

<I actually listed the 75 club>

Both actually

<which had an ERA+ well above league anyway.>

A bunch of poor teams

<As to the postseason, I suppose it is possible to have been the best team ever and not won it all in that season. It is a substantial burden to overcome though.>

There go the '54 Tribe (the '06 Cubs for that matter, '12 & '13 Giants, '43 Cards ...

KHenry14
03-28-2006, 01:28 PM
I'm always surprised that on lists like this the Swingin' A's of the 70's get the short shrift. 3 straight WS titles (including on one over the Reds) 5 straight divisions, yet the Reds and Yanks get all the love.

My contention is that the A's were far more of a team than the other's in the 70's. The played hard together on the field, fought each other off it, yet kept on winning despite having one of the most contentious owners in the history of baseball. Why, because when they got on the field their one focus was to win and do what ever it took to win. That's how a guy like Gene Tenace comes out of nowhere to hit 4 HR's in the WS in 1972. Or get's three straight pinch hits to win a WS game. Total team baseball on the field.

The team doesn't look great on paper, three HOFer's, no one else even close, and not even a lot of stars. Yet they dominated the game over that time period.

So how about a little respect for Reggie, Catfish, Rollie, Vida, Geno, Kenny, Joe and Cap'n Sal??

KH14

538280
03-28-2006, 01:59 PM
I like the A's too, KHenry (might want to look closer at the team, they might have one more deserving HOF player, at least IMO). The only problem with this is that it's hard to pick out one year ('72 or '73 or '74) when they were the most dominant. For a period of years, I would probably pick them as the greatest team of all time. I'm not so clear whether this is meant to be just one year of if it is meant to be best "dynasty". I like to combine both, really, so this is my list:

1.1972-74 Oakland Athletics (could pick any year)
2.1975-1976 Cincinnati Reds
3.1936-1939 New York Yankees
4.1927 New York Yankees
5.1986 New York Mets
6.1998 New York Yankees
7.1906-1908 Chicago Cubs
8.1970 Baltimore Orioles
9.1953 New York Yankees
10.1984 Detroit Tigers

RuthMayBond
03-28-2006, 02:04 PM
I like the A's too, KHenry (might want to look closer at the team, they might have one more deserving HOF player, at least IMO). The only problem with this is that it's hard to pick out one year ('72 or '73 or '74) when they were the most dominant. For a period of years, I would probably pick them as the greatest team of all time. I'm not so clear whether this is meant to be just one year of if it is meant to be best "dynasty". I like to combine both, really, so this is my list:

1.1972-74 Oakland Athletics (could pick any year)I go for 74 over 72 but the '73 pitching could have been better

Honus Wagner Rules
03-28-2006, 03:04 PM
1) 1975 (or 76) Reds
2) 1998 Yankess
3) 1984 Tigers;)
4) 1927 Yankees
5) 1955 Dodgers

Mark, Can you list 10 teams. :waving

Myankee4life
03-28-2006, 03:15 PM
1. 1927 Yankees
2. 1939 Yankees
3. 1998 Yankees
4. 1975 Reds
5. 1906 Cubs
6. 1929 A's
7. 1936 Yankees
8. 1910 A's
9. 1976 Reds
10.1972 A's

ElHalo
03-28-2006, 06:33 PM
Um...

1. 1927 Yankees
2. 1929 A's
3. 1910 A's
4. 1931 Cardinals
5. 1998 Yankees
6. 1939 Yankees
7. 1961 Yankees
8. 1906 Cubs
9. 1955 Dodgers
10. 1967 Cardinals

barzilla
03-28-2006, 07:50 PM
I don't know how many of you may have this book, but Rob Neyer and Eddie Epstein have a great book on this subject called "Baseball's Dynasties" where they rate the great dynasties in history. They based it on standard deviation scores. That way, they could normalize the data to make sure the early teams don't get too much credit. I agree with most of their findings (in particular that the 1939 Yankees were better than the 1927 Yankees). However, I am partial to some teams:

1) 1929 Athletics
2) 1936 Yankees (I like to include Gehrig)
3) 1927 Yankees
4) 1998 Yankees
5) 1975 Orioles
6) 1953 Dodgers (or 1955)
7) 1908 Cubs
8) 1969 Orioles
9) 1984 Tigers
10) 2001 Mariners (I have to include them, but they go on the bottom)

Chisox73
03-28-2006, 07:56 PM
Here's my Top 10;

1927 Yankees
1975 Reds
1961 Yankees
1998 Yankees
1972-74 A's
1969-71 Orioles
1929-31 A's
1936-39 Yankees
1988-90 A's
1984 Tigers

leecemark
03-28-2006, 08:07 PM
--HWR, please disregard my early short ballot. It was just off the cuff. I didn't realize we were actually into the project.
1) 75 Reds
2) 27 Yankees
3) 71 Orioles
4) 98 Yankees
5) 31 A's
6) 53 Dodgers
7) 39 Yankees
8) 06 Cubs
9) 93 Braves
10) 61 Yankees

Chisox73
03-28-2006, 08:12 PM
I'm always surprised that on lists like this the Swingin' A's of the 70's get the short shrift. 3 straight WS titles (including on one over the Reds) 5 straight divisions, yet the Reds and Yanks get all the love.

My contention is that the A's were far more of a team than the other's in the 70's. The played hard together on the field, fought each other off it, yet kept on winning despite having one of the most contentious owners in the history of baseball. Why, because when they got on the field their one focus was to win and do what ever it took to win. That's how a guy like Gene Tenace comes out of nowhere to hit 4 HR's in the WS in 1972. Or get's three straight pinch hits to win a WS game. Total team baseball on the field.

The team doesn't look great on paper, three HOFer's, no one else even close, and not even a lot of stars. Yet they dominated the game over that time period.

So how about a little respect for Reggie, Catfish, Rollie, Vida, Geno, Kenny, Joe and Cap'n Sal??

KH14
Great post on those A's teams KHenry.

I've always respected those colorful A's teams.You can't ignore the fact that they are the only franchise not named the NY Yankees to win 3 straight WS titles.

Yankee Legend
03-28-2006, 08:22 PM
this is a great idea

1. 1998 Yankees (tied with 27 yanks. perfect on all levels. get a "played during my time" bonus)
2. 1927 Yankees (most dominant team ever)
3. 1975 Reds (2nd best lineup ever)
4. 1961 Yankees (very good year for maris, mantle, and howard. good pitching team)
5. 1906 Cubs (most dominant team before 27 yanks)
6. 1909 Pirates (incredible year for them)
7. 1942 Cardinals (great season. great rookie year for stan musial bonus)
8. 1929 A's (good years for foxx and cochrane)
9. 2001 Mariners (can't overlook 116 wins in offense dominated era)
10. 1907 Cubs (best orvall and brown year. great season as well)

The Dude
03-28-2006, 08:24 PM
1.'39 Yanks
2.1970 Orioles
3.1910 Athletics
4.1998 Braves
5.1927 Yankees
6.1972 A's
7.1931 Athletics
8.1906 Cubs
9.1975 Reds
10.1931 Cardinals

Honus Wagner Rules
03-28-2006, 09:24 PM
I like the A's too, KHenry (might want to look closer at the team, they might have one more deserving HOF player, at least IMO). The only problem with this is that it's hard to pick out one year ('72 or '73 or '74) when they were the most dominant. For a period of years, I would probably pick them as the greatest team of all time. I'm not so clear whether this is meant to be just one year of if it is meant to be best "dynasty". I like to combine both, really, so this is my list:

1.1972-74 Oakland Athletics (could pick any year)
2.1975-1976 Cincinnati Reds
3.1936-1939 New York Yankees
4.1927 New York Yankees
5.1986 New York Mets
6.1998 New York Yankees
7.1906-1908 Chicago Cubs
8.1970 Baltimore Orioles
9.1953 New York Yankees
10.1984 Detroit Tigers

Chris,

Why did you pick the '84 Tigers? They were kind of a one year wonder.

