Options
Best MLB Team Ever
Hydrant
Posts: 7,773 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
I know who I pick. Chime in boys!
1
Hydrant
Posts: 7,773 ✭✭✭✭✭
Hydrant
Posts: 7,773 ✭✭✭✭✭
Hydrant
Posts: 7,773 ✭✭✭✭✭
Hydrant
Posts: 7,773 ✭✭✭✭✭
I know who I pick. Chime in boys!
Comments
1927 Yankees by reputation. 1975 and 76 Reds were pretty good as well.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
98 Yankees
I'll add the 1970 Orioles to the mix
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I'm not as enamored of the 1927 Yankees as others. I think the '61 Yankees were better. The '98 Yankees and '76 Reds have to be right up there, too.
Ultimately, who you believe to be the best team ever will depend, almost entirely, on how much you believe the quality of play has improved over time. Absent any assumption (i.e., quality has always been the same), the 1927 Yankees win, and by a margin that is fairly large. If you're of the "Babe Ruth was a big, fat 40-year-old slob, even when he was a thin muscle-bound 22-year-old" school of thought, then the 1998 Yankees win, and by a fairly large margin. Somewhere in between is the right answer, and one of those two teams takes the title. I don't know which, and I think it's very, very close.
75-76 REDS
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
1948 Cleveland Indians are deserving a mention.
2B Joe Gordon OPS 136
SS Lou Boudreau OPS 166
3B Ken Keltner OPS 146
OF Larry Doby OPS 135
OF Dale Mitchell OPS 119
SP Bob Feller ERA+ 114
SP Bob Lemon ERA+ 144
SP Gene Beardon ERA+ 168
They even had Satchel Paige who pitched 72 innings with a 165 ERA+!
the 89-90 Oakland A's were quite a powerhouse team that doesn't get a lot of historical attention. I am still shocked they didn't win the 90 series.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Great pitching beats great hitting.
The great teams with the better ERA+ is your answer.
But if the question is best mlb team ever then the answer must be a core group of 10 or more guys that won the World Series in let’s say 3 or more consecutive years or let’s say 5 titles in seven years.
The best mlb team cant be a one season wonder.
not so sure. the great braves staffs of the 1990s only won one Series. they had a dominant starting 3. as good as any staff ever i would say
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Did you read my entire thought ?
It’s a team with the best ERA+ that won championships in 3 or more consecutive years or 5 out of 7.
If we are allowing one year wonder teams then the Red Sox are the easy answer. Not only the only team in history to come back from down 3-0 against a great Yankee team with the greatest closer all time, but won 8 consecutive playoff games to win the title. No other team can “hold their jock”.
1929 1930 1931 Athletics deserve to be mentioned
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Level of talent factor aside, the '27 Yanks and '98 Yanks are the two that had the most dominant single season, but having one season doesn't mean you are best. One season isn't enough to balance out the good/bad luck that is engrained in baseball.
Typically the '27 yanks and '98 yanks are deemed the best due to a combination of W/L record, Run scoring differential, and if they won the title....all three form a pretty encompassing measurement to formulate the opinion of who is best.
I would add that winning the title doesn't guarantee that you are better than the team who didn't win it, especially when measuring titles from different seasons. We all know the term, "the best team doesn't always win," and that rings even more true in baseball due to the nature of the game, though I agree it plays a role in making a determination.
The team that always jumps out to me is the 1970 Orioles with a record of 108-54. Their run differential was 218, and they won the World Series. Their W/L record and their run differential fall short of the '27 Yanks and '98 Yanks. All three won the World Series in their season.
It is the Orioles 1969 and 1971 season that lends more evidence to believe that their 1970 team was every bit as good as their record, and that luck wasn't factoring in as much as could have been for the '27 Yanks or '98 Yanks who weren't quite as good on their 'sandwich' years from their best single season.
The 1969 Orioles were 109-53
The 1971 Orioles were 101-57.
The Orioles lost the World Series those years and in the minds of some that precludes those teams as being considered the best. However, it shows how good their true level of talent was as a team since they have more than one single season of pure dominance. Lets not forget that getting to a World Series is a pretty darn good benchmark itself of excellence. Luck plays a big role in a short series, so winning or losing it isn't as vast a difference in reality of ability as opposed to emotionally charged evaluations. They also had to win an extra playoff series to get to the WS, which leads to one more potential landmine that the BEST team in the league before the LCS didn't have to face.
With basically the same team winning in three straight years 109, 108, and 101 games, and getting to the World Series each of those years, is as good a mark of dominance as any one single season dominance that was slightly better. They were also a well balanced team of pitching, hitting, and defense.
The A's of course won three titles in a row, but again, short series include a lot of luck, chance, and happenstance. Their regular season records weren't quite as indicative of dominance as the Orioles teams who also got to three series(but only won one).
I wanted to add that the 1969-1971 Orioles led their league in ERA all three years, and their offense was first in runs scored two times, and second the other time. That is pretty dominating on both ends of the offense and defense spectrums.
I agree. The As won their first World Series against the Dodgers with a team ERA of 3.05.
