See, if I was going to be abusive of my power, I'd log in now and edit SG's opening so I can be credited for having the idea here. But instead I'll just post about it.

Jokes aside, at the moment we have 17 teams. Seems to me if we added three more, brining it up to an even 20, that would be pretty good. What do we think the best '90s-'00s Braves team was? They had all those pitchers in 1997. Maybe '95 as that was the Series winning team? They need a representative one way or the other.

Other suggestions would be something from the early 20s Giants, maybe the '54 Indians, '68 or '84 Tigers, and the 60s Dodgers

The 98 Braves seem like about the best of the lot (of Braves teams), but it seems dumb to have 2 teams from the same season in the sim.

Postseason success is still being weighed, although it is not the end all be all (as evidenced by the 2001 Mariners), right?

By the way, this shouldn't be on Count the Rings blog. It is offensive and detracts from the legitimacy of the exercise.

1946 Red Sox 104 wins

Power speed defense pitching

"Maybe '95 as that was the Series winning team? "

I'm gonna say that I think the 95 Indians team has a better claim to being a great team then any of the Braves teams. Led the league in scoring and run prevention. One Hallf of Fame hitter in his primer (Manny), one at the end of his career (Winfield), a few guys who will get support (Belle, Lofton, Vizquel, Thome (Thome may make it if he bounces back)). Dennis Martinez had one of the great 40 year old seasons. And they had a dominant pen. Granted the starting pitching was not dominant (no 200 IP pitchers, weird), but it was pretty good.

How will you handle the era adjustments? I know Bill J when he attempted
something like this had the visiting team playing not only in the other
team's home ballpark, but also in their era (hence the 61 Yanks would have
to play ball like the '06 Cubs did to win there).

Offensive? Uh-huh.

I don't think the '61 Yankees should really be on this list. Bill James did a good job of debunking their greatness in the NBJHBA

84 Tigers have to be considered too.

Don't forget that 1995 was strike-shortened, J1F. So all of the numbers are a bit strange.

I wouldn't consider a list of great single-season teams without this one.

Might I suggest the 1954 Indians and the 1902 Pirates (first team ever to win 100 games, 2nd-best post-1900 winning percentage) as two worthy additions?

Excluding the M's and 1912 Sox, the list as-is is cribbed from Neyer's "Baseball Dynasties" book, just seemed like a good jumping off point

Ok Larry, but if a non-Yankee team wins, you have to make this that team's blog.

Cox has said that the 93 club that chased down the Giants down the stretch was his most talented bunch.

The 1995 Indians were 100-44. In the AL was a burgeoning Yankee dynasty and a very good Mariners team.

Your suggestions are welcomed.

The 1954 Indians and/or NY Giants would certainly be deserving. However, the 1961 NY Yankees should be unceremoniously deleted.

--------
trevise

How will you handle the era adjustments? I know Bill J when he attempted
something like this had the visiting team playing not only in the other
team's home ballpark, but also in their era (hence the 61 Yanks would have
to play ball like the '06 Cubs did to win there).

John, Diamond Mind has some era adjustments but I've never really used them so I'm not sure how it works. I'll try and set it up as a netural era and see what happens.

"Don't forget that 1995 was strike-shortened, J1F. So all of the numbers are a bit strange."

Wow, that clears everything up. God, what an obvious oversight on my part. Thanks Erik.

Having looked at it, my feeling would be the Braves of 1998 are the best of the bunch, but I'm up to be converted to another view. I'm also with Larry that we should probably drop the '61 Yankees. I think the '54 Indians should probably be added, too.

Since baseball history is not a strength of mine, could some one explain briefly why the 61 Yanks do not belong. I'm checking them out on Baseballreference right now to try and understand a bit better, but that only takes me so far.

The 1904 Giants hold the franchise record for most victories.

I like adding the '02 Pirates, the '54 Indians, the '95 Indians, and '98 Braves. I'll delete the '61 Yankees unless someone can make a case for why they belong.

Another vote for the 1984 Tigers.

