Greatest Team

[SavoyBG]

I'm sure this has been done before, but I'm wondering what the feeling here is as to which team was the greatest of all time. I'm partial to the 1939 Yankees, but here are some other candidates:

1875 Boston Red Stockings
1880 Chicago White Stockings
1884 Providence Grays
1886 St. Louis Browns
1896 Orioles
1902 Pirates
1904 Giants
1906 Cubs
1910 Athletics
1917 White Sox
1927 Yankees
1929 Athletics
1936 Yankees
1937 Yankees
1939 Yankees
1942 Cardinals
1953 Yankees
1953 Dodgers
1954 Indians
1955 Dodgers
1961 Yankees
1968 Tigers
1970 Orioles
1975 Reds
1984 Tigers
1986 Mets
1995 Indians
1998 Yankees

I've always thought that the 1961 Yankees were vastly overrated. They did not lead their league in runs scored or in fewest runs allowed. I'm sure they are the only team on this list not to lead in at least one of those categories.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

How do we define "greatest"?

[SavoyBG]

Originally Posted by Honus Wagner Rules

How do we define "greatest"?

I think that's up to each of us to decide for ourselves.

[dgarza]

I picked the 1875 Boston team based on batting and pitching domination.
But the '84 St. Louis Maroons are right up there in league domination.

Side note:
George Baker was catcher for the Maroons in '84.
According to BBR, Baker's OPS+ the following season was -0.
Is that possible? Or a typo?

[SavoyBG]

I think the best NL team ever is the 1942 Cardinals.

Sensational run differential - 755-480

106-48 and they then spanked a great Yankee team that had an even better run differential (801-507) in the series.

[dgarza]

On the other hand... the '87 Twins had to have been pretty great to achieve so much from so little. No?

[SavoyBG]

Originally Posted by dgarza

I picked the 1875 Boston team based on batting and pitching domination.
But the '84 St. Louis Maroons are right up there in league domination.

Yes, they were awesome, but that was barely a major league, if it even was.

[dgarza]

Originally Posted by SavoyBG

Yes, they were awesome, but that was barely a major league, if it even was.

Yes, but...

Originally Posted by SavoyBG

I think that's up to each of us to decide for ourselves.

[SavoyBG]

Originally Posted by dgarza

On the other hand... the '87 Twins had to have been pretty great to achieve so much from so little. No?

More extremely lucky than good. They would not have even made the post season in the current playoff format.

[dgarza]

Originally Posted by SavoyBG

More extremely lucky than good.

Yes they were.

They would not have even made the post season in the current playoff format.

Why not? They won their division. That's how they made the playoffs. They had it harder because there was no WC at the time. The Dodgers had a worse record this year than the '87 Twins and the Dodgers still made the playoffs.

[SavoyBG]

Originally Posted by dgarza

Yes they were.

Why not? They won their division. That's how they made the playoffs. They had it harder because there was no WC at the time.

Because under the current format they would be in the same division as detroit and would certainly not win the wild card.

[SavoyBG]

Originally Posted by dgarza

I picked the 1875 Boston team based on batting and pitching domination.
But the '84 St. Louis Maroons are right up there in league domination.

Can we really even consider that a league with the schedule they had?

Check out how many games each team played.

[dgarza]

Originally Posted by SavoyBG

Because under the current format they would be in the same division as detroit and would certainly not win the wild card.

I really don't follow what you're going for here. Just because Detroit is in the same division? Detroit of 2008 (the current format would have current teams, correct?)?

But whatever it is, it sounds like it's a result of competition, not format.
Given the proper circumstances, the current format could still allow a team like the '87 Twins to make the current playoffs.

[SavoyBG]

Originally Posted by dgarza

I really don't follow what you're going for here. Just because Detroit is in the same division? Detroit of 2008 (the current format would have current teams, correct?)?

But whatever it is, it sounds like it's a result of competition, not format.

The Twins only had the 5th best record in the AL in 1987. They were just lucky that the 4 best records were all in the other division, and that was just an arbitrary alignment, as they actually played more games against the 7 teams in the east then against the 6 teams in the west. As a Yankee fan at the time I was acutely aware of this problem as the Yanks had a better record than the western division winner a few times in the 1980s.

What I am saying is that if in 1987 they had already gone to the three division format with one wild card team the Twins would not have made the playoffs because they would then not have had the best record in their division nor would they have had the best record among non division winners.

