User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Vivid Seats is a sports ticket broker, concert ticket broker and theater ticket broker offering the best baseball tickets like Yankees tickets, Cubs tickets, and Red Sox tickets, as well as Police reunion tour tickets and Jersey Boys tickets. |
We have baseball tickets, the NFL schedule, college football tickets and Cowboys tickets. We have NBA tickets like Celtics tickets and Lakers tickets. Plus, buy Giants tickets, Patriots tickets and Colts tickets. Also check out our MLB baseball schedule |
Concerts Theatre NFL Angels Dodgers MLB Celtics Theater NBA Tickets Venues NHL Lakers Tickets NFL Yankees NHL Phillies NBA Wicked Marlins MLB Concerts Cubs Mets Red Sox Wicked WWE Red Sox Mets Yankees Dodgers |
Page rendered in 0.9825 seconds
61 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
What about Yayo. I bet that adds some zip to a fastball.
I could actually care less, I just think the idea of Gooden pitching while on cocaine (which I'm sure he did not do), or anyone pitching on coke, is pretty amusing to me.
Now seems like a good time to mention if I looked like Brad Pitt, I could bang Angelina Jolie and Jennifer Aniston.
A better analogy would be - I look like Brad Pitt. Too bad I don't know Angelina or Aniston, or else I could surely bang them.
I think you are leaving out the 114 Win Yankees against the 106 Win Braves.
Except that the 98 Yankees beat the Padres that year, not the Braves.
Actually, they were second to the Cubs in runs allowed.
1906 Cubs
1927 Yankees
1976 Reds
1998 Yankees
2001 Mariners
If you think about it, a 20-team competition is too much. The 1927 Yankees are clearly far better than the 1953 Yankees, or the 1995 Braves.
We should, I think, be debating over, say, three to five teams to add to this list, then go with that.
They are reserved for Catherine Zeta-Jones and Susie Kolber.
This is slightly less ostrich-like plunging one's head into the sand than the other way of reading my post.
Yeah, as soon as I hit post I realized it. check a post or two later.
99 was the last time the two league leaders in wins met in th postseason.
Stupid Wild Card
You did, I know. I should have elaborated more.
The '60 Pirates tied for the league league in fewest runs allowed, allowing them to just barely make it. And then they won the WS in the all-time greatest Pythagorean fluke ever, being outscored 55-27.
They're an interesting team, but don't belong on any serious list of all-time best teams.
Any Slam dunk list is silly without the 39 Yankees. I am not sure the 76 reds are a slam dunk.
1906 Cubs
1927 Yankees
1976 Reds
1998 Yankees
2001 Mariners
If you think about it, a 20-team competition is too much. The 1927 Yankees are clearly far better than the 1953 Yankees, or the 1995 Braves.
We should, I think, be debating over, say, three to five teams to add to this list, then go with that.
Better yet, let's just use the 27, 32, 39, 53, 61, 98, and 02 Yankees. And we'll post it on Count Da Ringz Blog and congratulate one another on how badass the Yankees are. LET'S GO YANKEES!
1896 Baltimore Orioles
1897 Boston Beaneaters
The former is the most remembered 9th century team, and spawned more managers than any other. THe latter was the team of the decade & had maybe (probably?) the greatest defensive team of all time.
Hey, if your considering teams from the early twentieth century you should consider these. The overall quality of teams was almost certainly higher in the 12 tam 1896-7 years than during 1902 when the Pirates had their run or 1906 when the Cubs were so good they actually had a winning record in games they only score one run in.
Totally agree. I'm far more interested in a large league of the best. I think it gives more of a chance for a team to surprise.
Rounders and Two Old Cat teams need not apply.
Then we're not really looking for the best team, are we?
They're an interesting team, but don't belong on any serious list of all-time best teams.
Of course they don't, but while that World Series result was pretty much a fluke, I'd bet that over the course of 154 games, they were still better than the 1960 Yankees, given the much stronger state of the NL that year. Plus over the course of a 154 game season, the Yankees wouldn't have been able to pitch Whitey Ford in 2 out of every 7 games, and he was the only effective Yankee starter in that whole Series.
I thought that the best remembered 9th century team was the Reykjavik Vikings.
Um, the Yankees are baddass. They won, 26 rings, you do that, you are going to have a bunch of alltime great teams.
I'm looking to be entertained. When all's said and done, I think we'll see the 98 Yanks, the 27 Yanks or the 1906 Cubs standing at the top. But I think it would be awesome to see the 95 Indians upset the 1970s O's or something like that over the course of a full season.
Hoisted on your own petard.