I can't even make a passable joke about adding another Cubs team. *sigh*

The Blue Jays of the early 90s? Tigers of the late 80s?

What about the 94 Expos?

CimD: Their offense was pretty much homers and nothing else. They ranked 9th in walks, 10th in doubles, 4th in BA and 5th in OBP -- this was in a 10-team league, BTW. Their pitching was good, but unexceptional.

In a deadball era they'd be punchless, in the homer-happy era they'd be a mediocre scoring team. They swept the '61 World Series, but the '61 Reds were a pretty lousy team.

I'm not sure that the 1995 Indians are an essential all-time immortal team (despite my above post), but I think they belong in the discussion of post-WWII teams.

By the way, I think a billion little blogs are great for this specific purpose - little minutia brought up in another, unrelated thread.

But I still don't like them for big transactions and large news stories.

Actually, they didn't even sweep the '61 Series, they melted down defensively in Game 2 (3 of 6 runs were unearned) and only managed 4 hits off the immortal Joey Jay. Their first two victories were pretty close (2-0, 3-2) although to their credit, the Yankees womped 'em pretty good in Games 4 and 5

What about the 94 Expos?

Considering they were essentially one-and-done (due to forces beyond their control), I just don't think we know enough about that team. How would they have played in late August, September, and October?

When did the 1994 season end, August 15? Are there other teams that would have looked great on August 15 who ended so poorly as to be forgotten?

The 1993 Giants had a fairly historic season to that point, IIRC.

Sorry, my bad. I didn't even look it up, I was just going on flawed memory there.

Since this is a brilliant idea, you might want to add this to "prime" or whatnot. At least put it on the front page.

And I'm aware of the irony of pumping a 144-game Indians season and ignoring a 114-game Expos season.

The 1992 or 93 Jays have to be on the list -- if only to bring in Canadian fans.

So, in summary, given the subsequent events, I think the 1994 Expos team might have been the most jobbed team in the history of sports labor problems, but I won't put them in the upper echelon of great baseball teams.

Can somebody make a list of all teams to lead their league in runs scored, runs prevented, and win the World Series?

And my pick for the best team ever is the 1927 Yankees; they were loaded.

WAMCO!!!!!

I'd vote for the '84 Tigers and '95 Indians.

1902 Pirates
1906 Cubs
1911 A’s
1912 Giants
1912 Red Sox
1927 Yankees
1929 A’s
1939 Yankees
1942 Cards
1953 Yankees
1954 Indians
1955 Dodgers
1961 Yankees
1970 Orioles
1974 A’s
1975 Reds
1984 Tigers
1986 Mets
1995 Indians
1998 Yankees
1998 Braves
2001 Mariners

That gives us 21, I'm not obsessed with having 20, but I think we could probably lose some of them. Maybe the '42 Cards? Had many players gone to war by then or am I penalizing them unfairly?

Didn't this all start in the other thread with a halfhearted attempt by a true believer to put the 2004 Red Sox on this kind of list?

SJ, it's already in Prime.

Daryn, both Jays teams only had a 91-71 Pythagorean record. I'm not sure that either is worthy, although I'm open to hearing reasons.

Those Jays were nice, but they didn't even win 100 games. We are talking ALL TIME great teams here.

Win totals, 1993

Braves 104
Giants 103
Phillies 97
Jays 95
Pale Hose 94
Expos 94


Thats not all time great

Ditch at least one of the Yankee teams.

My way-back machine is broken. How many of these teams didn't even make it into the WS?

I see the Mariners right away. Anyone else?

Didn't this all start in the other thread with a halfhearted attempt by a true believer to put the 2004 Red Sox on this kind of list?

No, we were talking about great offenses. I blame Mets fans.

Didn't this all start in the other thread with a halfhearted attempt by a true believer to put the 2004 Red Sox on this kind of list?

Actually, it started with a discussion about if the 2006 Yankees could be the best offensive team in recent memory and somewhat mentioned the 2003 Red Sox and someone else said that group wasn't as good as the 1998 Yankees and we were off from there

"Didn't this all start in the other thread with a halfhearted attempt by a true believer to put the 2004 Red Sox on this kind of list?"

