Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Greatest Teams of All Time-#1

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by [email protected]
    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
    At least they're only second place
    Mythical SF Chronicle scouting report: "That Jeff runs like a deer. Unfortunately, he also hits AND throws like one." I am Venus DeMilo - NO ARM! I can play like a big leaguer, I can field like Luzinski, run like Lombardi. The secret to managing is keeping the ones who hate you away from the undecided ones. I am a triumph of quantity over quality. I'm almost useful, every village needs an idiot.
    Good traders: MadHatter(2), BoofBonser26, StormSurge

    Comment


    • #32
      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.
      I am the author of "Checks and Imbalances" and "The State of Baseball Management."

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by barzilla
        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
        Mythical SF Chronicle scouting report: "That Jeff runs like a deer. Unfortunately, he also hits AND throws like one." I am Venus DeMilo - NO ARM! I can play like a big leaguer, I can field like Luzinski, run like Lombardi. The secret to managing is keeping the ones who hate you away from the undecided ones. I am a triumph of quantity over quality. I'm almost useful, every village needs an idiot.
        Good traders: MadHatter(2), BoofBonser26, StormSurge

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by 538280
          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?
          Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

          Comment


          • #35
            I don't think the 1986 Mets were THAT good. The other two were pretty good though.
            I am the author of "Checks and Imbalances" and "The State of Baseball Management."

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by barzilla
              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
              Mythical SF Chronicle scouting report: "That Jeff runs like a deer. Unfortunately, he also hits AND throws like one." I am Venus DeMilo - NO ARM! I can play like a big leaguer, I can field like Luzinski, run like Lombardi. The secret to managing is keeping the ones who hate you away from the undecided ones. I am a triumph of quantity over quality. I'm almost useful, every village needs an idiot.
              Good traders: MadHatter(2), BoofBonser26, StormSurge

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by RuthMayBond
                At least they're only second place
                'scuse me? Beg pardon? I'm known for my gutsy, courageous opinions of paths less trodden. Recommend it highly. Have some? Take some.

                Bill

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by [email protected]
                  '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
                  Mythical SF Chronicle scouting report: "That Jeff runs like a deer. Unfortunately, he also hits AND throws like one." I am Venus DeMilo - NO ARM! I can play like a big leaguer, I can field like Luzinski, run like Lombardi. The secret to managing is keeping the ones who hate you away from the undecided ones. I am a triumph of quantity over quality. I'm almost useful, every village needs an idiot.
                  Good traders: MadHatter(2), BoofBonser26, StormSurge

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by RuthMayBond
                    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

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      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.
                      I am the author of "Checks and Imbalances" and "The State of Baseball Management."

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by [email protected]
                        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
                        Mythical SF Chronicle scouting report: "That Jeff runs like a deer. Unfortunately, he also hits AND throws like one." I am Venus DeMilo - NO ARM! I can play like a big leaguer, I can field like Luzinski, run like Lombardi. The secret to managing is keeping the ones who hate you away from the undecided ones. I am a triumph of quantity over quality. I'm almost useful, every village needs an idiot.
                        Good traders: MadHatter(2), BoofBonser26, StormSurge

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          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 am the author of "Checks and Imbalances" and "The State of Baseball Management."

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by barzilla
                            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.
                            Mythical SF Chronicle scouting report: "That Jeff runs like a deer. Unfortunately, he also hits AND throws like one." I am Venus DeMilo - NO ARM! I can play like a big leaguer, I can field like Luzinski, run like Lombardi. The secret to managing is keeping the ones who hate you away from the undecided ones. I am a triumph of quantity over quality. I'm almost useful, every village needs an idiot.
                            Good traders: MadHatter(2), BoofBonser26, StormSurge

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              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.
                              I am the author of "Checks and Imbalances" and "The State of Baseball Management."

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                --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.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X