If they had the current three division alignment back in 1987 the Tigers would have won the Central, Toronto would have won the East, the Brewers would be second in the central and get the wild card. An even worse team than the Twins, The As would have won the west at 81-81.

[Buzzaldrin]

um.. you guys do realize that you're arguing for the 87 Twins to possibly be the best team ever.

Forgetting all divisions and eras that is still just plain ridiculous.

I go for either the 36 Yankees, the 39 Yankees, the 02 Pirates, the 75 Reds, or the 1886 Browns- in no particular order (and I think the 69 Orioles were better than the 70 team), but being me it leans toward the Browns. If you didn't dominate- if you weren't the monster- then you don't belong in this discussion.

A team with a .525 winning percentage in 162 games doesn't deserve mention.

[baseball junkie]

The 1986 Mets are the best of all time. Of course I am a bit partial.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Originally Posted by SavoyBG

I think that's up to each of us to decide for ourselves.

Doesn't that defeat the purpose of this poll then? If we all use different definitions of "greatness" then debates end up going nowhere.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

My real choice 1936 Yanks, picked 1939 Yanks, not far behind that 1936 team.

[dgarza]

Originally Posted by Buzzaldrin

um.. you guys do realize that you're arguing for the 87 Twins to possibly be the best team ever.

Of course! {see post #6}

[dgarza]

Originally Posted by Buzzaldrin

the 75 Reds, or the 1886 Browns- in no particular order (and I think the 69 Orioles were better than the 70 team),

Close, but I'd say the 76 Reds and 88 Browns were better.

I agree with you on the 69 Orioles. They were better in 69 than 70 by a wide margin.

[Baseball Guru]

Originally Posted by SavoyBG

Yes, they were awesome, but that was barely a major league, if it even was.

Well yeah, technically it was a league and although my pick is the "39" Yanks, I don't see anything wrong with picking the "75" Red Stockings... After all, you did list them in your poll

From a pure league domination, they won 71 of 79 games and they did have a couple of HOF'ers on that team...

You did say it was up to each to decide how a great team is defined..

[dgarza]

Originally Posted by Baseball Guru

Well yeah, technically it was a league and although my pick is the "39" Yanks, I don't see anything wrong with picking the "75" Red Stockings... After all, you did list them in your poll

I think he was commenting on my nod to the '84 St. Louis Maroons.

[Paul Wendt]

Originally Posted by dgarza

I picked the 1875 Boston team based on batting and pitching domination.
But the '84 St. Louis Maroons are right up there in league domination.

Side note:
George Baker was catcher for the Maroons in '84.
According to BBR, Baker's OPS+ the following season was -0.
Is that possible? Or a typo?

'-0' represents a negative number that rounds to zero, as '0' represents a positive number that rounds to zero, or zero itself.

'inf' represents infinity, sometimes called positive infinity because its meaning is "greater than all" the integers, or real numbers, or whatever class pertains.

The range for OPS+ is -100 to inf or [-100, inf]. Zero (.000) on-base and slugging averages yield OPS+ = -100, which in that case may be explained as -100 for reaching base safely at a rate 100% below benchmark (some adjusted average) and -100 for slugging at a rate 100% below the benchmark.

[Paul Wendt]

Originally Posted by dgarza

Close, but I'd say the 76 Reds and 88 Browns were better.

You can't be suspected of putting heavy weight on the world series in every century.
Why not give 1888 to the Giants?

I agree with you on the 69 Orioles. They were better in 69 than 70 by a wide margin.

by a wide margin? (which Buzz from Sunny Sweden didn't say)
written like a Mets fan

The rate of league improvement after expansion is rapid. Several people have demonstrated that to their own satisfaction. Most people probably think of such "improvement" as the rate of recovery from expansion and the finding is commonly explained as a minor effect of the expansion era on league quality.

Anyone should hesitate a long time before naming the 1961 Yankees or 1969 Orioles or 1977 Yankees or 1997 Marlins the greatest team of all time, or even the best of a decade.

[RuthMayBond]

Originally Posted by dgarza

Side note:
George Baker was catcher for the Maroons in '84.
According to BBR, Baker's OPS+ the following season was -0.
Is that possible? Or a typo?

I was surprised to learn recently that there could be negative OPS+. I think what -0 means is that it was negative but rounded down to less than negative 1 (like -0.4)