Greatest Dynasty of the 1970's, A's, Reds, Orioles or Yankees?
Blackborder
Posts: 2,797 ✭
A's: 3 Pennants, 3 WS Championships.
Reds: 4 Pennants, 2 WS championships.
Yankes: 3 Pennants, 2 WS championships.
Orioles: 3 Pennants, 2 WS championships
Tough choice. For the record, I like the 1970's Reds and think they were the best team of the 70's but I'm not sure they were the greatest Dynasty. Their 2 WS losses came from the A's and Orioles. That coupled with the A's 3 WS wins in a row, make the A's the greatest Dynasty of the 70's in my opinion.
0
Comments
Always looking for Topps Salesman Samples, pre '51 unopened packs, E90-2, E91a, N690 Kalamazoo Bats, and T204 Square Frame Ramly's
Abe
My winner the A's. Had they not broken up, another matchup with the Big Red Machine may have been in store in '76 or '77.
Even though the Bucs' pitching was far from the best, what an outfield they had from 1970-79 - Matty Alou, Roberto Clemente, Willie Stargell, Al Oliver, Dave Parker - 26 assists from RF one year, Richie Zisk, Bill Robinson, and the Antelope (Omar Moreno)
Completed my Clemente Basic Registry (2007 - 2014)!
Positive transactions with oakesy25,jasoneggert,swartz1,MBMiller25,gregm13,kid4hof03,HoopGuru33,Reese3333,BPorter26,Davemri,CuseSteve
The O's had the best pitching and defense of the teams listed and that's how they won a lot of games. They had always 3 real good starters and normally some of the better #4 and #5 starters in the league. The defense was great up the middle except for the catchers' position, which was always platooned, with weak armed , ok hitters.
The big Red Machine had lots of good hitters, and only marginal pitching at best. Every year they would have a standout on the mound but never the same guy. The bullpen had guys that were easily hit, but were MAJOR groundball pitchers. They usually kept the ball in the park. Hitting , hitting and more hitting. Led by the Gambler, Bench, Morgan and Perez, this was a tough bunch. Concepcion and Geronimo , with Bench gave them solid defense up the middle.
The A's had GREAT team chemistry. The sum was ALWAYS greater then the parts. I know their park suppressed their hitters and elevated their pitching, but they simply knew how to win, inspite of their egos and owner. Nobody other than Jackson, Hunter and Fingers would've stared on any of the other good teams of their time but again , they always found the way to win.
The Yankees of the 70's do not belong in this discussion. All they had were parts from these teams.
I'd go with the REDS.
Steve
Not sure I agree with that as:
Joe Rudi, sal bando, Campy, and gene tenace could start on many of the teams of the era.
also the pitching had holtzman and a guy named vida blue.
the yanks? besides hunter and jackson who did they get from those teams?
not guidry, munson, randolph etc etc etc.
Steve
95.3 wins per year
6 division crowns, 3 seconds, and a 4th
6 MVPs (70, 72, 73, 75, 76, and 77)
Here are the A's decade stats:
83.8 wins per year
5 division crowns, 2 seconds, one 6th, and 2 7th
2 MVPs (71, 73) 2 Cy Youngs (71, 74). 71 MVP and 71 CYA were both Vida Blue.
A's were easily the best team in baseball from 1971 through 1974 but not for the whole decade. Dynasty's can't peter out so quickly.
bobsbbcards SGC Registry Sets
The rest that you listed were all favorites of mine as well, but they had more guts with a large dash of talent, that went well with the teams they were with at the time.
<< <i>Reds easy.
95.3 wins per year
6 division crowns, 3 seconds, and a 4th
6 MVPs (70, 72, 73, 75, 76, and 77)
Here are the A's decade stats:
83.8 wins per year
5 division crowns, 2 seconds, one 6th, and 2 7th
2 MVPs (71, 73) 2 Cy Youngs (71, 74). 71 MVP and 71 CYA were both Vida Blue.
A's were easily the best team in baseball from 1971 through 1974 but not for the whole decade. Dynasty's can't peter out so quickly. >>
This is true Bob.
I think Finley had something to do with killing that 'goose.'
mike
Talentwise, the Reds were the most stacked IMHO, but had the A's held together it would have been a close race.
Bosox1976
After all, it took the A's a full seven games to edge a Mets team that finished barely .500 in the '73 Series. I still remember how the Reds totally dismantled a good Yankees team in the '76 Series, sweeping them 4-0 in the process.
Both teams were true dynasties in their time, though.
Just curious, too, how anyone would compare either the A's or Reds to the Yankee teams that won 4 WS from 1996-2000? Thoughts?
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
That's an interesting point on the A's needing 7 games to beat the Mets, but didn't that same inferior Mets team beat the Reds in the NLCS? That kind of makes that point in favor of the A's doesn't it?
Abe
That's an interesting point on the A's needing 7 games to beat the Mets, but didn't that same inferior Mets team beat the Reds in the NLCS? That kind of makes that point in favor of the A's doesn't it?
Abe
True, but the Reds of '72 and '73 were not as good as the Reds team that won the Series in '75 & '76. In '73, the A's are definitely a better team than the Reds.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
'nuff said
started in the mid 60's
collecting RAW Topps baseball cards 1952 Highs to 1972. looking for collector grade (somewhere between psa 4-7 condition). let me know what you have, I'll take it, I want to finish sets, I must have something you can use for trade.
looking for Topps 71-72 hi's-62-53-54-55-59, I have these sets started
Lee
Completed my Clemente Basic Registry (2007 - 2014)!
Positive transactions with oakesy25,jasoneggert,swartz1,MBMiller25,gregm13,kid4hof03,HoopGuru33,Reese3333,BPorter26,Davemri,CuseSteve
Please for the sake of dillusionment , lets not confuse too many people with the facts. As we "ALL" know , any Yankee team is and will always be better than any other team.
I'm still going with the Reds.
<< <i>I'll go with the Reds because they have the coolest nickname. However, it needs to be stated that the Orioles had three 20 game winners in 1970, which is something that will never happen again.
Lee >>
Lee- at least until the following year, when they topped it with 4 20 game winners- Cuellar, Palmer, McNally and Dobson.
Always looking for Topps Salesman Samples, pre '51 unopened packs, E90-2, E91a, N690 Kalamazoo Bats, and T204 Square Frame Ramly's
Geez i wonder where that come from, seeing that no one has even considered the Yanks. must be the typical jealous anti yankee coming out.
Steve
Lee
Did you forget the reason?
Seaver, Koosman, Matlack and Gentry will do that.
Steve
Did you forget the reason?
Seaver, Koosman, Matlack and Gentry will do that.
Steve
I remember it well, though the A's were heavily favored in that Series all the same.
By the way, Gentry wasn't on that team, Steve. He'd been traded to Atlanta after the '72 season.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
The Mets really put it together , even in a losing cause, that made people say " You gotta believe ".
Didn't they win the last 20 of 25 games to win the NL east?
steve
Tug McGraw was a lightning rod for that '73 team! Though they finished only 83-78, they were certainly fun to watch! Fortunately, no other team was over .500 that year in the NL East.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
The big red machine gets all the credit and lasting hype for the brand names on that team but the A's are probably right there with them.
-- Yogi Berra