Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Greatest Teams of All Time-#1

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

  • Bill Burgess
    replied
    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?

    BB

    Leave a comment:


  • soberdennis
    replied
    Originally posted by barzilla
    Mark,

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Honus Wagner Rules
    replied
    I totally lost track of this thread. I'll keep the voting open through the weekend. I'll post the results on Monday

    Leave a comment:


  • Honus Wagner Rules
    replied
    Because of my very busy shcedule I haven't yet completed the voting tally. But I will have it done by tonight.

    Leave a comment:


  • Honus Wagner Rules
    replied
    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,

    HWR

    Leave a comment:


  • Ubiquitous
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill Burgess
    replied
    Originally posted by AG2004
    1) The 1927 Yankees did a better job against the league's top teams than the 1929 Athletics.

    2) The 1998 Yankees were even better against the league's top teams than those earlier squads, despite the fact that the overall standard of teams was better in the 1990s than it was pre-integration.
    Wow. How rude. Ripped the last flimsy excuse I had right out of my hands. And with admirable, plain, simple logic. I cower. How embarrassing! It's so lonely in the cold, hard light of reality. Avert your eyes while I flee into the darkness, to seek a new smoke screen. Don't you hate when this happens?

    Bill, The Emperor of Frauds

    Leave a comment:


  • AG2004
    replied
    Originally posted by [email protected]

    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.
    Well, let's see how the teams did against the just the top teams in baseball. Let's throw out all the games against the bottom-feeders, and just focus on how the teams did against clubs that finished in the top four in their league.

    1927. The Philadelphia Athletics finished second in the AL, the Washington Senators finished third in the AL, the Detroit Tigers finished fourth in the AL, and the Pittsburgh Pirates won the NL. Against only those four teams , the New York Yankees went 46-24, for a .657 winning percentage.

    1929. The Yankees finished second in the AL, Cleveland finished third, the Browns finished fourth, and the Cubs won the NL pennant. Against only those four teams , the Philadelphia Athletics went 43-26, for a .623 winning percentage.

    1917. Boston finished second in the AL, Cleveland third, and Detroit fourth. The Giants won the NL pennant. Against only those four teams , the Chicago White Sox went 45-26, for a .634 winning percentage.

    And, out of curiosity,

    1998. Boston, Cleveland, and Texas all finished among the top four in winning percentage in the AL. San Diego and Atlanta finished among the top four in winning percentage in the NL (they were the only such teams that the Yankees played that year). Against only those five teams , the New York Yankees went 36-16, for a .692 winning percentage. If you look at the regular season alone, the New York Yankees went 25-13, for a .658 winning percentage.

    So, here's a short list of how various clubs did against only those teams that finished in the top four in their league:

    1998 New York Yankees, .692 winning percentage (including postseason)
    1998 New York Yankees, .658 winning percentage (regular season only)

    1927 New York Yankees, .657 winning percentage (including postseason)
    1927 New York Yankees, .636 winning percentage (regular season only)

    1917 Chicago White Sox, .634 winning percentage (including postseason)
    1917 Chicago White Sox, .630 winning percentage (regular season only)

    1929 Philadelphia Athletics, .623 winning percentage (including postseason)
    1929 Philadelphia Athletics, .609 winning percentage (regular season only)

    From this we see that:

    1) The 1927 Yankees did a better job against the league's top teams than the 1929 Athletics.

    2) The 1998 Yankees were even better against the league's top teams than those earlier squads, despite the fact that the overall standard of teams was better in the 1990s than it was pre-integration.

    Leave a comment:


  • Myankee4life
    replied
    Alot of players on the '98 Yanks peaked at the right time and it resulted in 125 wins (including postseason)

    Leave a comment:


  • barzilla
    replied
    Mark,

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pghfan987
    replied
    I am just getting tired of people referring to the '98 team as a bunch of nobodies. I will concede that they were a great team, but I will stand by my belief that a substantial amount of that team's success came only because Steinbrenner had the money.

    The ability to sign a bum to $8 million a season, have him play absolutely horribly, bench him, and have it not affect the team in the long run can NOT be understated. Look at Jose Contreras- signed for $8 mil a year ago and wasn't even guaranteed a starting spot in the rotation! That's disgusting.

    Sorry I got off topic so much, but the point is/was that if the Crawfords get severely penalized for having such a stacked team, the Yankees deserve at least somewhat of a penalty, or teams like the '03 Marlins (or some other, better team who's salary wasn't enormous) deserve a lot of bonus points.

    Mark

    Leave a comment:


  • Pghfan987
    replied
    You are kind of right. The Yanks' salary wasn't as ridiculous as it is now, but they still had the second highest team salary in the league (and have had the highest every year since). In '98 the Yanks' salary was 6 times the Pirates', and last year it was 8 X the Bucs' salary. '98s squad wasnt as ludicrously expensive because Jeter, Posada, and Rivera were all too young to have big contracts yet.

    So according to the logic that is posted in some posts above, the Yankees teams of the late 90s should be penalized for having such expensive salaries.

    These figures were according to ESPN, here:

    http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2268047

    Someone tell me if they find a better page with earlier years included.

    Mark

    Leave a comment:


  • barzilla
    replied
    I am not so sure about this argument that they were assembled unrealistically. The Yankees' payroll in '98-2000 I am sure was way bigger than those some of the other great teams on this list, even when you adjust for era (meaning, percentage of their total salaries in comparison to an average payroll that season). We are not penalizing the Yankees for this at all- why should we not even allow the Crawfords to be on this list? If we are banning the Crawfords from this list for that reason, then the Yankees should have at least some penalty, right?
    ]
    This is actually a misnomer. I thought the same thing too, but when I did the research for my first book, "Checks and Imbalances" I found that the Yankees payroll was surprisingly reasonable in 1998 and although it was considerably higher in 2000 it did not reach the ludicrous proportions we know today until a few years later. Ironically, as the Yankees have spent more money they have gotten worse. The 1998 club may not have been sexy in terms of superstars (like the Yankees of the last couple of years), but they were very efficient and a much more fun team to watch.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pghfan987
    replied
    Originally posted by baseballPAP
    I still can't rank any of the NeL teams top ten. Not so much because the lacked the talent (they didn't), but more because they weren't assembled using normal methods.
    First, I must confess that I put the Crawfords at #1 to make a point. I wanted to draw attention to this great team, and I am glad that we are at least discussing them.

    I am not so sure about this argument that they were assembled unrealistically. The Yankees' payroll in '98-2000 I am sure was way bigger than those some of the other great teams on this list, even when you adjust for era (meaning, percentage of their total salaries in comparison to an average payroll that season). We are not penalizing the Yankees for this at all- why should we not even allow the Crawfords to be on this list? If we are banning the Crawfords from this list for that reason, then the Yankees should have at least some penalty, right?

    If we just assigned point values to each player according to how we ranked them all-time, and just added the players' values up for each team, I think that the Crawfords would have the highest total. This is in spite of the fact that (I believe) that we already have some of these NL greats rated too low.

    This perhaps makes the Crawfords the most TALENTED team of all-time. Whether or not they were the BEST team of all time is a bit more debatable.

    Mark
    Last edited by Bill Burgess; 03-31-2006, 11:04 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • 538280
    replied
    Originally posted by baseballPAP
    I still can't rank any of the NeL teams top ten. Not so much because the lacked the talent (they didn't), but more because they weren't assembled using normal methods.
    I absolutely agree, and that, like I said earlier, is the exact reasoning why I'm not putting them in my top 10 either.
    Last edited by Bill Burgess; 03-31-2006, 11:03 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X