The moral here is that it takes an all-time great team to defeat the Padres in the World Series.

A #### Men

I'd like to see a 19th century team.

But setting that aside for the moment, we had I think 121 20th century pre-expansion pennant races, right?

And about 89 post-expansion.

Any list that isn't about 60 percent pre-expansion is pandering to our short memories and personal prejudices.

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.

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.

Nice to see the Yankee fan downrating the Yanks, and the non-Yankee fan sticking up for them. They can't accuse us of fanboyism here, at least.

IMO the 1961 team belongs in the top 20 but not top 10, the 1960 team was considerably short of that, and what the 1960-64 Yanks accomplished was impressive, but not nearly as impressive as what more than a few other teams have done. To name some of them: 06-10 Cubs; 10-14 A's; 15-18 Red Sox; 21-24 Giants; 26-28 Yanks; 29-31 A's; 36-43 Yanks; 47-53 Yanks; 62-66 Dodgers; 66-74 O's; 71-75 A's; 89-93 Blue Jays; 91-05 Braves; and of course the 95-05 Yanks. Some of these teams get here because of actual dominance, and some because of a combination of slightly lesser dominance coupled with better competition. The only one of those 5 Yankee teams from 1960 to 1964 that was clearly the best team in baseball was the 1961 team. How the hell they every beat the Giants in 1962 I'll never know, except that Ralph Terry pitched the game of his life a la Jack Morris and Willie McCovey foolishly hit a line drive about a hundreth of an inch on his bat from where he should have hit it.

I think WWII is completely out, as is the 9th century.

Yes, those 9th century ball clubs were quite primitive. ;-)

Regarding WWII, it should be understood that the major effect of the draft in plucking MLB players from rosters really didn't kick in until 1943. The 1942 season was played fairly close to full strength.

Ack!

I figure that a sim of a certain length might yield a fluky result, inversely proportional to the number of games.

If we're doing this unscientifically anyway (which I am of the opinion that we are), we should embrace possible flukiness - maybe we all learn something about a player who died before we were born, or the reverse?

Like what if Babe Ruth hit 14 HRs in our league? What if Tino Martinez hits 40 HRs? No, wait... that happened.

D'oh! was my post eaten?

Apparently it wasn't. Good; I liked it.

Steve, I was making fun of a typo from Page One with the 9th century thing.

Regarding WWII, it should be understood that the major effect of the draft in plucking MLB players from rosters really didn't kick in until 1943. The 1942 season was played fairly close to full strength.

If this is generally accepted truth, I don't mind putting the 1942 Cards back in, at least as a bubble team.

Finally, considering that Rob Neyer is at least a sometimes Primate, I am in favor of someone shooting him an email with our basic structure before we finalize. He wrote a book about this very thing, after all.

the 1942 Cardinals = "The Moopes".

If you're willing to put the '06 Cubs or '54 Indians in despite losing a playoff series, then why not put the '01 M's in despite losing a playoff series?

First of all, because reaching the World Series is a more successful outcome than not reaching the World Series. The presumption against those two teams is not as strong as the one that should operate against a team that didn't even get there.

Second, as I said, the "pennant winners" cut-off was one of two alternatives I suggested; the other was to limit it to teams that -- if they lost -- at least lost to another team deserving of being in this field. That would apply whether they lost to that other team in the WS or the play-offs.

To be clear (and to alter my position from # 164): if it were up to me, I would make a list of the non-WS winners who had remarkable regular season dominance. All three of the teams mentioned would qualify. Those teams would be eligible, but certainly would not be automatic. But they'd have to overcome a strong presumption that their lack of ultimate success in reaching their goal of winning the WS should rule them out. One way they could do that would be if they'd lost to another all-time great team, whether in the play-offs or in the WS. (Say, for example, the 1912 Giants.) Another way might be if they were SO dominant in the regular season that they transcended even the greatness that is typical for this list. Maybe -- maybe -- that would let the 2001 Mariners sneak in.

The thing is this. I think there is an underlying lack of respect for the post-season around here, this whole "it's just luck," "small sample" size thing. But to me, that's the whole point of playing the game, to win the World Series. To treat those teams that didn't do it on equal footing with those that did just seems to be antithetical to the whole point of the competition. This isn't European football, where accumulating the most regular-season success is itself the most important reward in the domestic leagues. There are at least a dozen teams I'd put in this ahead of the 2001 Mariners (and the 1954 Indians, and the 1906 Cubs).

If this is generally accepted truth

I don't know if it's generally accepted or not, but it is truth.

Players in military service for the full season, AL, NL:

1942 40,31
1943 119,100
1944 168,174
1945 180,204

I think WWII is completely out, as is the [1]9th century.

I'd still love to hear a reason why. A good reason. No one has a problem with the '02 Pirates being on the list, & I don't see what advantages they have, unless you'd rather see teams who played against weaker competition, as those Pirates did.

I'm surfing primer today & I go into one thread and people are mocking the Jack Morris-for-HoF candidacy because it's so often based on an arbitrary bounded period of time (most wins in the 1980s!!), and I come here and I see an equally arbitrary time-boundary chosen & not even debated with no real justification for why it's the boundary to be chosen.

I say 1893 makes a sensible break. Very different game before then. From 1896-7 to 1902, there is NO substantive difference that I can tell. The biggie is that the Pirates were playing against weaker competition.

Both Boston & Baltimore were terrific teams for several years in a row, and I fail to see how choosing one or both of them in their best respective seasons lessens the quality of this enterprise, and no one has given a reason worth a [bleep] to say otherwise. And I can definately see how arbitrarily choosing a random boundary based on the logic of "Oh! Round numbered year!" does weaken it.

Willie McCovey foolishly hit a line drive about a hundreth of an inch on his bat from where he should have hit it.