The Orioles lost two of their World Series with a 2.6 and 2.7 team ERA.
However, the Orioles lost two World Series because their bats stunk.
The As had great clutch performers at the plate, and winning World Series determines greatness.
Oakland would get the nod from me. Outside of Tom Seaver, the Orioles did not face any overwhelming pitching. They just stunk at the plate. Losing 4-1 to the 69 Mets is pretty poor in my book. Their hitting was very weak. They should have beat the Pirates again as well.
I get your point, and the Orioles certainly deserve their place on the ballot. But, it's not like the 1926/1928 Yankees or the 1997/1999 Yankees weren't also great teams. I guess it comes down to the ambiguity in the OP. Best team for a single season? For a few years? For a decade? For a century? I think the Yankees are the winners in all of the other cases, but in the "for a few years" case, there are several worthy candidates.
Is largely a product of chance once you are already in the Series.
Yup.
I would go with the '98 Yankees based on the prevailing thought process.
@hydrant I gave you a like after reading through this thread . I can't say that I can answer the question, but the answers thus far have been tremendous. I truly enjoy this type of discussion. I always learn some things. So thank you for asking this question.
Prove it please. Please give us exact proof that it is largely a product of chance.
Because in the 1967 World Series Yaz went 0 for 4 in Game 1.
He was so pissed after the great year he had and so determined to do better that he took an extra two hours of batting practice before game 2. He went on to have a great hitting series.
It’s largely a factor of talent, desire, and determination, coupled with confidence and good health.
Chance has very little to do with it.
What role did chance play in the Orioles losing 4 out of 5 to the Mets ?
Based on the numbers from that year the Birds should have won.
Please explain how chance caused them to lose 80% of the games.
The Birds lost five out of six to end the 1969 season. They either were tired or took it easy going into the postseason.
Their hitting was not good overall. Too bad because their pitching was.
So they were "tired or took it easy" going into the 1969 post season because they lost five of the last six in the regular season....then swept the Twins 3 games to 0 in the LCS....then were tired again in the World Series?? OK.
So the Orioles had 'desire' and determination' to win 100+ games a year, win the 1966 WS, 1969 LCS, 1970 LCS, 1970 WS, and 1971 LCS....but somehow no longer had those attributes when they lost the '69 and '71 WS?? Ok.
I will let you think it through your way as you please....no explanation needed from me.
Then please answer this one simple question.
Did Babe Ruth hit poorly against Walter Johnson than many other pitchers because of chance, or because he was overmatched most of the time ?
Simple question really. When a batter faces a pitcher, does the pitcher get him out by chance, or because his stuff was real good that night ?
So you’d walk into the Yankees front office and ask them to hire you as hitting coach. They ask you if you’re going to teach the guys about studying film, bat angle, proper balance, brain/eye coordination drills, proper strength and nutrition and good sleep habits. You say no fellows, the As had good situational hitting just by chance, and so will your Yankees.
😎
What are the chances of the Orioles hitting .146 in the 1969 World Series and .205 in the 1971 World Series?
People want to call this team one of the best ever ? Well if hitting as a team the same as or much worse than Bob Eucker in the most important games of your career makes you the best ever, then so be it.
I will let you figure that out....I already know the answer.
Have you ever hung a slider and got away with it one night? Then hung one another night and it was hit out of the park?
Have you ever been jammed and you hit the ball fell three feet over the outstretched arms of a shortstop one night...but the next night that same ball is caught?
Figure it out. When elite players almost 99% equal in talent square up against each other on the baseball field, talent is already nearly equally established between the two.
IF that is what you believe, then so be it.
>
Hanging sliders consistently against the 69 and 71 Orioles line up in each World Series would do no harm at all against that line up.
If that is what you believe, then great. Then how did that 1971 Orioles team sweep your A's team in the playoffs in 1971???
Let me guess the cliche, "The A's hadn't learned how to win yet" Ok. So they 'learned how to win' by getting beat by a team that had no desire and could not hit hanging sliders??? Makes total sense.
If you wish to call the 1970-72 Orioles one of the best teams ever, when they were only 1 World Series loss away from being mentioned in the same same breath as the 1970s Minnesota Vikings teams, then be my guest.
The 1970's Vikings were a great team. One of the greatest ever, in fact.
If you define greatness by losing multiple Super Bowls then throw in the Buffalo Bills if you’d like.
Most think the 70s Steelers were one of the greatest ever, but to each their own.
How did that A's team do against the 1971 Orioles again? Their ERA was 5.41 against a lineup that you said couldn't hit and they got swept. In direct competition, the team you say was the best ever, lost to a team you are saying couldn't hit and had no desire to win? Makes a lot of sense...not really, but I guess you can rationalize any way you want.
The core of the 1971 Orioles lineup was there in 1966 as well when they beat Drysdale and Koufax, and when they won the 1970 World Series, and other LCS series, and when they won over 100 games and led the league in scoring multiple times.
So how do you conclude they could not hit or not know how to win???