Honus Wagner Rules
03-28-2006, 09:25 PM
1.'39 Yanks
2.1970 Orioles
3.1910 Athletics
4.1998 Braves
5.1927 Yankees
6.1972 A's
7.1931 Athletics
8.1906 Cubs
9.1975 Reds
10.1931 Cardinals

Why the '98 Braves but not the '98 Yankees?

brewcrew82
03-29-2006, 04:11 AM
Chris,

Why did you pick the '84 Tigers? They were kind of a one year wonder.

Sorry, I know you didn't ask me the question directly and I wasn't the one who picked the '84 Tigers.

They might have been one year wonders, but what a year...Started the season 35-5 (if I recall) and coasted to a World Series. It doesn't really matter what hey did in '85 because they were still a great team in '84 (which is what this poll is asking).

538280
03-29-2006, 05:19 AM
Chris,

Why did you pick the '84 Tigers? They were kind of a one year wonder.

The Tigers were a one year wonder, but for that one year they very well may have been the best team the game has ever seen. My criteria was basically set over a period of years, with the highest weight given to the best year. I think they may have been the best team ever for one year, so it's hard to leave them off the top 10.

leecemark
03-29-2006, 06:53 AM
--Personally I see best team ever and team with the best season ever as two diffferent things. If they were really the best they would have been able to at least come close to that success level before and/or after 1984. They did make my first, casual ballot because they are one of my favorite teams ever (as is another fabulous one year wonder, the 2001 Mariners), They probably won't make my ballot again at any time in the top 20 though, due to their inability to repeat that year.
--Their lack of Hall of Famers is another shortcoming, although I think Trammell and probably Whitaker deserve to make it. I wouldn't even mind seeing Jack Morris make it. He wasn't as dominating as you'd like to see a Hall of Famer, but he was the biggest winner and best big ga,me pitcher of his generation. The lack of Hall of Fame talent is a problem for the 2001 Mariners too. Lots of career years, but only Ichiro has a legit shot at the Hall.

RuthMayBond
03-29-2006, 07:18 AM
I agree with most of their findings (in particular that the 1939 Yankees were better than the 1927 Yankees). However, I am partial to some teams:

1) 1929 Athletics
2) 1936 Yankees (I like to include Gehrig)
3) 1927 Yankees
4) 1998 Yankees
5) 1975 Orioles
6) 1953 Dodgers (or 1955)
7) 1908 Cubs
8) 1969 Orioles
9) 1984 Tigers
10) 2001 Mariners (I have to include them, but they go on the bottom)Coulda fooled me

RuthMayBond
03-29-2006, 07:22 AM
--HWR, please disregard my early short ballot. It was just off the cuff. I didn't realize we were actually into the project.
3) 71 Orioles
9) 93 Braves
10) 61 Yankees
3) Thank you (although there may be a better O's team
9) why the 93 Braves?
10) Overrated

Bill Burgess
03-29-2006, 07:53 AM
My Greatest Teams

1. 1929-31 Philadelphia Athletics
2. 1917-19 Chicago White Sox
3. 1910-14 Phiadelphia Athletics
4. 1926-28 New York Yankees
5. 1921-24 New York Giants
6. 1894-96 Baltimore Orioles
7. 1955-58 New York Yankees
8. 1949-56 Brooklyn Dodgers
9. 1929-31 Homestead Grays
10. 1932-34 Pittsburgh Crawfords
11. 1936-43 New York Yankees
12. 1997-2002 New York Yankees
13. 1906-10 Chicago Cubs
14. 1970-76 Cincinnati Reds
15. 1988-92 Oakland Athletics
16. 1972-74 Oakland Athletics
17. 1976-81 New York Yankees

RuthMayBond
03-29-2006, 07:55 AM
My Greatest Teams

1. 1929-31 Philadelphia Athletics
2. 1917-19 Chicago White Sox
3. 1910-14 Phiadelphia Athletics
4. 1926-28 New York Yankees
5. 1921-24 New York Giants
6. 1894-96 Baltimore Orioles
7. 1955-58 New York Yankees
8. 1949-56 Brooklyn Dodgers
9. 1936-43 New York Yankees
10. 1997-2002 New York Yankees
11. 1906-10 Chicago Cubs
12. 1970-76 Cincinnati Reds
13. 1988-92 Oakland Athletics
14. 1972-74 Oakland Athletics
15. 1976-81 New York YankeesAt least they're only second place :rolleyes:

barzilla
03-29-2006, 08:08 AM
Ruth,

I agreed with their findings but simply applied my bias to it. In my head, I realize that pitching depth and lineup depth are both crucial, but I love a great lineup as much as the next person. So, the top picks reflect my love for great offense.

RuthMayBond
03-29-2006, 08:14 AM
Ruth,

I agreed with their findings but simply applied my bias to it. In my head, I realize that pitching depth and lineup depth are both crucial, but I love a great lineup as much as the next person. So, the top picks reflect my love for great offense.Dude, then you gotta have
1902 Pirates
1905 Giants
1986 Mets

Honus Wagner Rules
03-29-2006, 08:25 AM
The Tigers were a one year wonder, but for that one year they very well may have been the best team the game has ever seen. My criteria was basically set over a period of years, with the highest weight given to the best year. I think they may have been the best team ever for one year, so it's hard to leave them off the top 10.
Chris,

What makes the '84 Tigers better than the 1988-90 A's?

barzilla
03-29-2006, 09:58 AM
I don't think the 1986 Mets were THAT good. The other two were pretty good though.

RuthMayBond
03-29-2006, 10:37 AM
I don't think the 1986 Mets were THAT good. The other two were pretty good though.They're better than the 75 Orioles (a headscratcher), 53 Dodgers, 08 Cubs and 84 Tigers.
86 Mets were 1st in the league in ERA+.
But you like hitting.
EIGHTY-ONE adjusted batter runs above the next closest.
114 OPS+, ten percent better than the next closest :eek:

Bill Burgess
03-29-2006, 11:50 AM
At least they're only second place :rolleyes:
'scuse me? Beg pardon? I'm known for my gutsy, courageous opinions of paths less trodden. Recommend it highly. Have some? Take some.

Bill

RuthMayBond
03-29-2006, 12:02 PM
'scuse me? Beg pardon? I'm known for my gutsy, courageous opinions of paths less trodden.They're definitely less trodden. So are Chris Jr's. We should leave him alone, or make everyone justify their opinions

Bill Burgess
03-29-2006, 12:21 PM
They're definitely less trodden. So are Chris Jr's. We should leave him alone, or make everyone justify their opinions
Understand your opinion, and while it is reasonable, folks are entitled to their opinions, even if they are wrong, outrageous, and utterly unable to justify them.

Wouldn't you be a little bored if everyone always stayed in the middle road, mainstream, and agreed with you? If that's your idea of heaven, I appeal for more options!

Just think of how much less pleasure you would have had if I never opined about Ewing, Lange, Bergen, and all the rest of my 'outrageous' opinions.

Differences are the spice of life, especially when they are 'way out there', from left field, and indefensible. I love my Cold Case Files, and live to find out why stats are unable to back up the traditional opinions of the day.

Bill Burgess

barzilla
03-29-2006, 12:30 PM
better than the 75 Orioles (a headscratcher), 53 Dodgers, 08 Cubs and 84 Tigers.
86 Mets were 1st in the league in ERA+.
But you like hitting.
EIGHTY-ONE adjusted batter runs above the next closest.
114 OPS+, ten percent better than the next closest
__________________

Damn, I meant the 75 Reds. That was a true brainfart.

I'm not saying the Mets weren't good, I'm just saying they don't make my top ten. Those are compelling numbers though.

RuthMayBond
03-29-2006, 12:36 PM
Understand your opinion, and while it is reasonable, folks are entitled to their opinions, even if they are wrong, outrageous, and utterly unable to justify them.

Wouldn't you be a little bored if everyone always stayed in the middle road, mainstream, and agreed with you? If that's your idea of heaven, I appeal for more options!