Technically, this all started when I said that the Yanks next year were going to potentially be the best offense of my lifetime. Then Spivey said that the 2003 Red Sox were remarkabley great and unlikely to be surpassed. Then the 98 Yanks came up, then the 86 Mets. From there on it's pretty direct.

My all-time great team

Pitchers: W. Johnson, Young, Clemens, Alexander, Seaver, Grove, Pedro, Wilhelm, Eckersly, Matthewson, Rivera

Catchers: Piazza and Bench

Infielders: Gehrig, Hornsby, Wagner, Schmidt, A-Rod, Foxx, Morgan

Outfielders: Ruth, Bonds, Williams, Cobb, Mantle

The 1961 Yankees weren't flawless, and have generally been overrated for many obvious reasons. But that doesn't mean they weren't a damn fine ballclub, competitive with many of those on this list.

They had:

- Mickey Mantle in one of his greatest years, in other words one of the greatest peak players ever in one of his peak seasons

- Roger Maris joining him with one of the all-time great power production seasons

- Great up-the-middle defense in Howard, Kubek-Richardson, and Mantle, plus a brilliant-fielding third baseman in Clete Boyer and a terrific defensive right fielder in Maris

- Several more good power hitters in Howard, Yogi Berra, John Blanchard, and Bill Skowron

- A great ace pitcher having one of his best years in Whitey Ford

- One of the better relief ace seasons of the relief ace era, from Luis Arroyo

It was a formidable team, certainly worthy of designation as among the few best teams of the 1946-76 period.

And by the way, I understand history.

Before the 1960's, the best team in each league went to the WS directly.

Before 1994, there was no Division Series.

Thus, the M's had a tougher road to make the WS just because of additioanl playoff jeopardy.

I think we see this quite a bit.

"The best version of my favorite team in my lifetime = an all-time great team".

I think the 39 Yankees are the favorites OPS of all the YAnkees starting 5

134, 77 (from 1b!) 124, 131, 37, 149, 185, 144.

They may suffer from the setup, because they had & starters that made more than 10 starts, and none made more than 30.

Here is the ERA+ of the seven starters

148, 127, 117, 97, 146, 142, 181.

The only other guy who had more than 61 innings was Steve Sudra, and his ERA+ was 157.

1912-1927, 1929-1939, 1942-1953, 1955-1970, 75-84, and 86-95. Significant gaps in great teams, are we missing anyone from those periods? I guess the Black Sox team shouldn't be considered all that great, even if you ignore them throwing the Series.

Thus, the M's had a tougher road to make the WS just because of additioanl playoff jeopardy.

But, if they were so great, shouldn't they have overcome that?

My way-back machine is broken. How many of these teams didn't even make it into the WS?

The '98 Braves, everyone else made it, except the '02 Pirates but there was no World Series then. All those teams won their World Series except for: Cubs, Giants and the Indians' pair.

I'm pretty happy with the list, I can't really see losing any of the Yankee teams. Maybe 1953

I think the 1994 Expos 1981 Reds team might have been the most jobbed team in the history of sports labor problems, but I won't put them in the upper echelon of great baseball teams.

Fixed.

The 2004 Red Sox are only the greatest team ever if you are down 0-3 in a series. Otherwise, they are a lot more ordinary.

How bout the 1917 White Sox? 1st in the league in runs, could be considered the best pitching in the league too.

Ditch at least one of the Yankee teams.

You can't the 27,39 and 98 Yankees are all easily in the top 20 teams of all time, if you are going to ditch one, you ditch the 42 cards.

"The best version of my favorite team in my lifetime = an all-time great team".

As it would be 75-76 Reds (probably 75) for me, this would be a correct statement.

except the '02 Pirates but there was no World Series then

Say 1902 Pirates. I winced the first time I read that post.

If you ever edit my post again, TDF, I'll invade your dreams.

