The nanny now puts the right number of #'s to match the word it censors! Thats a cocksuckingmotherfucking trip!

What, no 2004 Red Sox?

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

Fair enough, and I wasn't really trying to put the exercise down. But I do hope that we'll be told just how the DMB comes to its conclusion. You kind of make it sound as if DMB is like a big stone Buddah sitting on a mountaintop, and you all just tiptoe up to it, shove some data in its mouth, and tiptoe away, waiting for the phone call in the middle of the night which announces the decision from on high.

Of course I know this is a caricature, but how does the reality actually differ?

"I should say that this isn't intended to truly answer the question or anything, it really is just a geekish curiosity"

Excellent point. This is all about being amused as far as I'm concerned. It'll be a nice distraction until March Madness/televised spring training. I just hope the 1953 Yanks kick the #### out of the 1912 Red Sox. Oh, my non-Yankee team will be the 95 Indians.

DMB is like a big stone Buddah sitting on a mountaintop, and you all just tiptoe up to it, shove some data in its mouth, and tiptoe away, waiting for the phone call in the middle of the night which announces the decision from on high.
No, it's an enormous computer.
"Forty-two."

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.

Thanks, Steve. And I do appreciate your point, in spite of my own certainty that you've picked the correct team.

Did I ever send you a copy of my little story about the Fred Lieb-arranged showdown between the 1911 A's vs. the 1989 A's? I can't remember. In any case, it could have been fairly dedicated to the very point you raise, namely the impossibility of truly "knowing." It's very long on playing conditions, dirty tricks, and sexual harassment, and very short on statistics.

No, it's an enormous computer.
"Forty-two."

So, Cardinals, then?

No, it's an enormous computer.

With how many arms?

So, Cardinals, then?
Jackie Robinson, actually.

The 1996-2000 Yankees would've made the playoffs twice from 1996-2000 under the 1969 league setup, and that's being generous. They finished 1 game ahead of Cleveland in 1999 but Cleveland was 21.5 games ahead of 2nd place Detroit(Which is apparently half a game away from greatness. And while they are #2 in the AL, the #1 team was 30 games ahead in a 144 game season and there are like 3 teams >20.). I imagine that were the playoff spot on the line Cleveland would've played better.

1998 was a great team, but you can't bleed the "dynasty" effects of getting lucky in the playoffs into their argument.

Any truly great team will by definition be flukey. We are attempting to pick the top 16-32 teams out of hundreds of contenders.

1998 was a great team, but you can't bleed the "dynasty" effects of getting lucky in the playoffs into their argument.


Mariano Rivera sees your "lucky" and raises you a "skill"

"Jackie Robinson, actually."

And Mo.

With how many arms?

None, but compared to the computers you own, it's twice as powerful, 10,000 times larger, and so expensive that only the five richest kings of Europe can own them.

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.

A few thoughts . . First, there's no reason to have both the 1975 & 1976 Reds in there. Also, the 1909 and 1902 Pirates are a bit redudndant. Sure there's seven years between them but both offenses are bolstered by the same big three: Wagner, Leach, & Clarke, and both teams have two pitchers in common - Leever & Phillippe. Personally, I'd go with the 1909 squad - stronger league competition makes up for the 18 point difference in winning percentage. Agree with others that the '42 Cards are iffy at best due to the war.

How about the 92-3 Jays? Not the best records ever, but winning back-to-back in this era isn't easy to do and should at least get them a mention in this conversation. Impossible to pick out which of the two - almost identitcal records, identical post-season records. Identitcal pythag records. Also it helps that it was part of a five year run where they made the postsason four times. The 1992 team won 1 more game so I guess go with them, but the '93 team may have been a little better.

For that matter what about the '88-'90 A's? Didn't have too much success in October, but they did have one sweep in '89, and dominated the AL in '88 & '90. Plus having best bullpen ever is a nice thing to have on the ol' resume.

If the tourney's going to be 32 teams (I don't know if it is or shouldbe, but some have mentioned it so . . .) some might want to consider these teams:

-1978 Yanks. Back-to-back 100 win seasons with WS title. And went to the Series in '76 & '80 as well.

- 1957 Braves. Not great pitching, but they could be dangerous in a short series. Plus I found Bill Jamess's argument in his Mangers book about how Fred Haney wasn't that good a manager. Went to series two years in a row (both times winning pennant by comfortable margin), and threatened for several years around there.