Along with my recommendation in post# 90 about tightening standards, I would think that a 16 team format might be perfect for this.
-------
trevise
Um, the Yankees are baddass. They won, 26 rings, you do that, you are going to have a bunch of alltime great teams.
Look, this started out as an 86 Mets vs. 98 Yankees debate. And then for no stated reason, Larry suggested eliminating the Mets and going with a league of 40% Yankee teams. Don't crap your pants over my response.
Any Slam dunk list is silly without the 39 Yankees. I am not sure the 76 reds are a slam dunk.
Any list that does not include either the 75 or 76 Reds is....what's worse than silly? The 75 team won more games (winning their division by 20 games, and leading the Pirates (who won the East) by 16), allowed 47 fewer runs, and won "the greatest World Series ever"; the 76 team infamously swept both post-season series.
Take your pick, but one of those teams belong.
I'd agree that we shouldn't jump to conclusions. The fact that I have had any serious part in this conversation alone is enough to make me think that some of the other history specialist guys should weigh in. The guys who have seen or read extensively about some of the older teams might be able to provide some special insight into some of these teams (like Andy and the 54 Indians). Maybe this could be a poll thing on the front page, about how many teams are involved. 10, 12, 16, 20, 24, or something like that.
Hoisted on your own petard.
I know you are but what am I. Jeter rulz.
Really? Because I didn't say three to five other teams? I expect the Mets will be one of those 3 to five, but there are several other teams with equally good credentials as them. So the debate should be over those teams.
I would be content with a 16 team division. 16-24 seems fun to me, with 16 probably being the best mix of pure greatness and the chance for surprises.
No Braves teams on the list?
Really? Because I didn't say three to five other teams? I expect the Mets will be one of those 3 to five, but there are several other teams with equally good credentials as them. So the debate should be over those teams.
So I suggest eliminating the 98 Yankees and inserting the 86 Mets. After all, everybody knows the 86 Mets are indisputably the best team ever.
1906 Cubs
1927 Yankees
1976 Reds
1998 Yankees
2001 Mariners
The '76 reds finished 2nd or 3rd in runs allowed IIRC. Certainly a great team, but I don't see why they're one of the slam dunks. Ditto for the Mariners given that they didn't make it to or win the WS. For me, an absolute slam dunk has to win over 100 games, lead the league in runs scored and runs against, and win the WS (ideally in a non-expansion year):
1906 Cubs
1927 Yankees
1939 Yankees
1970 Orioles
1984 Tigers
1986 Mets
1998 Yankees
(might be a couple I'm forgetting)
Perhaps. But even during the regular season, the '60 Pirates were kind of lucky, having everything kind of come together for them at once. The same essential roster went 78-76 in 1959 and 75-79 in 1961. The 1960 Yankees were just the first of five successive pennant winners, with the same core of talent.
Plus over the course of a 154 game season, the Yankees wouldn't have been able to pitch Whitey Ford in 2 out of every 7 games, and he was the only effective Yankee starter in that whole Series.
Yes, but neither would the Pirates have been able to start Vern Law in 3 out of every 7 games. Both teams faced the same conditions in the series, and the Yankees shredded every pitcher on the Pirates' staff except Law and Haddix.
The NL was a meaningfully superior league in that period. But I think I'd take my chances with the 1960 Yankees' roster over that of the 1960 Pirates, over a full season or a short series.
I can't believe it's anything but the 1927 Yankees.
1st in the AL in offensive R/G, 1st at home, 1st on the road. Team OPS+ was 137. One thirty seven.
1st in the AL in defensive R/G, 1st at home, 1st on the road. Team ERA+ was 120.
I'd love to say the '06 Cubs, with their 150 ERA+ pitching staff, but come on, it was 1906.
So let it go. He's just doing a shtick.
How bout the original league the teams were in?
What schtick? This is supposed to be a site for analysis and debate. The whole point of this exercise is to determine which team or teams is/are the best. Larry's conclusory assertions in support of his attempt to dominate what should otherwise be an interesting exercise are extremely irritating and not at all helpful.
Sick.
Why would they play games 5,6 & 7?
1906 Cubs
1927 Yankees
1939 Yankees
1970 Orioles
1984 Tigers
1986 Mets
1998 Yankees
The '06 Cubs, of course, didn't win the Series, and the '86 Mets were (a close) second in runs against.
Obviously, 16 teams would make for some hard choices. Your high end of 24 leaves the chance that (maybe) a couple of less that stellar choice gain inclusion. Such as the fluke 2001 Mariners. 24, yes... 16, I doubt it. Not if your using Andy's standards from #81.