I think we're better off adding another team to make it even rather then dropping one.

I think the 1994 Expos 1981 Reds team might have been the most jobbed team in the history of sports labor problems, but I won't put them in the upper echelon of great baseball teams.

In fact '81 and '94 would make the Reds the runaway winner franchise in this regard.

Looking back at early teams, the 1904 Giants would have been an all-time great if they did not wuss out of the World Series.

20 is nice though, how does the setup work, 154 game season, 10 teams in a league? like the old days?

I just wasn't sure if that would all fit.

Last place in this league would be nearly as interesting a story as first.

I thought the original plan was to run them all in their own context and see how often they emerged as a "great team" although playing them aganist each other is good too

20 is nice though, how does the setup work, 154 game season, 10 teams in a league? like the old days?

A 10-team league doesn't yield a 154-game season, it yields a 162-game season. (Or a 144-game season, or a 180-game season.)

We either ditch the '42 Cards or add 3 more teams. I'm ok with either suggestion.

I'm sure that someone somewhere is pimping the 2005 Brewers.

A young person.

"20 is nice though, how does the setup work, 154 game season, 10 teams in a league?"

Maybe run a preliminary few seasons and bump the worst two performers out for the real deal. Or are you just running one season?

Can somebody make a list of all teams to lead their league in runs scored, runs prevented, and win the World Series?

As it happens, there are exactly 20 of these teams, though, as you might expect, the vast majority of them are pre-expansion:

1903 BOS
1911 PHA
1912 BOS
1927 NYY
1936 NYY
1937 NYY
1938 NYY
1939 NYY
1942 STL
1943 NYY
1944 STL
1946 STL
1947 NYY
1953 NYY
1955 BRO
1960 PIT
1968 DET
1970 BAL
1984 DET
1998 NYY

I thought the original plan was to run them all in their own context and see how often they emerged as a "great team" although playing them aganist each other is good too

I was going to run them against each other. It'll take too long to play each one in their own context.

I think we should run them against each other for like 180 games, no playoffs.

Speaking of playoffs, would playoff stats from the original season for each team count in the DMB player rating system?

1912-1927, 1929-1939, 1942-1953, 1955-1970, 75-84, and 86-95. Significant gaps in great teams, are we missing anyone from those periods? I guess the Black Sox team shouldn't be considered all that great, even if you ignore them throwing the Series.

What about the 1919 Reds?

The '61 Yankees were a very, very good team. But they didn't lead the league in either runs scored or runs given up. IMO, to be considered for this list a team has to lead the league in both (or one at the very least).

Actually, a single season isn't really enough data to evaluate a team. 3 seasons is a good length of time. A truly great team should win over 100 games over 3 consecutive years and win at least one world series during that span. So clearly the 1969-1971 Orioles are the greatest team in ML history.

"1936 NYY
1937 NYY
1938 NYY
1939 NYY"

No wonder my Grandfather was a Yankee fan. Holy Cow.

Thumbs-down to any team that played during WWII. The numbers are too screwy.

Sorry, St. Louis fans.

Well, if we're adding teams, we could put back the '61 Yankees, include the '68 Tigers and, I dunno, the '63 Dodgers?

A truly great team should win over 100 games over 3 consecutive years and win at least one world series during that span.

RP, comparing the free-agent era with the reserve-clause era is comparing apples and oranges.

It used to be that scouting and acquisitions were the only things; in recent years salary considerations and contract length are significant factors in keeping teams together or breaking them up.

IOW this list will be dismissive of anything but the regular season. Hence the 154 Indians, which went 22 and 26 against the only teams with winning records that they played that year. Take a look at the rosters of the 1954 Red Sox, Tigers, Orioles, Senators, and A's, and tell me exactly what it proves about "all-time greatness" that the Indians beat them like a drum.