Or as Charlie Brown put it, "Why couldn't McCovey have hit the ball just three feet higher?"

That was a very good book even though I disagreed with the exact order of their (Neyer's and Epstein's) rankings, but be warned: They only considered World Series winners. Properly so IMO, but I know a lot of people don't like that.

*is trying to figure out how the 1986 Mets might have lost to the 1912 Giants - figuring that this is Sam's stealth angle*


Regarding playoff successes and failures, Sam, does it tarnish how great a team was if their best player pulls a hammy in October instead of in May?

But to me, that's the whole point of playing the game, to win the World Series.

That it may be the whole point of playing the game doesn't mitigate at all the issues of sample size that everyone should take very seriously in considering playoff & WS results.

I don't know if it's generally accepted or not, but it is truth.

Didn't mean to call your veracity into question, Steve. I just would prefer to hear it from more than one source.

but be warned: They only considered World Series winners.

In that case, I think we should make pains to allow non-WS winners (penalized as I speculated above) in. Nothing against Neyer and Epstein, but a study like this might lead to more interesting results if we go with completely different criteria than a well-publicized study did before.

No one has a problem with the '02 Pirates being on the list, & I don't see what advantages they have, unless you'd rather see teams who played against weaker competition, as those Pirates did.

Treder can probably address this better than I can with my feeble memory, but IIRC the 02 Pirates were about the only NL team that year which wasn't significantly hurt by defections to the AL. This has always put a cloud over that team for me, great as it undoubtedly was. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

By the way, I've taken my own advice and sent the link to this thread to Neyer.

out of order, I'm fine with including one or both of the 19th century teams you mention as at least a bubble team.

Maybe we should pick 14 consensus teams, then make a pool of the others that deserve consideration? I can run 100 seasons with those teams and put the best two into the mix.

Sam- But that's just silly. How often have there been 2 top-30 teams in the same year? The 1995 Indians went 9-6 in the playoffs. I would consider their playoff record a positive consideration despite that I ####### hate Mike Hargrove. Andy seems to think the 1995 Braves are worthy of being on this list, but he's probably the only person outside of Georgia who would even consider such a thing.
Postseason success should absolutely be considered, but arbitrary little rules like that scream "I'm trying to exclude one team for no good reason".

Beyond that you're dangerously close to sounding like that one guy on r.s.b. who thought the NCAA men's baskebtall champion could beat a bad NBA team, the real goal of a MLB franchise is to turn a profit. That's the whole point.
This isn't about evaluating how happy ownership was after the season, it's about talent level. Going 3-4 against a good team in October tells you precious little about how good a team is.

out of order, I'm fine with including one or both of the 19th century teams you mention as at least a bubble team.

OK. Looking over my previous post I apologize if it came off as churlish or obnoxious. My main point isn't that the Beaneaters & Orioles and belong - maybe they do, maybe they don't - but I'd like to see the cut off date for what teams can/'t be allowed in be based on something other than round-number-dom.

Regarding playoff successes and failures, Sam, does it tarnish how great a team was if their best player pulls a hammy in October instead of in May?

Put it this way. When a manager is asked about his star player's hamstring pull in May, he doesn't look ashen and like he's looking ahead to spring training. When he's asked after his team is eliminated in October about whether the injury hurt the team, that is usually exactly how he looks.

It "tarnishes" them because they did not achieve the goal that is the dream every team (save the Royals, of course) shares when it reports to spring training. And it "tarnishes" them only relative to the other company on this list. Remember, the point we're discussing here is to narrow the list among teams that ALL have very strong claims to greatness. You will never, ever convince me that the 2001 Mariners were as great as the 1970 Orioles, the 1975 Reds, the 1937 Yankees, the 1955 Dodgers, etc., etc. In this company, you either have to have achieved it ALL -- great regular season dominance and glory in the post-season -- or you better have one hell of a good reason that you failed on # 2.

Treder can probably address this better than I can with my feeble memory, but IIRC the 02 Pirates were about the only NL team that year which wasn't significantly hurt by defections to the AL.

It was definitely a chaotic period, before they got everyone to obey the Reserve Clause. But it's still the case that the Pirates ran away with the '01 NL by 7.5 games and the '03 NL by 6.5. Sure, the precise '02 results are kind of flukey, but the Pirates were an authentically great team.

In this company, you either have to have achieved it ALL -- great regular season dominance and glory in the post-season -- or you better have one hell of a good reason that you failed on # 2.

But here's the thing, Sam: the flukiness of results that short series create is one hell of a good reason.

Treder can probably address this better than I can with my feeble memory, but IIRC the 02 Pirates were about the only NL team that year which wasn't significantly hurt by defections to the AL.

The book Where They Ain't argues (well, actually just flatly states) that this done intentionally because Ban Johnson wanted to ruin the NL pennant race that year & have a team without an AL team run away with it to depress attendence for them & thus help the fledgling AL. Interesting theory - but he provides absolutely no evidence to back it up while stating it as fact. Maybe it's true, and it does have some appeal, but no one knows.

So let's hammer this out - this site isn't really set up for democracy.

So the first ten affirmitive votes for a team makes it a lock for our tourney.
Between five and nine votes makes it a possible bubble team.

SG prefers 28 teams. I think there should be about twenty locks and eight "wild cards".

Therefore, after twenty teams get ten votes each, voting is CLOSED. The next sixteen teams play four eight spots.

Vote for as many teams as you want, and ignore playoffs if you choose (but be aware that others may not do so).

I'll go first - I'm not a history fanatic, so I can only vote for teams I saw: the 1995 Indians and the 1998 Yankees. Das it.

I think we should make pains to allow non-WS winners (penalized as I speculated above) in. Nothing against Neyer and Epstein, but a study like this might lead to more interesting results if we go with completely different criteria than a well-publicized study did before.

