Greatest Teams of All Time-#1

[baseballPAP]

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]

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]

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]

greatest baseball teams

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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