Just think of how much less pleasure you would have had if I never opined about Ewing, Lange, Bergen, and all the rest of my 'outrageous' opinions.

Differences are the spice of life, especially when they are 'way out there', from left field, and indefensible.I was saying for everyone to cut Chris Jr. some slack, and I'm glad to see that's being remedied.
I don't everyone to agree with me. I've picked up loads of stuff from you and Matt. I was the only one on one side of one of the polls. And I've got other stuff that few would agree with. But now ElHalo, on the other hand :p ;) :D :rolleyes: :waving :laugh

barzilla
03-29-2006, 12:45 PM
Since we're justifying opinions, I think I want to justify my exclusion of the 1986 Mets. I do acknowledge they have excellent numbers, but when I look at their roster I only see two Hall of Famers (Gary Carter and Keith Hernandez). With the exception of the 2001 Mariners, the other rosters were littered with Hall of Famers or should be Hall of Famers.

When history looks back on the 2001 Mariners they will probably rate them lower and I probably will too, but 116 wins is 116 wins. Otherwise, the 1908 Cubs have Hall of Famers on the pitching staff and even though I don't consider Tinker or Evers a Hall of Famer, Frank Chance probably does deserve his slot.

A part of my separation of 100 win teams in my own mind is star power and although Doc Gooden and Strawberry were stars then, they faded and the team faded in general. It's probably unfair of me to do that since we are looking at teams within the confines of one season (like the 84 Tigers), but it's my own bias I admit fully to.

RuthMayBond
03-29-2006, 12:52 PM
Since we're justifying opinions, I think I want to justify my exclusion of the 1986 Mets. I do acknowledge they have excellent numbers, but when I look at their roster I only see two Hall of Famers (Gary Carter and Keith Hernandez). With the exception of the 2001 Mariners, the other rosters were littered with Hall of Famers or should be Hall of Famers.

When history looks back on the 2001 Mariners they will probably rate them lower and I probably will too, but 116 wins is 116 wins. Otherwise, the 1908 Cubs have Hall of Famers on the pitching staff and even though I don't consider Tinker or Evers a Hall of Famer, Frank Chance probably does deserve his slot.

A part of my separation of 100 win teams in my own mind is star power and although Doc Gooden and Strawberry were stars then, they faded and the team faded in general. It's probably unfair of me to do that since we are looking at teams within the confines of one season (like the 84 Tigers), but it's my own bias I admit fully to.I don't know what the big deal is about Hall of Famers. The '66 Cubs had FIVE of 'em, how many did the '27 A's have? The '90 Reds will have one at most.

barzilla
03-29-2006, 01:31 PM
I don't know what the big deal is about Hall of Famers. The '66 Cubs had FIVE of 'em, how many did the '27 A's have? The '90 Reds will have one at most.

That's a valid point, but it's also a bit misleading. When you look at the 27 As you have three Hall of Famers WAY past their prime and a third who was just beginning his career. The 66 Cubs had four (we all know Ron Santo belongs in the Hall of Fame) so they would be a more logical example to the point you are making, but even then I would point to the fact that Banks really wasn't a great player at that point in his career.

However, I think it is important to add that I'm not simply going in history and adding up rosters with Hall of Famers and putting them in order. The # of HOFers on a team is not considered purely in terms of raw numbers but in terms of the number in their prime. Yet, that consideration is in concert with the other considerations you look at when you look at a great team (Record, Pythagorean record, SD score, ect).

If I were going to write a book on great dynasties I would include OPS+ and ERA+ and every other stat you can throw out, but I'm looking teams that off the top of my head stand out as great. Having great players in their prime is one of those considerations.

leecemark
03-29-2006, 01:37 PM
--Having some Hall of famers is just one way to gage whether a team had great players or just players having great years. Of course, its Hall of Famers in their prime that matter. Having a 40+ Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker like those 27 A's doesn't really mean much.

baseballPAP
03-29-2006, 01:43 PM
This one is tougher than I thought it would be......
The order is highly suspect, but I'll take a shot.
1-39 Yankees
2-29 A's
3-98 Yankees
4-74 A's
5-1894 Orioles (5 HOFers, first of 3 straight pennants)
6-27 Yankees
7-75 Reds(My favorite team, but the pitching drops them for me)
8-84 Tigers
9-90-something Braves(maybe 95, but others were just as good)
10-69 Orioles

538280
03-29-2006, 02:44 PM
Chris,

What makes the '84 Tigers better than the 1988-90 A's?

The Tigers have done much better in most of the studies I've seen regarding teams. For example, using Eddie Epstein's Standard Deviation scores, the '84 Tigers are in the top 5 and I don't believe any of the 1988-1990 A's teams are even in the top 20 (I could be wrong though, but I know they weren't as high as the Tigers).

I think the main criteria for this should be dominance over a period of seasons, but I do think we should have a spot for the best one year wonder of all time. That's just me.

538280
03-29-2006, 02:47 PM
My Greatest Teams

1. 1929-31 Philadelphia Athletics
2. 1917-19 Chicago White Sox
3. 1910-14 Phiadelphia Athletics
4. 1926-28 New York Yankees
5. 1921-24 New York Giants
6. 1894-96 Baltimore Orioles
7. 1955-58 New York Yankees
8. 1949-56 Brooklyn Dodgers
9. 1936-43 New York Yankees
10. 1997-2002 New York Yankees
11. 1906-10 Chicago Cubs
12. 1970-76 Cincinnati Reds
13. 1988-92 Oakland Athletics
14. 1972-74 Oakland Athletics
15. 1976-81 New York Yankees

Bill, is there any reason why all your top 9 teams played before 1960, and everyone in your top five 1931 or earlier? Do you really think ALL the best teams played a long time ago? The more modern teams don't come along until the tail end of the top 15.

kirk3
03-29-2006, 03:55 PM
1. new york yankees 2.1929 athletics 3.1936 yankees 4.1970 baltimore orioles 5.1984 detroit tigers no respect for this team. 6.1975 reds 7.1972 1973 and 1974 oakland a's. not much respect for this club that won three in a row. 8. new york yankees 9. 1961 yankees 10.1930 athletics

Bill Burgess
03-29-2006, 04:34 PM
Bill, is there any reason why all your top 9 teams played before 1960, and everyone in your top five 1931 or earlier? Do you really think ALL the best teams played a long time ago? The more modern teams don't come along until the tail end of the top 15.
Of course there is. I am more familiar with older baseball in my readings. But I suspect I might evaluate 'greatest teams' different than you do.

I do not rate greatness by who would beat who if time machines existed. That would be a ridiculous joke, and hopefully is now discredited on Fever by consensus. The older teams seem more dominant, and I don't want to hear the argument about modern balance rendering dominance moot ever again.

Bill

barzilla
03-29-2006, 05:11 PM
I think the beauty of SD scores is they eliminate some of that bias. However, you can't discount the changes in pitching strategy and what they have on the ability to dominate. For instance, a team like the 1908 Cubs had a handful of dominant pitchers and they look like the deepest pitching staff in history because of the prevalence of complete games. When you move to five man rotations and bullpens with a closer, setup guy, and at least one key middle reliever you go from needing four or five competent pitchers to needing eight or nine. That makes a significant difference.