Earlier, you acted as if losing to the 1969 Mets pitching was some sort of disgrace. Tom Seaver was pretty good, no? You are probably thinking of Jerry Koosman as the 42 year old from the mid 80's, but in case you didn't know (which you probably didn't since you made fun of losing to him earlier) he was pretty darn good those years in the late 60's and early 70's. Koosman and Seaver pitched the vast majority of innings in that series.
Have you ever hung that slider and got away with it one day, but not the next? When you understand that, then you understand chance.
Have you ever hit a ball on the head but it happens to go right where a fielder is standing one game, and then get jammed and the ball just squibs where nobody is by pure luck??
Or be looking for a certain pitch in a certain location, and in one five game stretch you are correct 80% of the time....but the next five game series you are wrong 80% of the time?
It takes more games than simply 7 to really determine how good someone is, or some team is.
Chance plays a large role in baseball when two talents are within 99% of ability as each other, and they square off in such a small sample of games.
I am still wondering how you claim the 1969 orioles were tired and had no desire to win when you say they lost five of their last six in the regular season, and then swept the Twins 3-0 in the LCS, then were somehow tired again in the WS??
Your response proves my point. Lol
Great teams have a 3-5 year window to do something great. Oakland was too young when they played the Birds, and the Birds were getting past their peak.
Oakland won 3 WS in a row.
The Os lost 2 out of 3, and were one loss away from a perfect 0 for 3 from 1970-72.
But to you they are the best ever. That’s fine with me.
Someone here said the Vikings are one of the best ever, so put your Os and the Vikings above the 70s Steelers and Brady’s Patriots. It’s fine with me.
You said the Orioles could not hit and had no desire to win and that the A's were the best ever....so how could a team that could not hit give the A's a 5.41 series ERA and sweep them 3-0?? Your cliche "the A's were young' does not explain that, because you said the O's could not hit in the big games.
The A's weren't young anyway, they were one year away from winning a WS.
How can a team that had no desire to win and could not hit, hit .292/.366/.509 in the World Series and dominate the Reds??
Did they get lucky to do that? Explain to me how they were able to do that if they could not hit when it counted or did not know how to win?
If they had no desire, how did the core Orioles win two WS, and go 21-9 in post season games, and dominate regular season in wins/losses, runs scored/runs prevented?
So because a team had a couple hot elite pitchers to beat them in 1969 and an on fire Clemente edging them in 1971, they didn't know how to win, despite all that they did?
Your premises are all contradicting....and make no sense at all.
The Orioles dominated the 1970 series and won 4-1....so to claim that as "one WS loss away" is foolish.
The A's were one loss away from a couple LCS from not even getting to the WS....that can be applied there. They were also lucky to be in a division where they could win it with 90 wins.
The A's were 21-18 in the post season in their run. That isn't too impressive. Just got a little lucky in the WS.
Have I told you lately that I love you? Very few people will EVER mention a team that fails to win a Championship.
The 2009 Vikings were right up there for one year.
The OP asks a simple question (IMO) greatest team.
My requirements had nothing to do with W/L record, although I did give a little importance to a team that was a champion, or at least won a championship with the same/similar lineup.
I never really thought of teams that had dominant pitching staffs and poor hitting.
I liked Cleveland because they had it all, and they just happened top win a lot of games and were a champion as well.
And I don't think any conversation about the greatest team can exclude the Yankees of the 1950's. Sure, some players came and went during the decade, but the team stayed at the top almost every year.
Absolutely.
The Orioles run falls under the radar somehow. That franchise from 1966-1983 had one tremendous level of sustained excellence.
Talk about luck. In 1980 the Orioles won 100 games and didn't even make the playoffs.
Thanks, .....I'm like you, I can't say that I can answer either. So I haven't given an opinion. I just don't know.......but I enjoy reading other forum members thoughts on the topic.
The 1998 New York Yankees, in addition to the best total W-L record ever posted by a World Series winner (125-50), only dropped two games the entire postseason. This championship marked the first of three straight championships and the Yankees only once lost more than three straight games, compiling five winning streaks of eight games or more.
In 1998, the Yankees led the majors in wins, runs, RBI’s, and on-base percentage. They also finished among the top five in batting average, hits, steals, walks, slugging percentage, fewest errors, complete games, shutouts, and saves. They scored more runs than any other team in the majors. They allowed fewer runs than any other team in the majors. More than a third of their victories were by five runs or more. They went 24 consecutive series in the regular season without losing a series.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
I will always love that ‘98 Yankees team.
The Rookies
The Tickets
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Not even close, 2010-2014 Giants. 3 WS rings. What a line up over those years, what a manager, and hey, they had the Freak and MadBum! And who would ever forget Kungfu Panda! Then there was Buster, a coupla Brandon's, and even a year or so of Hunter! What a team, Dodger fan.................
Successful transactions with-Boosibri,lkeigwin,TomB,Broadstruck,coinsarefun,Type2,jom,ProfLiz, UltraHighRelief,Barndog,EXOJUNKIE,ldhair,fivecents,paesan,Crusty...