My reason for omitting non-WS winners is twofold: First, Sam's reason as he stated in #210; and second, there are just so damn many teams which are so damn good and so close to each other, that the postseason for me acts as a kind of tiebreaker, at least when you're narrowing it down to 10 or 15 teams.

But if you're going to let a few postseason losers in, it makes a bit more sense to consider teams like (for instance) the 73 Reds, which (1) won their division easily and (2) lost a short series by one game; OR the 95 Indians, which (1) crushed everyone in the regular season, (2) beat a "team of destiny" with a white-hot pitcher (Seattle/Randy Johnson) in the LCS, and then (3) lost to another all-time great team in the Series; OR the 01 Mariners, which (1) dominated every team in their league from start to finish in the regular season, (2) won the first round against a pretty good Indians team; and (3) lost to a 3-time defending champion in the LCS. There are others.

As opposed to a team like the 1954 Indians, which (1) got into the Series by beating up on 5 of the worst teams ever and breaking even with the only two other good teams in their league, and (2) got beaten rather handily (one fluke loss and 3 mail it ins) by a pretty good but hardly great team in the Series.

You may want to set up a time for voting to start, so everyone interested knows when to log on. Having an election on Dec 26 with no advance notice really could skew things.

Those damned people with loving families get no special treatment around here!

That's a good point, out of order. Do you wanna choose a date and time?

I really hate when good ideas are acknowledged as such and then peter out. I find that hard deadlines make projects come true.

But if you're going to let a few postseason losers in, it makes a bit more sense to consider teams like (for instance) the 73 Reds, which (1) won their division easily and (2) lost a short series by one game; OR the 95 Indians, which (1) crushed everyone in the regular season, (2) beat a "team of destiny" with a white-hot pitcher (Seattle/Randy Johnson) in the LCS, and then (3) lost to another all-time great team in the Series; OR the 01 Mariners, which (1) dominated every team in their league from start to finish in the regular season, (2) won the first round against a pretty good Indians team; and (3) lost to a 3-time defending champion in the LCS. There are others.

As opposed to a team like the 1954 Indians, which (1) got into the Series by beating up on 5 of the worst teams ever and breaking even with the only two other good teams in their league, and (2) got beaten rather handily (one fluke loss and 3 mail it ins) by a pretty good but hardly great team in the Series.

Eminently well said. The right thing is to consider all the evidence at our disposal, carefully, and in as close to the proper proportion as we can.

The issue I have with automatically excluding playoff/WS losers is the apparent underlying assumption that all playoff/WS winners "deserved" to win. Every playoff/WS result should be held to the same degree of scrutiny.

My reason for omitting non-WS winners is twofold

If you do go this rout I'd humblely suggest considering the 1906-7 Cubs. 107 wins - which is to this day the fourth best ever by an NL team (!) - behind the '86 Met, Big Red Machine, and of course, the 1906 WS-losing Cubs. No non-Cub won that many in a season until '27.

If you want to omit all non-WS winners, though I disagree with that approach, I could understand it. But rather than causing you to omit the Tinker-Evers-Chance teams, one should just subsitute it for a different team.

As Bill James noted, the most wins in a two year period was the 1906-7 Cubs. In a three year period it was the 1906-8 Cubs, and two of those teams won it.

However you slice it, I don't see how any list of best teams ever doesn't contain one of those teams. Also, it's the best case of "if you're ever going to make an exception for a non-WS winner, boy should it be the '06 Cubs."

But here's the thing, Sam: the flukiness of results that short series create is one hell of a good reason.

We just disagree on that, Steve. I don't dismiss the post-season for its "flukiness." I value it for the test it presents of performing under pressure and performing against the best competition that season has to offer. It's like a final exam: students complain all the time that they really knew the material better than they were able to show on the final, that it shouldn't all come down to one, 3-hour exam, that they might have just had a bad day. Whatever. That is the way we measure success: how did you do on the final? It may be fluky on occasion, and maybe even more than just on occasion. But it is the definition of accomplishment.

True greatness is measured not just by a spectacular regular season -- that's a necessary, but not a sufficient, basis. That buys you a ticket to the dance. But as I understand the idea here, it's to pick something like the Sweet 16, not the original field of 64. What happened in the post-season in 2001 and 1906 is kind of like what happens the first weekend of the NCAA tournament: the second seed can get knocked out in one game, flukish though it may be, and not advance.

Remember this: we're talking about truly great teams here. There are enough of those that for every non-WS winner you include, you are going to exclude a WS winner that also was a tremendous, dominant, regular season force. When we're measuring distinct seasons against one another, some decades apart, are we that confident in saying that the 2001 Mariners were better than a team that was nearly as dominant in the regular season and also won the World Series??? I'm not. To me, at the least, counting post-season success -- heavily -- is the antidote for assuming too much from inevitably shaky comparisons of teams from different eras based on their respective run differentials and win totals against completely different competition.

That's a good point, out of order. Do you wanna choose a date and time?

I get the cal? Cool!

Start it at noon on January 3. Let it run for a week (hey, the week deadline works for the HoM). Sure, it'd be more fun to do it now and it sucks to wait, but I think you'd get better results if you waited a bit. The HoM usually takes those weeks off. They've got an election going on, but at this point everyone knows the drill over there. Here's you've got an election which was just thought up - what? yesterday? May want to let people get back from the holidays before finalizing anything.

Cap how many teams a person can vote for. I dunno how many it should be capped at. 20 sound good to you?

Heh. The 2001 Mariners almost got knocked off in the Divisional Series by the Cleveland Indians... LIVE on Fox Family. God I hate Selig. Playoffs? Fox Family?