For instance, if you consider my personal favorite team (1929-1931 Athletics) you see three dominant pitchers on top of the rotation:

1929
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .W-L. . .INN. . . .GS
Lefty Grove.. . . . . . ..20-6. . .275. . . .37
Rube Walberg. . . . . ..18-11.. .268. . . .33
George Earnshaw.. . ..24-8. . ..255. . . .33

Total. . . . . . . . .. . ..62-25. ..798. . . .103
Percentage. . . . .. . . .59.6.. ..58.7. . . .66.9

1930
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .W-L. . .INN. . . .GS
Lefty Grove. . . . . . . ..28-5. ..291. . . .32
Rube Walberg. . . . . ...13-12. .205. . . .30
George Earnshaw. . . ..22-13. .296. . . .39

Total. . . . . . . . . . . .63-30. .792. . . .101
Percentage. . . . . . . . .61.8. ..57.8. . ..65.6

1931
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .W-L. . .INN. . . .GS
Lefty Grove. . . . . . . ..31-4. ..289. . . .30
Rube Walberg.. . . . . ..20-12. .291. . . .35
George Earnshaw. . . ..21-7. . .282. . . .30

Total. . . . . . . . . . . ..72-23. .862. . . .95
Percentage. . . . . . . ....67.3. .63.2. . ..61.7

This is pretty consistent and pretty standard for the time. Compare that with any team from the bullpen era and you'll see something different. For instance, someone discovered this year that the Astros were the first team to go through a World Series without having any of their starters get a decision. We live in different times indeed.

Erik Bedard
03-29-2006, 05:50 PM
1. '27 Yanks
2. '66 O's
3. '18 BoSox
4. '19 ChiSox
5. '75 Reds
6. '63 Dodgers
7. '39 Yanks
8. '55 Dodgers
9. '54 Tribe
10. '01 M's

As you can see, I love pitching, mostly because a great offense is so common and pitching wins championships. (see Chicago White Sox, circa 2005). However, when a team wins the World Series just because of their offense, I feel they deserve inclusion.

Pghfan987
03-29-2006, 06:32 PM
this is a great idea

1. 1998 Yankees (tied with 27 yanks. perfect on all levels. get a "played during my time" bonus)
2. 1927 Yankees (most dominant team ever)
3. 1975 Reds (2nd best lineup ever)
4. 1961 Yankees (very good year for maris, mantle, and howard. good pitching team)
5. 1906 Cubs (most dominant team before 27 yanks)
6. 1909 Pirates (incredible year for them)
7. 1942 Cardinals (great season. great rookie year for stan musial bonus)
8. 1929 A's (good years for foxx and cochrane)
9. 2001 Mariners (can't overlook 116 wins in offense dominated era)
10. 1907 Cubs (best orvall and brown year. great season as well)

How can the '27 Yankees be the most "dominant" team ever, while the '98 Yankees are the best team ever? I think that the '98 Yankees are overrated more than the Reds of the 70s. People (especially Yankees fans) go on and on about how they were so unselfish, played as a team, had no real superstars, yadda yadda yadda. If you want to give them some brownie points because they had such great team chemistry, fine, but they are NOT the best team ever. Do not read "best team ever" as "team that got along the best" or "team that won the most with the least talent". I am not saying that the '98 Yankees are untalented- not by a long shot. However, I can't imagine saying they are better than the '27 Yankees (just to show you that I am not saying this just because I don't like the Yankees) or the '75 Reds, or the '29 Athletics.


OOOOOOVVEEEEERRRR RRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATTEEEDDDDDDDD!!!!!

Mark

yanks0714
03-29-2006, 06:41 PM
this is a great idea

1. 1998 Yankees (tied with 27 yanks. perfect on all levels. get a "played during my time" bonus)
2. 1927 Yankees (most dominant team ever)
3. 1975 Reds (2nd best lineup ever)
4. 1961 Yankees (very good year for maris, mantle, and howard. good pitching team)
5. 1906 Cubs (most dominant team before 27 yanks)
6. 1909 Pirates (incredible year for them)
7. 1942 Cardinals (great season. great rookie year for stan musial bonus)
8. 1929 A's (good years for foxx and cochrane)
9. 2001 Mariners (can't overlook 116 wins in offense dominated era)
10. 1907 Cubs (best orvall and brown year. great season as well)

As a Yankee fan how can you possibly leave out the 1939 Yankees??? Or for that matter, any of the Dimaggio/Gehrig teams before '39?

Bill Burgess
03-29-2006, 06:46 PM
Forgive me for showing this again, but it applies in a discussion like this.

Weak Sisters:

One of my past posts, concerned the issue of lack of competitive balance in eras past (1900-1930). Here was the thrust of my argument.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Another important factor in attracting the fans to come out is to have attractive, competitive teams, featuring good players.

Around the turn of the century, BB lacked competitive balance. In the AL, the Browns, Senators, Highlanders, were the weak sisters in the league, upon whom the others beat up on. It was hard for those teams to compete for fans.

In the NL, the Phillies, Braves, Dodgers, Reds, Cards were the weak sisters. The Cubs, Giants, Pirates, were the strong teams.

And that lack of competitive balance contributed to low attendance. Plus the lack of stars to go all the way around. There were no good stadiums until the Pirates built Forbes Field in '09. First modern steel/concrete park.

To summarize: A fan in 1905 Pittsburgh/Detroit had little money to go to a game, which were only held in afternoons, where he'd sit on wooden stands, which held around 15,000 fans, enjoyed primitive concessions facilities, had to fight rush hour traffic to get home.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jeffrey made response to my above argument:

Weak sisters? Anyone heard of Tampa Bay, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Montreal, Kansas City, Texas for the most part. Strong teams? Anyone heard of the Yanks, Braves, Twins, Oakland, Boston?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

In order to bolster my arguing points, I'd like to submit the following data.
An example of the lack of competitive balance in a league is demonstated by the following data.


1927 New York Yankees------------------1929 Philadelphia Athletics-----------------
St. Louis Browns------21-1----.955-----Boston Red Sox--------18-4---.818------
Boston Red Sox--------18-4----.818-----Detroit Tigers--------18-4---.818------
Chicago White Sox-----17-5----.773-----Washington Senators---16-4---.800-----
Philadelphia A's------14-8----.636-----Cleveland Indians-----14-7---.667-----
Detroit Tigers--------14-8----.636-----New York Yankees------14-8---.636-----
Washington Senators---14-8----.636-----Chicago White Sox-----13-9---.591----
Cleveland Indians-----12-10---.545-----St. Louis Browns------11-10--.524---
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, this is an example of the lack of competitive balance, which rendered it difficult for the bottom weak sisters to draw on their fan base.

One of the reasons why I always resist singing the praises of the High & Mighty 1927 New York Yankees, is because as one can see at a glance, they were able to roll up the score on a league which had a team which couldn't defend themselves that yr. So the Yanks were able to appear like gods, and finish 19 games ahead due to the extreme weakness of the Brownies, BoSox and White Sox, not because they were gods. So much for hype.

Curiously, 2 yrs. later, the Brownies were the hardest team for the mighty A's to beat up, but they also beat the snot out of the 3 weak sisters in the league.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1927 Yankees Pitchers/1929 Athletics Pitchers:

Now that we've all agreed that a pitcher's W-L record is so team-dependent, as to be devoid of all meaning in showing a pitcher's value, I think the next stat to go into the rubbish bin, would have to be his team's W-L record without him.

Example: Pitchers on teams which win over 100 games, obviously have some other good pitchers. 1927 Yanks & the 1929 Athletics had:

1927 NY Yankees pitchers-------------1929 Philadelphia Athletics pitchers
Waite Hoyt,-----22-7, 146 ERA+-------Lefty Grove, 20-6, 151 ERA+
Urban Shocker,--18-6, 136 ERA+-------George Earnshaw, 24-8, 129 ERA+
Wilcy Moore,----19-7, 169 ERA+-------Rube Walberg, 18-11, 118 ERA+
Herb Pennock,---19-8, 128 ERA+-------Ed Rommel, 12-2, 149 ERA+
Dutch Ruether,--13-6, 113 ERA+-------Bill Shores, 11-6, 118 ERA+
George Pipgras--10-3, 94 ERA+-------Jack Quinn, 11-9, 107 ERA+
Myles Thomas-----7-4, 79 ERA+-------Howard Ehmke, 7-2, 129 ERA+
Bob Shawkey------2-3, 133 ERA+


Their hitting got them runs, but great pitching/defense suppressed the other teams runs-producing potential. So it wasn't all done with offense alone. But team W-L minus pitchers record, makes it appear their team won their games for them, which is a very insideous half-truth. It was mutually beneficial.