--------
trevise
So the Yankees could win a game?
Oops...I'm so used to thinking about the '06 Cubs as an all-time great team that I forgot that they actually didn't win the WS.
The Mets led the league in ERA...so close enough.
Word. Lets try to cut 5 teams from the top 21 we had earlier. That gets us to 16 and if we want to go lower, like Larry was suggesting we can cut again. Here's the list you posted RB:
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
1970 Orioles
1974 A’s
1975 Reds
1984 Tigers
1986 Mets
1995 Indians
1998 Yankees
1998 Braves
2001 Mariners
I'm happy to cut the 1954 Indians after what Andy said and I'd cut the Braves because they lost to the Padres in the NLCS.
If 12, 19, 33 and 44 aren't part of some hugely unfunny parody of a Mets' troll, that's pretty disapointing
They went 17-1 in those games.
Steve, I dunno. I lived and died with those Yankee teams, but I think they looked a lot better in the AL than they would have looked in the NL of that period.
And if you give any credence to Pythags, the 1960 Pirates were 92-62 in that department, vs 89-65 for the 1960 Yanks, who were playing in a decidedly inferior league. Much as I usually dismiss the whole canard of "East Coast media bias," I think that the biggest advantage the Yanks had over the Pirates that year was name recognition.
I can also live with cutting the completely out-of-context teams, like the '84 Tigers. I'd prefer to keep some team from the Braves' run around though
Ah, must have been errors that did them in. Still, I think they belong. They were first in BA, OBP, SLG, runs scored, OPS+, and had an ERA+ of 131. QUITE FRANKLY, THAT'S ALL YOU NEED.
Then we're not really looking for the best team, are we?
From my understanding he's going to run enough sims to where if a team finishes well, it's not by accident.
Ditto for the Mariners given that they didn't make it to or win the WS.
The 1906 Cubs didn't win the WS. The Mariners are included based off the previous discussion, and I think have to be included for that reason even if they're not a top 20 team (but I think they are).
1906 Cubs
1927 Yankees
1976 Reds
1998 Yankees
2001 Mariners
I'm sorry, but IMHO there is no way in the world that a team that did not win the World Series -- and especially one that didn't even get there -- can be a "slam dunk" team that "needs to be on this list." Success as a major league team is defined by winning the frigging World Series. When constructing a list of the all-time best teams -- the very best of over 100 years -- there is just no way that a non-WS participant is a "must include." Period. Frankly, I would limit the field to teams that at least won the pennant, or at least which lost in the post-season to a team that belongs in this field. I'd leave out the 2001 Mariners entirely. But if they belong, they sure ain't an automatic.
I would think of the 84 Tigers as a slam dunk. They basically owned the league from start to finish, handily beat the Padres in the series, killed Kansas City. Led the league in runs and runs allowed, OPS+ and ERA+, and finished ahead of the second best team in the league by 15 games. Tigers of 83 and 85 might not have been that good, but I think those 84 Tigers are as dominant as you can get in a single season.
I wouldn't discount a great team because they lost a series. (i.e.: 1906 Cubs) Nor would I include a less than great team (1961 Yankees) because they won one.
Hence, maybe the standard should be: Did a team dominate over multiple seasons? Then pick the best one from that.
--------
trevise
If 12, 19, 33 and 44 aren't part of some hugely unfunny parody of a Mets' troll, that's pretty disapointing
Ok, those were, but I am serious that Larry is being ridiculous to insist that we run this sim in a manner that assumes the conclusion he advocates. His position is basically that the 98 Yankees are in because only a fanboy would disagree. That kind of thinking makes me wonder who's in charge of giving out the keys to the site here.
That's a definition of success, certainly a primary one. But it's hardly the only one. There are a whole raft of World Series-winning teams that aren't worthy of even the most cursory consideration on this list.
Well, Rob, he's right about that. Anyone who wouldn't include the 1998 Yankees in a field of the 16-24 best baseball teams of all time is either (a) delusional, (b) takes his extreme anti-Yankeeism to a degree unseen even in my worst moments, or (c) is just trying to be difficult.
Rob, this is supposed to be fun, I don't see the need to get so belligerent. I'd like to think this can be discussed reasonably without resorting to bashing people who disagree with us.
Well, sure. I'm not saying winning the WS is enough, standing alone, to get a team considered. <1988 Dodgers cough cough> But if you want to be an automatic for this list, it is a minimum criterion. And a team that fails to win the WS should have to overcome a very strong presumption against inclusion.