Odd as it may sound, I think that Indians might have given the Yankees a better Series, because the Yankees and their patience, even when it was declining a bit, still devoured finesse pitchers in the post season. The Mariners' staff followed that type, besides Sele, who the Yankees always smacked around anyway. CLE had fire throwing Colon and Yankee Killer/High Heel Victim Chuck Finley [who incidentally, kinda sucked in '01. But whatever, that's my half baked point and I'm sticking to it]

BTW I just re-read Neyer & Epstein and realize that I was mistaken about their only including WS winners. They both put the 06 Cubs and 12 Giants.

Andy seems to think the 1995 Braves are worthy of being on this list, but he's probably the only person outside of Georgia who would even consider such a thing.

I put them on my top 10 list because of their great pitching staff combined with their 11-3 postseason, which included a relatively easy win over a (probably) even better, and historically dominant, Indians team in the Series. Great pitching can stop great hitting, and that Series was a pretty good case in point. And holding that Indians team to three and a half runs a game is great pitching in my book.

Of course if you discount the postseason, Atlanta has had several more dominant teams in their run---but I don't discount the postseason.

However you slice it, I don't see how any list of best teams ever doesn't contain one of those teams. Also, it's the best case of "if you're ever going to make an exception for a non-WS winner, boy should it be the '06 Cubs."

My thoughts exactly. Which is why I mentioned the 1906 Cub should be an inclusion, upthread.

--------
trevise

Also Neyer/Epstein didn't include one-year wonders like the 1984 Tigers in their top 15. They were looking more at dynasties than the single-year teams.

... say 1893 makes a sensible break. Very different game before then. From 1896-7 to 1902, there is NO substantive difference that I can tell. The biggie is that the Pirates were playing against weaker competition.

Both Boston & Baltimore were terrific teams for several years in a row, and I fail to see how choosing one or both of them in their best respective seasons lessens the quality of this enterprise, ...

I have some aesthetic problems with picking the Orioles, and I wonder a little bit how well their game would travel if we didn't let them intimidate the umpires. That, and who did they ever have as pitchers? Bill Hoffer? Sadie McMahon?

The Beaneaters are a more likeable team, and it would be an interesting challenge to educate fans about how great Kid Nichols was, or how much there was to appreciate about Herman Long, Jimmy Collins, Hugh Duffy, and Billy Hamilton. But I couldn't find any one year in which they cleanly led the league in both defense and offense. And as for the won-loss records of those teams - yes, there were only 12 major league teams. But the bottom 4 or so, the teams like Washington and St. Louis, were so bad that the good teams all padded their records by beating up on them pretty regularly.

The cross-ownership scandals of 1899-1900 resulted in the artificial assembling of superteams in Brooklyn, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis. I'd be a little queasy about recognizing the 1902 Pirates without thinking about the collateral damage caused - the destruction and dissolution of the Louisville Colonels. Louisville, a perpetual doormat team, had just had the good fortune to come up with Fred Clarke and Honus Wagner, among others.

I don't dismiss the post-season for its "flukiness."

Neither do I. But I do soberly acknowledge the inescapable reality of its "flukiness," and bear it mind when drawing conclusions about what its results tell us.

I value it for the test it presents of performing under pressure and performing against the best competition that season has to offer. It's like a final exam: students complain all the time that they really knew the material better than they were able to show on the final, that it shouldn't all come down to one, 3-hour exam, that they might have just had a bad day. Whatever. That is the way we measure success: how did you do on the final? It may be fluky on occasion, and maybe even more than just on occasion. But it is the definition of accomplishment.

Again, it's a definition of accomplishment. That doesn't make it the definition, and certainly not the only possible, or the best possible, definition. Perhaps the final exam method is a weakness, not a strength, of our schooling paradigm.

When we're measuring distinct seasons against one another, some decades apart, are we that confident in saying that the 2001 Mariners were better than a team that was nearly as dominant in the regular season and also won the World Series??? I'm not.

Neither am I. But I don't think giving undue weight to either team's performance in a particular short series helps a whole lot. Nobody said this was easy.

To me, at the least, counting post-season success -- heavily -- is the antidote for assuming too much from inevitably shaky comparisons of teams from different eras based on their respective run differentials and win totals against completely different competition.

The comparison is inevitably shaky. What you see as an antidote, I think is more accurately seen as a too-facile panacea.

I wish short-series post-season results were more determinative than they are in identifying and rewarding the best teams. But I think we have to careful to perceive things as they are instead of how we wish they are.

I vote for 1986 Mets and 1988 Mets. :-)

Ah, crap, I screwed up the italics again ... SORRY!!!

Treder!

Fixed.

My reason for omitting non-WS winners is twofold

If you do go this rout I'd humblely suggest considering the 1906-7 Cubs. 107 wins - which is to this day the fourth best ever by an NL team (!) - behind the '86 Met, Big Red Machine, and of course, the 1906 WS-losing Cubs. No non-Cub won that many in a season until '27.

If you want to omit all non-WS winners, though I disagree with that approach, I could understand it. But rather than causing you to omit the Tinker-Evers-Chance teams, one should just subsitute it for a different team.

That's a good point, especially since the 07-08 Cubs went 8-1-1 against two very good Detroit teams in the World Series. I certainly would rank the 06-10 Cubs in the top 4 or 5 mini-dynasties, probably behind only the 36-39, 49-53 and 96-00 Yankees for sure. That 1906 World Series was light years ahead of every other Series in terms of historic upsets.

I don't dismiss the post-season for its "flukiness." I value it for the test it presents of performing under pressure and performing against the best competition that season has to offer. It's like a final exam: students complain all the time that they really knew the material better than they were able to show on the final, that it shouldn't all come down to one, 3-hour exam, that they might have just had a bad day. Whatever. That is the way we measure success: how did you do on the final? It may be fluky on occasion, and maybe even more than just on occasion. But it is the definition of accomplishment.

Good way of putting it, Sam.