Of what real value can it have, since it so utterly favors pitchers on weak teams (Young, Johnson, Alexander, Carlton, Vance), while it makes pitchers on strong teams (Matty, Brown, Ford, Grove, Pennock, Hoyt, Shawkey) appear good only due to team strength. Team WPCT minus the pitcher's W-L PCT. gotta go, guys.

yanks0714
03-29-2006, 06:54 PM
1) 1939 New York Yankees
2) 1929 Philadelphia Athletics
3) 1975 Cinncinati Reds
4) 1906 Chicago Cubs
5) 1998 New York Yankees
6) 1954 Cleveland Indians
7) 1909 Pittsburgh Pirates
8) 1927 New York Yankees
9) 1969 Baltimore Orioles
10) 1904 New York Giants

HM: Yankees of 1961; Yankees of 1936; St. Louis of 1942; St. Louis of 1931; 1962 San Francisco Giants; Detroit Tigers of 1934; Philadelphia Athletics of 1911; Brooklyn Dodgers of 1953; 1957 Milwaukee Braves;

Pghfan987
03-29-2006, 07:26 PM
Ok, my #1 team is different than anyone else's here. They had 4 Hall of Famers in their everyday lineup, plus a Hall of Fame ace who is on most people's top ten pitchers of all time list. It has the best player all time at his position (arguably), one of the best base stealers ever, and dominated the league with an astounding .785 winning percentage. Who are they?










1) The 1935 Pittsburgh Crawfords!!!!!! 5 HOFers- Josh Gibson, Cool Papa Bell, Oscar Charleston, Judy Johnson, Satchel Paige. Best catcher of all-time (Gibson), faster runner of all-time (all speculation, of course, but Bell), and, according to some people here, a top ten position player of all time (Oscar). And Paige in his prime (note: Paige actually missed the first half of the 35 season, but played for a while in Pittsburgh, and helped the team win the next season which also started in 1935).

2) 29 Athletics - I just like the staff a lot better than the '27 Yankees'
3) 27 Yankees
4) 75 Reds
5) 39 Yankees
6) 02 Bucs
7) 72 Athletics
8) 06 Cubs
9) 98 Yankees
10) 54 Indians (what a staff!)

Ok, go ahead, tell me about how bad the players were in the Negro Leagues. I think the Negro League All-Star team playing an entire season together would have been pretty darn good.


Mark

538280
03-29-2006, 07:26 PM
Of course there is. I am more familiar with older baseball in my readings. But I suspect I might evaluate 'greatest teams' different than you do.

I do not rate greatness by who would beat who if time machines existed. That would be a ridiculous joke, and hopefully is now discredited on Fever by consensus. The older teams seem more dominant, and I don't want to hear the argument about modern balance rendering dominance moot ever again.

Bill


So, Bill, according to you all the greatest teams and players all played long ago?

538280
03-29-2006, 07:56 PM
1) 1939 New York Yankees
2) 1929 Philadelphia Athletics
3) 1975 Cinncinati Reds
4) 1906 Chicago Cubs
5) 1998 New York Yankees
6) 1954 Cleveland Indians
7) 1909 Pittsburgh Pirates
8) 1927 New York Yankees
9) 1969 Baltimore Orioles
10) 1904 New York Giants

HM: Yankees of 1961; Yankees of 1936; St. Louis of 1942; St. Louis of 1931; 1962 San Francisco Giants; Detroit Tigers of 1934; Philadelphia Athletics of 1911; Brooklyn Dodgers of 1953; 1957 Milwaukee Braves;

Hmm...I've kept my mouth shut for a long time, just want to notify people on how much they're underrating the 1972-1974 Oakland A's.

The A's, IMO, were better than the Reds who came along right afterward. I'll admit they may have been slightly less dominant in their top seasons. But, they accomplished more over their period of dominance than the Reds did. The A's won 5 division championships, 3 league pennants, and 3 World Series in 5 years. The Reds were basically a great team for 2 years, and a very good one for five. The A's were a great team for 5 years. Looking at accomplishments over a period of years,

The criticism I know is always made is their won-lost record. Their three World Series years they were 93-62, 94-68, and 90-72. Those are good years, but tons of teams have posted better ones that aren't even mentioned as great teams of all time. I personally think that criticism is quickly thrown under when you look at other evidence.

1.Pythagorean Records. The A's hated their owner. Perhaps so much they found it hard to concentrate on the game sometimes. Also, the A's always won the AL West by very large margins, so perhaps they weren't playing for much at the end of the year. Either way, their runs scored and runs allowed certainly suggest they were a much better team than their actual won-lost record. Here are their Pythagorean won-lost records, 1972-1974, along with their actual records:

............Pyth.......Actual
1972-....97-58......93-62
1973-....96-66......94-68
1974-....97-65......90-72

Projected out to 162 games in 1972, the A's would have finished with a 101-61 pythagorean record. I don't think anyone would be complaining about that record.

2.The A's were ahead of their divisoin by a good margin, especially in 1974. IN 1974, there really was no pennant race in the American League West. As of the beginning of August, the A's were up 7.5 games on the second place team, the Texas Rangers. The division title was well in hand. Perhaps the A's didn't play with as much urgency as they otherwise would have. As of the beginning of August, they were on a pace to win 4 more games than than they actually did.

3.The A's won lots of games in '71 and '75. Ironically, the A's had better regular season won-lost records in the years when they didn't win the World Series. They were 101-60 in 1971 and 98-64 in 1975. That has to count for something.

4.Standard Deviation Scores. The A's have outstanding SD scores, especially given their won-lost records. I'll try to provide them when I have teh book with me, unfortunately I don't have it right now.

Bill Burgess
03-29-2006, 08:10 PM
So, Bill, according to you all the greatest teams and players all played long ago?
Let's not dance to this tune again, Chris. We're both done this to death. We define 'greatest' so very differently. And I do have modern players in my lists, if you'll just look at my list for Official Members Opinions. All my opinions are there, for your perusal.

My list of the greatest runners includes Paavo Nurmi (teens/20's), Emil Zatopek (40's/50's), Ron Clarke (60's), Jim Ryun (60's), Herb Elliot (50's), John Walker (70's), Jesse Owens (30's), Carl Lewis (70's/80's), Bob Hayes (60's), Mel Patton.

My greatest boxers includes, Jack Dempsy, Joe Louis, Mohamed Ali, Joe Frazier, Sugar Ray Robinson, Sugar Ray Leonard.

My Top Athletes
1900-2000

Jim Thorpe
Cobb
Babe Didrickson
Dempsey
Jesse Owens
Honus Wagner
Jim Brown
Ali
Carl Lewis
Michael Jordan
Wilt Chamberlain
Red Grange
Dan O'Brien

barzilla
03-29-2006, 08:43 PM
[Ok, go ahead, tell me about how bad the players were in the Negro Leagues. I think the Negro League All-Star team playing an entire season together would have been pretty darn good.

For what it's worth, Rob Neyer and Eddie Epstein rated that team (Crawfords) as the greatest Negro League team of all-time. I have a hard time comparing them to other teams though. I'm not saying they shouldn't be part of the discussion though.

Pghfan987
03-29-2006, 08:54 PM
Sometimes I feel like I am almost the only one here who considers Negro Leaguers when talking about all-time great players/ teams. :hp

No one else (that I saw) even had the Crawfords in their top 10:confused: . Was this because people here a) don't know how great this team was, b) it slipped their mind, c) do not consider Negro League teams to be in the same league (metaphorically speaking) as Major League teams, d) They only considered Major League teams when making this list, or e) it is too hard to compare teams from the Negro Leagues so I simply exclude them.

If the reason is (a), then do some reading. If it is (e), then that is a shame.


While the Bigs may have had more talent in general, this Crawfords team was absolutely loaded.

