No announcement yet.

Greatest Teams of All Time-#1

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    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.


    • #92
      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,

      Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis


      • #93
        Because of my very busy shcedule I haven't yet completed the voting tally. But I will have it done by tonight.
        Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis


        • #94
          I totally lost track of this thread. I'll keep the voting open through the weekend. I'll post the results on Monday
          Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis


          • #95
            Originally posted by barzilla

            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.

            Welcome back ARod. Hope you are a Yankee forever.
            Phil Rizzuto-a Yankee forever.

            Holy Cow


            • #96
              Originally posted by leecemark5
              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?



              Ad Widget