Here's my totally subjective top ten, based on both regular season and post-season dominance, with slightly extra weight accorded to more recent (post-1970) teams due to the expanded nature of the talent pool since then. I also give consideration to whether or not the team had much success in the surrounding years, but don't ask me to justify this, as it's also purely subjective:

98 Yanks
76 Reds
39 Yanks
27 Yanks
95 Braves (who beat a great Indians team in probably the best WS matchup since 1912)
36 Yanks
70 Orioles
12 Red Sox
86 Mets
42 Cardinals (not really a wartime team, since very few stars were in the service that year)
84 Tigers

I followed the 61 Yanks more than any other team, and much as I hate to say it, they're kind of overrated. It was an expansion year, the American League was pathetic in general, and although it was a great team the competition was pretty feeble, including the Reds.

If you take out the postseason, then just put the 2001 Mariners at the top and pretend that the whole ALCS was just a bad dream. You can throw in the 1906 Cubs and 1953 Dodgers while you're at it.

And I'm not sure why any of the 29-31 A's aren't on here, except that their best team in the run lost the Series, and their regular season pythags in 1929-30 were way under their records.

Speaking of playoffs, would playoff stats from the original season for each team count in the DMB player rating system?

Nope. I'll just be importing the regular season stats.

"I dunno, the '63 Dodgers?"

The Dodgers don't look like they were especially dominant on either side of the ball, I don't think you could say they were the best pitching team in their league and certainly not the best hitting team. They are, IMO, out classed compared with the other teams. I would pimp the 1917 White Sox before them.

In tribute to Micro League Baseball, you gotta include the '55 Senators.

I'd keep the '42 Cardinals and drop the '53 Yankees, if we were making that decision.

1960 PIT

This is a joke, right?

At the risk of turning this into a pharmacy RX thread...there needs to be a definitive resolution with regard to Bonds...for him and the fans....for me this exercise stops in its tracks the second I hit his name

95 Braves (who beat a great Indians team in probably the best WS matchup since 1912)


I think you are leaving out the 114 Win Yankees against the 106 Win Braves.

Just because the Yankees thought the Braves were a rented mule is no knock on the matchup.

KNOBBY!

I think you only play five games a day, and post updates daily on CTR™.

That'll give us a nice off-season pennant race.

Well, if we're adding teams, we could put back the '61 Yankees, include the '68 Tigers and, I dunno, the '63 Dodgers?

I think you'd want to tighten it up rather than loosen the standards. That said, the 1942 Cards were a great team even if the era was "less than desired."

--------
trevise

Now seems like a good time to mention that if the present division alignments were in effect between 1984 and 1990, the Mets would have made the playoffs every year. Ok, that's it.

Yeah, I know they played the Padres in 98, I am a ####### idiot

RP, comparing the free-agent era with the reserve-clause era is comparing apples and oranges.

I was just kidding about the 3 year thing (funny how my criteria make the Orioles look so good...)

"I'd keep the '42 Cardinals and drop the '53 Yankees"

I'd hesitate to drop a team that was the best year of a dynasty that won 5 World Series in a row.

Now seems like a good time to mention that if the present division alignments were in effect between 1984 and 1990, the Mets would have made the playoffs every year. Ok, that's it.

Now seems like a good time to mention if I looked like Brad Pitt, I could bang Angelina Jolie and Jennifer Aniston.

I think you only play five games a day, and post updates daily on CTR™.

That'll give us a nice off-season pennant race.

This is the credited response.

I concede that the pharmacy argument holds logical water, but none of the commonly-associated users were prominent members of these teams, which makes the decision to ignore steroids completely easier.

Nobody has mentioned the 1909 Pittsburgh Pirates (besides me, in the other thread), but they were the money. Led their league in runs scored, runs allowed, won a ton of games, had a great run differential, and won the WS.

I was just kidding about the 3 year thing (funny how my criteria make the Orioles look so good...)

I think the 3-year thing is great, it accounts for sample size adequately along with depressing numbers for individual fluke seasons.

This is a joke, right?

What do you mean, Steve? I'm not arguing anything about the team's greatness, but they fulfill the conditions of the list Gagne asked for: led the league in runs scored and runs prevented, and won the World Series.