Mark

Yankee Legend
03-29-2006, 08:56 PM
How can the '27 Yankees be the most "dominant" team ever, while the '98 Yankees are the best team ever?

theyre equal cept 98 team had more wins and as you said, the intangibles so they get the edge

ElHalo
03-29-2006, 09:04 PM
How can the '27 Yankees be the most "dominant" team ever, while the '98 Yankees are the best team ever?

Hold up a second. Who says the only reason anybody speaks highly of that Yankee team is their chemistry?

Every single Yankee regular had an OBP of at least .350. With the exception of Chad Curtis, every single Yankee regular had an OPS+ over 100. They led the league in R and OBP, second in BA, from a pitchers' park. The scored fifteen more runs than second place Texas (from a launching pad), and 90 more runs than anyone else in the league. They were second in the league in stolen bases, with O'Neill, Bernie, Knoblauch, Brosius, Jeter, and Curtis finishing in double digits. They even featured the greatest September callup of all time.

With the exception of Mike Stanton, every single Yankee pitcher who played a significant role had an ERA under league average. Their ERA was almost a full half run lower than the next best team. The led the league in complete games, WHIP, BAA, shutouts, and gave up the second fewest walks in the league. They had the best rotation and the best bullpen in the league.

The team featured a 116 OPS+ and a 117 ERA+. To put that in perspective,

1975 Reds: 117, 107
1972 A's: 111, 111
1961 Yankees: 118, 107
1955 Dodgers: 116, 111
1934 Cardinals: 104, 115
1915 Red Sox: 104, 117

So, no, it's not just because of the chemistry that people put them up so highly.

Centreville82
03-29-2006, 09:12 PM
1.) 1927 Yankees
2.) 1929 Philadelphia Athletics
3.) 1998 Yankees
4.) 1975 Reds
5.) 1942 Cardinals
6.) 1949 Yankees
7.) 1938 Yankees
8.) 1930 Athletics
9.) 1972 Athletics
10.)1928 Yankees

Honus Wagner Rules
03-29-2006, 10:05 PM
Hold up a second. Who says the only reason anybody speaks highly of that Yankee team is their chemistry?
A good argument can be made that the 1998 Yankees are the greatest team ever.

538280
03-30-2006, 05:12 AM
Sometimes I feel like I am almost the only one here who considers Negro Leaguers when talking about all-time great players/ teams. :hp

No one else (that I saw) even had the Crawfords in their top 10:confused: . Was this because people here a) don't know how great this team was, b) it slipped their mind, c) do not consider Negro League teams to be in the same league (metaphorically speaking) as Major League teams, d) They only considered Major League teams when making this list, or e) it is too hard to compare teams from the Negro Leagues so I simply exclude them.

If the reason is (a), then do some reading. If it is (e), then that is a shame.


While the Bigs may have had more talent in general, this Crawfords team was absolutely loaded.

Mark

I definitely agree with everything you said, and I agree the Crawfords were a truly great baseball team. The reason I don't put them in the top 10 is because they were built on circumstances that couldn't have actually happened in the major leagues. They basically stole all the stars from the other teams for one year, because they were rich and could do so. That would have never happened in the majors.

yanks0714
03-30-2006, 05:40 AM
[QUOTE=Pghfan987]Sometimes I feel like I am almost the only one here who considers Negro Leaguers when talking about all-time great players/ teams. :hp

No one else (that I saw) even had the Crawfords in their top 10:confused: . Was this because people here a) don't know how great this team was, b) it slipped their mind, c) do not consider Negro League teams to be in the same league (metaphorically speaking) as Major League teams, d) They only considered Major League teams when making this list, or e) it is too hard to compare teams from the Negro Leagues so I simply exclude them.

The Crawfords were one of the greatest teams ever assembled. No doubt about it.
Speaking for myself, A and B were not issues. Primarily D was my reason for listing them....but C and E are valid to me.
Another point is that the level of competition that year was a farce, even for the NeL.
But as you state they were assembled as a 'team' and we should give them consideration. If I were to rank them somehow, they would be in my Top 10 but I have no earthly idea how or where to rank them.

barzilla
03-30-2006, 06:53 AM
Sometimes I feel like I am almost the only one here who considers Negro Leaguers when talking about all-time great players/ teams. :hp

No one else (that I saw) even had the Crawfords in their top 10:confused: . Was this because people here a) don't know how great this team was, b) it slipped their mind, c) do not consider Negro League teams to be in the same league (metaphorically speaking) as Major League teams, d) They only considered Major League teams when making this list, or e) it is too hard to compare teams from the Negro Leagues so I simply exclude them.

If the reason is (a), then do some reading. If it is (e), then that is a shame.


While the Bigs may have had more talent in general, this Crawfords team was absolutely loaded.

Mark

Mark,

I understand where you are coming from. I think for me it is a question of competitive balance. I think the Negro Leagues had many players capable of being great players in the big leagues and I don't think anyone here would dispute that. However, I question the legitimacy of the league. With players coming and going, jumping teams, barnstorming, ect it's difficult at best to rate how much they dominated their competition. In fact, it's difficult at best to qualify the competition itself.

What you're left with is an out of body comparison to MLB teams. Like Bill, I have a problem making out of body comparisons (like 75 Reds vs. 27 Yankees). In a way, it is not fair to both parties. If I put them near the bottom of the list you can correctly claim they are getting the shaft. Yet, it seems difficult to shaft the 39 Yankees, 29 As, or 27 Yankees out of their top spot.

Is it a shame? You bet. The whole damn situation is a shame. Seeing Josh Gibson or Oscar Charleston in a big league uniform would have been wonderful. Seeing what they could have done in comparison to a Cochrane or Cobb would have been wonderful.

Bill Burgess
03-30-2006, 07:35 AM
Just revised my list.

My Greatest Teams

1. 1929-31 Philadelphia Athletics
2. 1917-19 Chicago White Sox
3. 1910-14 Philadelphia Athletics
4. 1926-28 New York Yankees
5. 1921-24 New York Giants
6. 1894-96 Baltimore Orioles
7. 1955-58 New York Yankees
8. 1949-56 Brooklyn Dodgers
9. 1932-45 Homestead Grays
10. 1931-38 Pittsburgh Crawfords
11. 1936-43 New York Yankees
12. 1997-2002 New York Yankees
13. 1906-10 Chicago Cubs
14. 1970-76 Cincinnati Reds
15. 1988-92 Oakland Athletics
16. 1972-74 Oakland Athletics
17. 1976-81 New York Yankees\

Thanks, Pghfan987 for reminding me. I had completely forgotten about them.

538280
03-30-2006, 03:31 PM
9. 1929-31 Homestead Grays
10. 1932-34 Pittsburgh Crawfords


Bill, I'm just interested, why the Grays over the Crawfords? I don't think I've ever seen them ranked ahead.

Bill Burgess
03-30-2006, 04:13 PM
Bill, I'm just interested, why the Grays over the Crawfords? I don't think I've ever seen them ranked ahead.

1935 Pittsburgh Crawfords:


Josh Gibson, 1929-31, 1937-40, 1942-46
Satchel Paige, 1931-37
Cool Papa Bell, 1933-38
Oscar Charleston, 1932-38
Leroy Matlock, 1933-38
Sam Bankhead, 1935-36, 1938.

When, following the 1937 season, the Pittsburgh Crawfords foundered on the shouls of economic hardships, many of their stars, moved on the Homestead Grays, and made that team just as storied/fabled.

Some of their stars included, with their yrs. with the Homestead Grays.



Oscar Charleston, - OF- 1930-31.
Josh Gibson, - C - 1932-36.
Buck Leonard, - 1B - 1934-48.
"Cool Papa" Bell, - OF - 1932, 1943-46.
Sam Bankhead. - SS, CF, 2B - 1939, 1942-50.
Luke Easton, - OF - 1947-48.
Wilmer Fields, - P - 1940-42, 1946-50.
Vic Harris, - OF - 1935-48.
Jerry Benjamin, - OF - 1935-48.
Howard Easterling, - 3B - 1940-43, 1946-47.
Leroy Matlock, - P - 1932

I feel that this team could have not only competed well in the MLs, but could have won many pennants handily. Just my humble opinion.