Or as they used to say in the pool rooms,---"Did he get there? Did he take home the cheese?"

I don't dismiss the post-season for its "flukiness." I value it for the test it presents of performing under pressure and performing against the best competition that season has to offer. It's like a final exam: students complain all the time that they really knew the material better than they were able to show on the final, that it shouldn't all come down to one, 3-hour exam, that they might have just had a bad day. Whatever. That is the way we measure success: how did you do on the final? It may be fluky on occasion, and maybe even more than just on occasion. But it is the definition of accomplishment.

I used to tell my law school classmates things like this all the time. Big hit with the ladies, I was.

Sam M.- So could I ever convince you that the 2001 Mariners were better than the 2000 Yankees? The 1997 Marlins? I don't grok where "manager happiness" figures into all-time greatness.

Thanks, SG!

Let's just run a most-profitable-team thing. Divide revenue by payroll, and watch the arguments fly!

Well, are we debating criteria or are we choosing it now? And is anyone keeping score and if not shouldn't we appoint someone to formally list what gets decided...?

---------
trevise

So could I ever convince you that the 2001 Mariners were better than the 2000 Yankees? The 1997 Marlins?

Absolutely. Remember, I am arguing against inclusion of the Mariners (or, more precisely, that there should be a strong presumption against it) vis-a-vis other teams that were dominant in the regular season AND won the World Series. I want to allow very, very few teams in who didn't do BOTH -- and the 2000 Yankees and 1997 Marlins didn't do both. World Series winners like the 1959 Dodgers, the 1988 Dodgers, the 1990 Reds, and the two teams you mentioned? They don't even get in the conversation.

I think the assigned expected performance for each player should come from some kind of weighted average of their statistics, centered on the distinct year in question. So Bret Boone isn't assigned a .330/.370/.580 line, he's assigned the average of his '00-02 (or '99-03, or whatever) seasons. Mutes the randomness.

I have some aesthetic problems with picking the Orioles, and I wonder a little bit how well their game would travel if we didn't let them intimidate the umpires. That, and who did they ever have as pitchers? Bill Hoffer? Sadie McMahon?

That's an understandable reason to leave them out. I'm more partial to the Boston club myself. Looking t the '96 O's, they seemed to pioneer the pitching staff style utilized by the Cubs & Pirates in the next decade. The innings were distibuted more evenly among their pitchers than one would expect for a team of that era. In a league where 10 pitchers threw over 339 innings, the O's had one man over 215 IP. Pond & Hoffer were good solid pitchers who blew their arms out after a few years (very typcial of the era), the already declining, but still very good McMahon. Esper was also very good, and Hemming was OK. No great pitchers, but 94% of the innings were tossed by guys with an ERA+ over 100. Not bad.

As for ump intimidation, their ability had more to do with their bats. Their team OBP was 20 points higher than any other team that year. They practiced what they called "scientific hitting" - hit 'em where they ain't as Keeler put it. Keeler, Jennings, & Kelley are all both in the HoF & HoM. The HoM concensus was that Jennings was the best player in baseball for a couple years there -offensive & defensive monster.

McGraw was also a legitimately great player when he was healthy.

The Beaneaters are a more likeable team, and it would be an interesting challenge to educate fans about how great Kid Nichols was, or how much there was to appreciate about Herman Long, Jimmy Collins, Hugh Duffy, and Billy Hamilton. But I couldn't find any one year in which they cleanly led the league in both defense and offense.

In someways they did something even more impressive - they won a league which in some ways wasn't set up for a team like then. The 1897 NL averaged 5.88 runs per game, and the Boston club was a defense & pitching team. If you look at b-ref, the numbers make it look like they were more an offensive team, but if you adjust for park effects (they played in the 2nd best hitters park) their pitching/fielding really comes to the fore. Either way, they were #1 in RA/G & RS/G that year. But they were first and foremost a deadball era team a decade before teh deadball. Ten years later and they'd give the Pirates or Cubs a run for thier money. They may be the best defensive team ever.

James put a cap on the amount of fielding win shares a team could earn in a year (.32375 per game IIRC). Boston hit that cap every year, which was common back then, but in the HoM there were attempts to figure how many fielding win shares a team would get without the cap & the Boston club gained the most. This is all from memory. The general belief was that the two most important defensive positions in that era were 3B & SS - Boston had Defensive God Jimmy Collins at 3B & A+ defender Herman Long at SS. Plus an A+ in CF with Hugh Duffy, and numerous other As, A-s, and B+s in their defense. Put a team constructed like them in 1908 or, heck 1965 - and prepare to be amazed.

there were only 12 major league teams. But the bottom 4 or so, the teams like Washington and St. Louis, were so bad that the good teams all padded their records by beating up on them pretty regularly.

But when you expand from 12 to 16 teams, you let in an extra 33% of players across the league who wouldn't be good enough to get in. 1/3 of your games will come against pitchers who weren't up to snuff for the Beaneaters & Orioles to face. If they're distributed across the league, it'll still have an impact on a team like Pittsburgh. Given that the NL was likely weaker, it would be even more than 33% (4/12 - 4 new teams to 12 old ones) of opposing pitchers for the Pirates. Since the Pirates themselves were the only NL team not raided, it would be an even higher percentage of watered down opponents.

I like the January Third date as well, although I'm going to be grouchy about having to wait. Unless it's easier for SG to do it, I'd set-up the thread and tally the votes, I got nothing to do except perhaps Jury Duty in that time.

Are we doing a 20 team sim, a 28 team sim or what? Seems like that would affect the voting rules

I want to allow very, very few teams in who didn't do BOTH

Well I agree. And including the 2 teams with the most regular season wins in MLB history are the 2 that should get included. Even teams like Tampa and Kansas City can win a 7 game series over a historically great team. They wouldn't be favored, but it definitely would happen a non-negligible percentage of the time. And then when you get 2 good teams playing each other, which you will in the postseason, it's much more likely that a worse team can outplay a better team.