Well, Rob, he's right about that. Anyone who wouldn't include the 1998 Yankees in a field of the 16-24 best baseball teams of all time is either (a) delusional, (b) takes his extreme anti-Yankeeism to a degree unseen even in my worst moments, or (c) is just trying to be difficult.
I'm sorry, I misstated. His position is that only a fanboy would say that the 1986 Mets are as good as the 1998 Yankees, which, as I recall, is your position, fanboy.
Well, you are doing this, so I think you should have significant input. Trevis has convinced me that 16-20 teams is pretty good, and it seems that most people are leaning towards cutting teams (at least they were, now maybe not). What size group do you have in mind right now?
That, and a 28-run scoring advantage in seven games they played in October. :-)
Of course the Yankees of that period were overrated by the mainstream media, but that doesn't mean they weren't damn good. The essentially same rosters of both teams went out there again in 1961 (except that Bobby Shantz, a very good pitcher, went from the Yankees to the Pirates). The Pirates finished 6th in an 8-team league, while the Yankees won 109 games, the pennant, and the World Series over the NL champ in 5 games.
regular-season stats are the best we have, but on occasion the team isn't playing to score runs or to prevent runs primarily.
The 1998 Yankees won their division by eighty-four bazillion games, and because of baseball's seeding system, they couldn't even compete for the best record in the game. Well, they could compete for it, but it didn't do anything for them.
Like the Colts of this year, there was talk late in the year about this meaning nothing if they didn't take home the prize at the end.
So they would have lost the last seven straight games if the alternative was Chad Curtis getting a turf toe.
We have to ignore this, because there's no real alternative. But great races beget great teams; many of these teams listed didn't play a meaningful regular-season game past August 1 or so.
I haven't bashed anybody. I just object to the sim being run according to one fanboy's conclusional premises.
Well, now that's a horse of a different color. If that's the position you're criticizing, then I'm with you. There is a perfectly plausible (and to my biased mind, convincing) argument that the '86 Mets were just as good.
I wasn't going to get involved here, but I categorize this as "Rob bashes Larry".
28 teams would work out to 162 games, each team playing the others 6 times. That's probably my preference.
Cute, but there's no substantial difference between the game played by the 1890s Beaneaters & Orioles & the game played by the 1902 Pirates, who are on the list. 1893 is the better cutoff from a baseball perspective.
The only differences betwen them and the Pirates:
1) The Pirates played 142 games. Boston 132. Baltimore 135.
2) Strength of schedule. 12 team leauge for B & B. 16 teams for Pitt. Based on the work of some (Dick Cramer? prospectus's WARP3 calculaters? Actually I think both) the 1902 NL was actually the weaker of the two leagues back then, too.
I think both the 1890s teams are actually more qualified than the Pirates.
& it doesn' hurt their case that both were a strong force to be reckoned with for years on end.
The 1927 Yankees are indisputably the best team ever.
The definition you're using for "indisputably" -- it bares no relation to the one I'm familiar with.
Pot, kettle - black.
Look, say what you feel is right, but everyone judges others based on what they see.
Then again... maybe setting the standards (criteria) should come before choosing the teams?!?!?
--------
trevise
When I was in grade school, my teachers wouldn't accept "he started it" as an excuse.
Look, say what you feel is right, but everyone judges others based on what they see.
Brilliant. You know, saying childish things like this only makes other people angrier and perpetuates what has now become a distraction from what we're talking about here.
I'll drop the subject since, regardless of how Yankee trolls read the exchange, nobody agrees with Larry's proposal.
16 teams, 180 games, no playoffs.
the teams need not have won the WS, but as Sam intimates above, not winning one should count as a strike against their inclusion.
5 games a day get simmed, for a total of one month of action, with updates being at least as available as the excerable Lounge fantasy league that people drone on and on about.
I agree with this and, in fact, proposed something similar on the first thread. I wanted to include the teams we were debating on that thread - because we were debating them - and them some number of other teams meating agreed criteria.
I agree.
This is a discussion about how things are to be run, Larry made a point, it was discussed. What is the big deal, no one said it was running that way, in fact no one else is even discussing the possibility of an 8 team league.
That sounds okay to me. Here's some possible criteria.
1) # of wins?
2) World Series Winner?
3) Led the league in runs scored, runs prevented or both?
I don't mind the play-in idea that Erik is proposing for some bubble teams too.
Was that mistype snark? It looks like it, but I'm too lazy/busy to look over my last few posts.
Again, a minimum number of games in a year should be enforced, for labor problems.
I think that either playoffs count or don't.
I think WWII is completely out, as is the 9th century.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main