538280
03-30-2006, 06:02 PM
I feel that this team could have not only competed well in the MLs, but could have won many pennants handily. Just my humble opinion.

You know what, Bill? I look at those players you gave and I think you may be right. I see Satchel Pagie on the Crawfords, who's really the only big name on that team that isn't also on the Grays. Satchel, of course, made his team better but not more so than the 7 or 8 stars you list on the Grays not on the Crawfords.

Satchel was renowned as a great storyteller and told stories about his days in the Negro Leagues. Looking at that, I can't help but wonder if Satchel is the main reason the Crawfords, and not the Grays, are remembered today as the greatest Negro League team.

Bill Burgess
03-30-2006, 06:18 PM
You know what, Bill? I look at those players you gave and I think you may be right. I see Satchel Pagie on the Crawfords, who's really the only big name on that team that isn't also on the Grays. Satchel, of course, made his team better but not more so than the 7 or 8 stars you list on the Grays not on the Crawfords.

Satchel was renowned as a great storyteller and told stories about his days in the Negro Leagues. Looking at that, I can't help but wonder if Satchel is the main reason the Crawfords, and not the Grays, are remembered today as the greatest Negro League team.

To tell the truth. I think those 2 teams are on about a par with each other. Awful lot of talent to go around. The same players who made the Crawfords great, did the same for the Grays. Same nucleus of stars. Already knew how to play together and gel.

I think it's a coin toss. Just my musings.

Bill

leecemark
03-30-2006, 06:31 PM
--Some of the big names that played for both teams were in their prime for the Crawfords and fading when they played for the Greys. Both great teams, but I'll take the Pittsburg group.

538280
03-30-2006, 06:33 PM
--Some of the big names that played for both teams were in their prime for the Crawfords and fading when they played for the Greys. Both great teams, but I'll take the Pittsburg group.

How could that be true, Mark? The Grays came first.

leecemark
03-30-2006, 06:35 PM
--Bill was refering to the Greys of the late 30s and early 40s that was made up in large part of former Crawfords.

Bill Burgess
03-30-2006, 06:42 PM
--Some of the big names that played for both teams were in their prime for the Crawfords and fading when they played for the Greys. Both great teams, but I'll take the Pittsburg group.
Yeah, but not all. I'd say Oscar was better as a Gray, and so was Gibson, who was in his prime.

Bill

leecemark
03-30-2006, 06:49 PM
--Charleston and Gibson weren't teammates on the Greys, according to your own timeline. Chalreslon played for the Greys earlier (when they were also a great team), but jumped to the Crawfords were they were building their mega-team. Gibson joined the Greys right after Charleston left.

baseballPAP
03-31-2006, 06:40 AM
I still can't rank any of the NeL teams top ten. Not so much because the lacked the talent (they didn't), but more because they weren't assembled using normal methods. Given any type of contractual obligations, those teams wouldn't have been as good....money talked in the NeL.....George Steinbrenner would have owned that league! I can't rank the early Pirates teams as high as top 10 for the same reason....they weren't assembled with the same methods available to the rest of the league.

Of course there are some questions about the Yankees/A's relationship in the 40's/50's, and a few others too, but I have to draw the line somewhere. The top NeL teams would probably make my top 20...but barely.

barzilla
03-31-2006, 07:46 AM
The 1949-53 Yankees are an interesting team. Only team in history to win five consecutive titles yet their best team was in 1954 when they didn't even win the pennant. Some people think they should put their "Big Three" on the mound in the Hall of Fame "en masse" like they did with Tinker, Evers, and Chance. I'm not that impressed with the club in terms of dominance, but five titles in a row is five titles in a row.

538280
03-31-2006, 01:01 PM
I still can't rank any of the NeL teams top ten. Not so much because the lacked the talent (they didn't), but more because they weren't assembled using normal methods.

I absolutely agree, and that, like I said earlier, is the exact reasoning why I'm not putting them in my top 10 either.

Pghfan987
03-31-2006, 05:36 PM
I still can't rank any of the NeL teams top ten. Not so much because the lacked the talent (they didn't), but more because they weren't assembled using normal methods.

First, I must confess that I put the Crawfords at #1 to make a point. I wanted to draw attention to this great team, and I am glad that we are at least discussing them.

I am not so sure about this argument that they were assembled unrealistically. The Yankees' payroll in '98-2000 I am sure was way bigger than those some of the other great teams on this list, even when you adjust for era (meaning, percentage of their total salaries in comparison to an average payroll that season). We are not penalizing the Yankees for this at all- why should we not even allow the Crawfords to be on this list? If we are banning the Crawfords from this list for that reason, then the Yankees should have at least some penalty, right?

If we just assigned point values to each player according to how we ranked them all-time, and just added the players' values up for each team, I think that the Crawfords would have the highest total. This is in spite of the fact that (I believe) that we already have some of these NL greats rated too low.

This perhaps makes the Crawfords the most TALENTED team of all-time. Whether or not they were the BEST team of all time is a bit more debatable.

Mark

barzilla
03-31-2006, 07:30 PM
I am not so sure about this argument that they were assembled unrealistically. The Yankees' payroll in '98-2000 I am sure was way bigger than those some of the other great teams on this list, even when you adjust for era (meaning, percentage of their total salaries in comparison to an average payroll that season). We are not penalizing the Yankees for this at all- why should we not even allow the Crawfords to be on this list? If we are banning the Crawfords from this list for that reason, then the Yankees should have at least some penalty, right?
]

This is actually a misnomer. I thought the same thing too, but when I did the research for my first book, "Checks and Imbalances" I found that the Yankees payroll was surprisingly reasonable in 1998 and although it was considerably higher in 2000 it did not reach the ludicrous proportions we know today until a few years later. Ironically, as the Yankees have spent more money they have gotten worse. The 1998 club may not have been sexy in terms of superstars (like the Yankees of the last couple of years), but they were very efficient and a much more fun team to watch.

Pghfan987
03-31-2006, 09:43 PM
You are kind of right. The Yanks' salary wasn't as ridiculous as it is now, but they still had the second highest team salary in the league (and have had the highest every year since). In '98 the Yanks' salary was 6 times the Pirates', and last year it was 8 X the Bucs' salary. '98s squad wasnt as ludicrously expensive because Jeter, Posada, and Rivera were all too young to have big contracts yet.

So according to the logic that is posted in some posts above, the Yankees teams of the late 90s should be penalized for having such expensive salaries.

These figures were according to ESPN, here:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2268047

Someone tell me if they find a better page with earlier years included.

Mark

Pghfan987
03-31-2006, 09:50 PM
I am just getting tired of people referring to the '98 team as a bunch of nobodies. I will concede that they were a great team, but I will stand by my belief that a substantial amount of that team's success came only because Steinbrenner had the money.

The ability to sign a bum to $8 million a season, have him play absolutely horribly, bench him, and have it not affect the team in the long run can NOT be understated. Look at Jose Contreras- signed for $8 mil a year ago and wasn't even guaranteed a starting spot in the rotation! That's disgusting.

Sorry I got off topic so much, but the point is/was that if the Crawfords get severely penalized for having such a stacked team, the Yankees deserve at least somewhat of a penalty, or teams like the '03 Marlins (or some other, better team who's salary wasn't enormous) deserve a lot of bonus points.

Mark

barzilla
03-31-2006, 10:29 PM
Mark,

To say that the Yankees didn't have "sexy" players doesn't mean they didn't have good players. However, when you look back on the team you'll see that only Derek Jeter is a surefire Hall of Famer in his prime (Tim Rains was also on the squad). Instead, what you have is a lot of playes on the cusp but not quite in (David Cone, David Wells, Mariano Rivera, Jorge Posada, Tino Martinez, Bernie Williams, Paul O'Neill).

I'm sure you or I can make compelling arguments for any or all of those guys, but I can't imagine much more than one or two of them getting enshrined. When you look at the history of dynasties, what you see almost always is a roster littered with HOFers or very good players in their prime. Yes, there are exceptions to that rule, but the 1998 team is unique.