RB, feel free to setup the thread since it was initially your idea. I don't think we've even determined how many teams to include. Maybe we should list every possible team under consideration first, and then whittle it down to see how many teams we should run with.

Even teams like Tampa and Kansas City can win a 7 game series over a historically great team. They wouldn't be favored, but it definitely would happen a non-negligible percentage of the time. And then when you get 2 good teams playing each other, which you will in the postseason, it's much more likely that a worse team can outplay a better team.

Yep. Again, post-season results shouldn't be ignored, but they should be seen for what they properly are, which is inherently erratic as an indicator of competitor quality.

I would vote to include the Mariners. This is not scientific and they were an incredible team that everybody on the site remembers. That's enough for me.

I'd definitly put the '95 Indians on there. And if you are going to pick a recent Braves team you have to go with '97 or '98.

I think the 86 Mets and 2001 Mariners should be included. Not only do I think they're worthy, but those 2 teams (along with the 98 Yankees, who will definitely get included) were basically what sparked this whole idea of how they'd do versus the best of the best.

'86 Mets and '75 Reds are the two best regular-season NL teams of the last 50 years.

Well I agree. And including the 2 teams with the most regular season wins in MLB history are the 2 that should get included.

Including the 1906 Cubs makes sense because they were the best team for a franchise that dominated their league for multiple seasons, (1906-1910) and also won two World Series (1907-08) during that timeframe. Including the 2001 Mariners just because they won 116 games that season does not put them on par with the Best All-time. They need something more than that sole fact to recommend them. With just a wild card the previous season and a division in 2001, thats simply not enough. One year wonder... yes! Dominant in that one year... yes! A team that achieved some claim to lasting greatness... not really.

But if it comes down to most thinking that they are one of the 16, 20, 24, 28, 32 (or whatever amount of teams) that are decided to be in the mix, I'll go along. However, the 1984 Tigers should be included in that same mix as they actually achieved a mark of greatness that alluded the 2001 M's.

--------
trevise

I'm a little worried about a bias towards pre-expansion teams.
It's easier to dominate an 8 team league than it is to dominate
a 16 team one, and if you buy the theory (c.f. Bill James) that
competition now is at an all-time high, then I worry that some
of our more recent great teams might be neglected.

63, good point, but I bet that gets balanced out to a large extent by people's desires to see teams they remember/rooted for in the sim.

If we wanted just "the best five teams" or so, I'd say to go ahead and exclude the 2001 Mariners and 1906 Cubs. But if the line is drawn at "top 20", I think "winning 116 games" is a sufficient accomplishment to put them on the list.

After all, no one's arguing (I think) that all World Series winners have to be ranked ahead of all other teams, right? So at some point, the very best non-WS-winners have to show up.

If the question is how these teams will do against one another in a sim league, teams that didn't win the WS should certainly be considered. I think it's fair to say that the 2001 Mariners or 1998 Braves are just as talented as many teams that actually won the WS.

At the same time, a team that won the WS has certainly accomplished more and is a "better" team in a sense than a team that didn't.

(I'm just skimming, so I apologize if this point has already been raised.)

I agree with much of OCF's concerns but I would include the 1902 Pirates anyway (they won the NL and there was no WS) and if you have a cutoff that excludes the 1902 club, then I would go with the 1909 Pirates. The Clarke, Wagner and beaumont OF may the greatest of all time, rivaling off the top of my head the '27, '39 and '61 Yankees and some of the Cobb- Veach Detroit outfields and the one year of Mays-McCovey in the 60's.

I count a total of 29 teams that were mentioned in the thread, listed below:

1896 Baltimore Orioles
1897 Boston Beaneaters
1902 Pirates
1903 Red Sox
1906 Cubs
1909 Pirates
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
1968 Tigers
1970 Orioles
1974 A’s
1975 Reds
1976 Reds
1984 Tigers
1986 Mets
1995 Braves
1995 Indians
1998 Yankees
1998 Braves
2001 Mariners

We could just eliminate one and go with a 28 team league, or put it to a vote and get it down to 16 or so.

or you could add 3 more.

"One year wonder... yes!"

We're picking one year teams. Thus, it makes sense to pick them. If we were going by 3 year clusters, they might not belong. Every other team picked has been based on 1 year, and pretty much all those teams had a huge peak. Even if they were a dynasty, they always had a crazy spike in the 1 year being considered. Even if you did multi-year clusters, Seattle won 90+ games for 5 years in a row.

This was a very good team that was outstanding for one year. You can try to say they played over their head if you want, but that seems very arbitrary. All these teams did. To win 70% of your games it takes a healthy balance of career years, fluke years, and also outperforming your pythag. To single out Seattle I think is unfair.

2005 Rangers.

I mentioned the 1988 Mets.

Well, whatever our criteria, we can certainly all agree that the 98 Yanks were the Kings of the all-time hill.

114 wins (2nd highest ever in AL; 4th highest winning percentage)
22 games ahead of the second place Red Sox (2nd biggest AL gap)
11-2 postseason
116 OPS+
117 ERA+
1st in runs scored
1st in ERA
Fewest hits allowed
Fewest runs allowed
1st in offensive walks
5th fewest offensive strikeouts
2nd best in walks allowed
4th most strikeouts registered by pitchers
Most shutouts by pitchers (16)
Fewest shutouts allowed (5)
Most complete games
2nd best in stolen bases (with 5 players in double figures)
4th in home runs (with all starters in double figures)
21-10 in one run games
42-13 in blowouts (5 or more run margins)
Highest Defensive Efficiency
3rd fewest errors
Fewest home runs allowed
Payroll below Baltimore's

And all this in an era of worldwide talent infusion, with 30 teams and three levels of playoffs.

