Greatest Teams of All Time-#1

[barzilla]

[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]

Sometimes I feel like I am almost the only one here who considers Negro Leaguers when talking about all-time great players/ teams.

No one else (that I saw) even had the Crawfords in their top 10 . 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Sometimes I feel like I am almost the only one here who considers Negro Leaguers when talking about all-time great players/ teams.

No one else (that I saw) even had the Crawfords in their top 10 . 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]

[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.

No one else (that I saw) even had the Crawfords in their top 10 . 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]

Sometimes I feel like I am almost the only one here who considers Negro Leaguers when talking about all-time great players/ teams.

No one else (that I saw) even had the Crawfords in their top 10 . 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

--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.