I think the question of legitimacy is an interesting one in both cases, but I would be remiss to point out a few stark differences. First, while it is instructive to compare the top and bottom, it is perhaps more instructive to compare the top to the near top and at the time, the Yankees were not out of whack in comparison to the other haves. I suspect the Crawfords were a lot more like the current Yankees.

The second consideration is the lack of rules (or enforcement of rules) in the Negro Leagues that allowed players to jump ship suddenly. The Yankees may dominate, but they must dominate within an existing rule system that is well-established and consistent.

Myankee4life
04-01-2006, 11:33 AM
Alot of players on the '98 Yanks peaked at the right time and it resulted in 125 wins (including postseason)

AG2004
04-02-2006, 02:42 PM
One of the reasons why I always resist singing the praises of the High & Mighty 1927 New York Yankees, is because as one can see at a glance, they were able to roll up the score on a league which had a team which couldn't defend themselves that yr. So the Yanks were able to appear like gods, and finish 19 games ahead due to the extreme weakness of the Brownies, BoSox and White Sox, not because they were gods. So much for hype.

Curiously, 2 yrs. later, the Brownies were the hardest team for the mighty A's to beat up, but they also beat the snot out of the 3 weak sisters in the league.


Well, let's see how the teams did against the just the top teams in baseball. Let's throw out all the games against the bottom-feeders, and just focus on how the teams did against clubs that finished in the top four in their league.

1927. The Philadelphia Athletics finished second in the AL, the Washington Senators finished third in the AL, the Detroit Tigers finished fourth in the AL, and the Pittsburgh Pirates won the NL. Against only those four teams , the New York Yankees went 46-24, for a .657 winning percentage.

1929. The Yankees finished second in the AL, Cleveland finished third, the Browns finished fourth, and the Cubs won the NL pennant. Against only those four teams , the Philadelphia Athletics went 43-26, for a .623 winning percentage.

1917. Boston finished second in the AL, Cleveland third, and Detroit fourth. The Giants won the NL pennant. Against only those four teams , the Chicago White Sox went 45-26, for a .634 winning percentage.

And, out of curiosity,

1998. Boston, Cleveland, and Texas all finished among the top four in winning percentage in the AL. San Diego and Atlanta finished among the top four in winning percentage in the NL (they were the only such teams that the Yankees played that year). Against only those five teams , the New York Yankees went 36-16, for a .692 winning percentage. If you look at the regular season alone, the New York Yankees went 25-13, for a .658 winning percentage.

So, here's a short list of how various clubs did against only those teams that finished in the top four in their league:

1998 New York Yankees, .692 winning percentage (including postseason)
1998 New York Yankees, .658 winning percentage (regular season only)

1927 New York Yankees, .657 winning percentage (including postseason)
1927 New York Yankees, .636 winning percentage (regular season only)

1917 Chicago White Sox, .634 winning percentage (including postseason)
1917 Chicago White Sox, .630 winning percentage (regular season only)

1929 Philadelphia Athletics, .623 winning percentage (including postseason)
1929 Philadelphia Athletics, .609 winning percentage (regular season only)

From this we see that:

1) The 1927 Yankees did a better job against the league's top teams than the 1929 Athletics.

2) The 1998 Yankees were even better against the league's top teams than those earlier squads, despite the fact that the overall standard of teams was better in the 1990s than it was pre-integration.

Bill Burgess
04-02-2006, 03:26 PM
1) The 1927 Yankees did a better job against the league's top teams than the 1929 Athletics.

2) The 1998 Yankees were even better against the league's top teams than those earlier squads, despite the fact that the overall standard of teams was better in the 1990s than it was pre-integration.
Wow. How rude. Ripped the last flimsy excuse I had right out of my hands. And with admirable, plain, simple logic. I cower. How embarrassing! It's so lonely in the cold, hard light of reality. Avert your eyes while I flee into the darkness, to seek a new smoke screen. Don't you hate when this happens?

Bill, The Emperor of Frauds

Ubiquitous
04-02-2006, 04:04 PM
I'm going to quibble with the numbers a bit and the methodology.

In 1998 the top non Yankee teams in the AL were Boston, Cleveland, Toronto-Texas. Against those teams the Yanks went 28-18 for a .609 winning %. If we count the Braves in the regular season then we must choose between Toronto or Texas as the 4th best team to be played. One choice gives us a record of 25-13 with a .658 winning % the other choice is a 23-16 record with a .590 %.

In 1927 the top other 4 teams were Philadelphia, Washington, Detroit and Chicago. The Yanks went 59-29 against them. But the White Sox finished 13 games under .500. So if we exclude them we have a record of 42-24 and a winning % of .636.

The quibble has to do with the playoffs and the fact that the playoffs have more weight in modern times. Couple with the fact that their are more teams in the game thus each regular season game against a great is lessened by this. The 1998 Yanks played about 35 regular season games against the best competition. The 1927 Yanks played 66 games against just the three best competitors. With this setup every win for a modern team means more then every win for a past team. So a modern team that wins the World Series will have 11 games added to their totals while having not a lot of losses added to their bottome line. The worst line a WS winner can have is 11-8 a .579 winning %. If they go just 11-6 it shoots up to a .647 winning %.

The 1927 Yanks went 4-0 in the WS whichs means they add 4 wins and games to their 66 total games and 42 regular season wins. It moves them up 21 points in winning %. The 1998 Yanks went 11-2 that moves them up 50 to 60 points depending on what teams one uses. If the 1927 Yanks had gone 11-2 in the playoffs they would go from a .636 % to a .671 a jump of only 35 points.

Honus Wagner Rules
04-02-2006, 06:32 PM
Ok, I've decided to combine votes for the same "dynasty" teams (example 1975-76 Reds). It makes the vote tallying much easier. If you voted for two different seasons for the same "dynasty" teams please update you ballot.

Thank You,

HWR

Honus Wagner Rules
04-05-2006, 07:55 AM
Because of my very busy shcedule I haven't yet completed the voting tally. But I will have it done by tonight.

Honus Wagner Rules
07-14-2006, 01:06 PM
I totally lost track of this thread. I'll keep the voting open through the weekend. I'll post the results on Monday

soberdennis
07-14-2006, 01:12 PM
Mark,

To say that the Yankees didn't have "sexy" players doesn't mean they didn't have good players. However, when you look back on the team you'll see that only Derek Jeter is a surefire Hall of Famer in his prime (Tim Rains was also on the squad). Instead, what you have is a lot of playes on the cusp but not quite in (David Cone, David Wells, Mariano Rivera, Jorge Posada, Tino Martinez, Bernie Williams, Paul O'Neill).

I'm sure you or I can make compelling arguments for any or all of those guys, but I can't imagine much more than one or two of them getting enshrined. When you look at the history of dynasties, what you see almost always is a roster littered with HOFers or very good players in their prime. Yes, there are exceptions to that rule, but the 1998 team is unique.

I think the question of legitimacy is an interesting one in both cases, but I would be remiss to point out a few stark differences. First, while it is instructive to compare the top and bottom, it is perhaps more instructive to compare the top to the near top and at the time, the Yankees were not out of whack in comparison to the other haves. I suspect the Crawfords were a lot more like the current Yankees.

The second consideration is the lack of rules (or enforcement of rules) in the Negro Leagues that allowed players to jump ship suddenly. The Yankees may dominate, but they must dominate within an existing rule system that is well-established and consistent.
I think the only reason Rivera might be on the cusp is that he is a relief pitcher and sometimes RP's don't get the full credit they deserve. Otherwise, MO is a surefire HOFer.

Bill Burgess
07-14-2006, 01:21 PM
31 A's
Why do you feel the 1931 A's are the right representative of the '29-31 A's.

Shouldn't the 1929 A's merit that distinction? They won by a lot of games.

Just curious. Were you swayed by Grove's season, per chance?

BB