No all-white competition. This doesn't affect their relative dominance, but it certainly should count at least as a tiebreaker in comparison to, say, the 1927 or 1936-39 Yankees, etc.

No one year wonder team, either. This was the middle year of the second best five year run in history, with 4 World Championships and one wild card winner. Only the 1949-53 and 1936-39 Yankees can top this, and of course they didn't have to win two rounds of playoffs to advance to the World Series. Not to mention the much lower level of competition.

No team has ever combined the levels of regular season and postseason dominance with the level of competition and number of hurdles, and surpassed the 1998 Yankees, both in a single year and within the context of a period of five years.

And I'd say that no team has even come close. The only serious argument is which team is the second best.

Then start your own thread.

We're picking one year teams. Thus, it makes sense to pick them.

That point doesn't percolate throughout the discussion on the entire thread. Neither has any "written in stone" criteria. Many of the chosen teams actually dominated in multiple consecutive seasons. Lot's of ideas were generated, including penalization or lower status for those teams that don't achieve certain goals.

Of course, I'll miss most of the decisions and selection process since I'm only here (generally) on the weekends so do what you will...

-------
trevise

Even if they were a dynasty, they always had a crazy spike in the 1 year being considered.

Some did, but not all by any means. It isn't obvious that, say, the '53 Yankees were the best Yankee team of that period, or the '55 Dodgers better than the '53 Dodgers, the '74 A's any better than the '72 or '73 A's, etc.

Then start your own thread.

No, I'll just wait to see if anyone is foolish enough to try to knock that team off the mountaintop. It can't be done. You sure as hell can't---or maybe you can. Why don't you try to state your case for the '86 Mets? That was a great team, no doubt. But how did they dominate their year and their league (not to mention the surrounding years) compared to the 98 Yanks? Use as many arguments as you wish, but none of this "well, that's just your opinion" BS. Make a serious case---if you can.

Use as many arguments as you wish, but none of this "well, that's just your opinion" BS. Make a serious case---if you can.

I was under the impression we were going to let Diamond Mind decide which team was best.

Some did, but not all by any means. It isn't obvious that, say, the '53 Yankees were the best Yankee team of that period, or the '55 Dodgers better than the '53 Dodgers, the '74 A's any better than the '72 or '73 A's, etc.

Or for that matter, 1970 Orioles being better than the 1969 or 1971 editions.

That's part of the reason why I see the 2001 M's being such a sorry, lame creature gnawing its leg off in a stainless steel trap. It doesn''t run with the herd and it's not strong enough to run by itself...

Gotta run... Til next time...

-------
trevise

No, I'll just wait to see if anyone is foolish enough to try to knock that team off the mountaintop. It can't be done. You sure as hell can't---or maybe you can. Why don't you try to state your case for the '86 Mets? That was a great team, no doubt. But how did they dominate their year and their league (not to mention the surrounding years) compared to the 98 Yanks? Use as many arguments as you wish, but none of this "well, that's just your opinion" BS. Make a serious case---if you can.

The Mets were better than the Yankees in some of the categories you mentioned (HR, SO, BB allowed), not as good in some (steals, fielding). Same in others (offensive BB, runs scored). And the Yankees didn't have to deal with Ryan, Scott, Clemens, and Hurst in the playoffs.

You didn't state a case - you said why the Yankees were great. If you had compared them in a meaningful way to some other team, you might have something. But don't dispair - that's exactly the intent of this sim.

I was under the impression we were going to let Diamond Mind decide which team was best.

Fine and good, but I was under the perhaps delusional thought that a live human being could try to make a rational case himself for some other team, taking all factors (dominance, level of competition, context of surrounding years, etc.) into consideration. You don't need a computer to be able to do that.

Fine and good, but I was under the perhaps delusional thought that a live human being could try to make a rational case himself for some other team, taking all factors (dominance, level of competition, context of surrounding years, etc.) into consideration. You don't need a computer to be able to do that.

Like I said, if you want to start your own self-congratulatory Yankee thread, I'm sure one of the mods will oblige you. This thread is about an upcoming Diamond Mind sim.

That's part of the reason why I see the 2001 M's being such a sorry, lame creature gnawing its leg off in a stainless steel trap. It doesn''t run with the herd and it's not strong enough to run by itself...

That's an ... interesting perspective.

The issue I have with it is that it's very willing to view the 2001 Mariners' performance over a 162-game test as generating a flukey result, but their performance over a 5-game test as apparently more revealing.

I don't find the line of reasoning persuasive, myself.

The Mets were better than the Yankees in some of the categories you mentioned (HR, SO, BB allowed), not as good in some (steals, fielding). Same in others (offensive BB, runs scored). And the Yankees didn't have to deal with Ryan, Scott, Clemens, and Hurst in the playoffs.

That's a start, though just a start. You make a good point with the level of pitching talent that the Mets faced in the playoffs, but you might have added that aside from Ryan, the Mets didn't do much against any of those four pitchers. Not to mention that they were handed the Series on a silver platter by the feeble remainder of that Red Sox staff (particularly Crawford and Schiraldi), plus a fellow named Buckner. It was a great team, no question about it, but it didn't quite dominate the regular season like the 98 Yanks, it didn't approach the Yanks' postseason dominance (and it had one less round to jump over), and its lack of ultimate success before and after 1986 strongly suggests that this team was not as strong underneath as its one year record might make it appear. That last point, though, should only be fairly used as a tiebreaker, since we're talking about one year teams.

I will admit to one bit of previous hyperbole, though. I shouldn't have said that no team was close to the 98 Yanks. A few were, and the 86 Mets were certainly one of the best of them---just not quite on the Yanks' level, for the reasons above.

Like I said, if you want to start your own self-congratulatory Yankee thread, I'm sure one of the mods will oblige you. This thread is about an upcoming Diamond Mind sim.

What is "self-congratulatory" about this? Do you think I'm on the fu**ing Yankee payroll? Or does making a case for a team's superiority by definition make you "self-congratulatory? You seem to think that the 86 Mets are the Big Cheese, but does this make you "self-congratulatory"? Don't be silly. You're just stating a case, like I am.

As for the purpose of this thread being a runup to a Diamond Mind sim, this shouldn't necessarily exclude making a case for one team as #1. All I can do is write what I think, and you're free to answer it or ignore it as you see fit. Neither response will offend me.

The issue I have with it is that it's very willing to view the 2001 Mariners' performance over a 162-game test as generating a flukey result, but their performance over a 5-game test as apparently more revealing.

Considering that he's arguing in favor of a multi-year sample, I have no idea where you get the idea that he's dismissing them based on five games.

its lack of ultimate success before and after 1986 strongly suggests that this team was not as strong underneath as its one year record might make it appear.

I suppose this would've been remedied by a wild card and an 88-win division champion.

I'm sorry, that should've been "87-win division champion."

Am I too late to voice an opinion?
1. MUST win the World Series. Seeing the 2001 Mariners in here makes me wonder if anyone regards as one of college basketball's best teams the 1991 UNLV squad.
2. The more the merrier.
That is all.

That's part of the reason why I see the 2001 M's being such a sorry, lame creature gnawing its leg off in a stainless steel trap.

I think you're wrong.

Take a 3 year grouping - Seattle won 302 games in a 3 year span. I think that stands up very well when compared to any of the other teams. 393 in 4 years.

Those 1969-1971 Oriole teams were better. Others listed have been worse. So, Seattle stands up in 3 consecutive years to a lot of these other teams. Obviously a lot of that is because of the 1 big year, but that year counts too. In fact, I think it counts extra because it was excellence in a single year which is what I thought we were looking at. I think 93-93-116 is more indicative of greatness in the 116 season than 100-100-100.


Fine and good, but I was under the perhaps delusional thought that a live human being could try to make a rational case himself for some other team, taking all factors (dominance, level of competition, context of surrounding years, etc.) into consideration. You don't need a computer to be able to do that.

You can, but your case wasn't air tight, and you included a lot of pointless stuff. 5th best in the league in fewest strikeouts (I'm not directly quoting you, so they might have done better or worse than this)? Who cares?

1. MUST win the World Series. Seeing the 2001 Mariners in here makes me wonder if anyone regards as one of college basketball's best teams the 1991 UNLV squad.

Yes, and 1974-1975 Indiana.

its lack of ultimate success before and after 1986 strongly suggests that this team was not as strong underneath as its one year record might make it appear.

I suppose this would've been remedied by a wild card and an 88-win division champion.

96-00 Yanks:
4 Division winners
4 Pennants
4 World's Championships
1 Wild Card (lost DS)
Overall postseason record: 46-15

84-88 Mets:
2 Division winners
1 Pennant
1 World's Championship
3 second place finishes
(or 3 wild cards, if you will)
Overall postseason record: 11-9

You tell me which record looks better.

Next debate...set up a league with the WORST 32 teams.

Fine and good, but I was under the perhaps delusional thought that a live human being could try to make a rational case himself for some other team, taking all factors (dominance, level of competition, context of surrounding years, etc.) into consideration. You don't need a computer to be able to do that.

You can, but your case wasn't air tight, and you included a lot of pointless stuff. 5th best in the league in fewest strikeouts (I'm not directly quoting you, so they might have done better or worse than this)? Who cares?

That was but one category out of many, and when it's combined with most walks I would argue its significance. But throw it out if you wish, and then deal with the cumulative effect of the rest of the categories---plus that 11-2 postseason. It's the combination of multifaceted dominant categories which makes the case, not any one of them alone. There have been many better hitting teams, and many better pitching teams (try the 1948 Indians for starters), and a few more dominant postseason teams (including the 1999 Yankees), but when you add all these factors together and combine them with the level and layers of competition which they faced (which elevates them over any Jim Crow team, IMO), I think the case is as close to air tight as any case can be.

I'm aware of cases for other teams which can be reasonably made, especially if you dismiss factors such as the level of competition, postseason success, etc.---but why would you dismiss these? Why shouldn't they enter the equation?

If Treder's still here, I'd be interested in his take on which is the best team, since he starts with the premise that the postseason shouldn't be factored in as much as I do, and since he certainly knows his history.

The Diamond Mind "opinion" will be interesting, but only if it's completely explained how much each factor is weighted, and why. Otherwise it's little more than a geekish curiosity which is a mask for its programmers' biases.

Considering that he's arguing in favor of a multi-year sample, I have no idea where you get the idea that he's dismissing them based on five games.

This part:

it's not strong enough to run by itself...

Yes, they're a one-hit-wonder, and yes, they were ordinary from May 25th to the end of the regular season, but lets give the 1984 Tigers their proper due.


35-5.


Holy ####### ####.

Next debate...set up a league with the WORST 32 teams.
Mr. Throneberry, I'd like you to meet Mr. Inge.

Otherwise it's little more than a geekish curiosity which is a mask for its programmers' biases.

I don't know too much about how DMB works, but as one of the Organizers of this little affair, I should say that this isn't intended to truly answer the question or anything, it really is just a geekish curiosity

If Treder's still here, I'd be interested in his take on which is the best team, since he starts with the premise that the postseason shouldn't be factored in as much as I do, and since he certainly knows his history.

All things considered, including quality of competition, probably the '98 Yankees. But I guess the point I'm laboring to make is that it's something close to impossible to know. And weighing performance in a week (or less) of competition more highly than several months of competition is a step away from the difficult answer, not toward it.