- 1940 Reds: The anti-`57 Braves. Great pitching/defense team. Won league by 12 games (the biggest peacetime margin in the NL betwen 1931 and 1955) after winning the pennant the year before.

- 1931 Cards. Won pennant by 13 games. A close #2 in both RA & RS. Team good enough to win four pennant s in five years.

- 1921 Giants. One of two back-to-back NYG WS champs & in the middle of 4 straight pennant winners. Unless I missed it, no other NL team has ever won 4 straight pennants. First i RS & 2nd in RA. The second basemen was so enamoured with his teammates that he put a bunch of them in Cooperstown.

- 1925 Pirates. Won it all by a good margin & was a very good team all decade, complete with another WS appearance two years later. Great offense which was still #1 in the league if you adjust for their park effect (2nd best hitters park in the league - behind only the Baker Bowl). Adjusting for park also helps thir pitching - in a near deadheat with Cincinnati for best staff after park taken into account.

Again, the above 6 teams should only be seriously considered if going with a 32 team tourney. Well, maybe the '78 Yanks.

The 1996-2000 Yankees would've made the playoffs twice from 1996-2000 under the 1969 league setup, and that's being generous.

And that's assuming that the Yankees would have played as if they'd already nearly clinched a postseason appearance when in fact they hadn't. You're assuming, for example, that the last month of the 2000 season reflected the Yankees' strength more than their 11-5 postseason run against three very strong teams.

And for what it's worth, the 1999 Yanks (who lost all of one game in the postseason and whomped the 103-59 Braves in four straight) beat the Indians 7 out of 10 games during the season, and outscored them 84 to 53. The Indians just might have benefitted from being in the AL Central that year.

None, but compared to the computers you own, it's twice as powerful, 10,000 times larger, and so expensive that only the five richest kings of Europe can own them.

Plus about 10,000 Saudi playboys.

Oh, ok if we're looking at 32 teams, I'm gonna throw out the 1917 White Sox again. They were good enough to throw the World Series two years later. They sure did suck in 1918. Any way, best pitching, by alot, most runs, second best offense when you adjust for the park. Eddie Collins and Shoeless Joe led the team. And for some reason a bunch of the guys on the team all retired at the same time.

While I'm fond of all eras of baseball, and love era-adjusted stats, the HOM, etc, etc, I think it's ludicrous to even consider that any team from before about 1960 could possibly be the greatest. Players have gotten bigger, stronger, and probably more athletic almost universally throughout the 20th centry, and I'm of the opinion that no hitter of 1935 could have had any success against a mediocre pitcher of 2005, and no pitcher of 1935 would stand a chance against a modern major-league lineup, or even an AAA one. That's not to say that Mel Ott wasn't a great hitter or Carl Hubbell was't a great pitcher; if either one had been born in 1975, they'd be superstars in 2005. But, if you take their skills, in their bodies, exactly as they actually were, they would be of no use competing against the major-league bodies and skills of today.

So, while we can talk about the most dominant or successful teams and have the discussion range throughout history, that's because those things are judged by putting the teams in their own context, and measuring them against their contemporary opponents. The idea of the 1906 Cubs actually playing games against the 1973 A's is ridiculous, even in a simultation; it just wouldn't be any kind of contest.

Actually, I'm even more hardline than that. I think that Willie Mays's 1965 body would be at best Juan Encarnacion if you put him in the 2005 National League. Matt Clement, on the other hand, would be considered the greatest pitcher of all time if he could take his current body and pitch with it for five years in the sixties.

Well, I'm not sure I like the tourney idea, it's fun as a one-off, but if we're doing that, I'd prefer a season replication and if we're not, I think 28 teams (for a 162 game season) makes the most sense.

Argh, that's unclear. I meant if we're not doing a one-off, I prefer running 1,000 sims of 28 team, 162 game seasons and seeing what shakes out

Vaux,
Don't forget how managing has advanced since the old days. No current skipper in his right mind would have Bobby Richardson (.295 OBP) batting leadoff for the '61 Yanks.

"I'm of the opinion that no hitter of 1935 could have had any success against a mediocre pitcher of 2005, and no pitcher of 1935 would stand a chance against a modern major-league lineup, or even an AAA one."

Really. I've read that Walter Johnson threw over 90. A good pitcher is a good pitcher. David Wells is in terrible shape, Maddux is hardly a workout fiend. Do you really think the game is that much faster paced today then it was back then? I think you'd probably see a significant decline in their performance over a season or over a career, but I have a hard time believing Ruth or Gehrig wouldn't be able to hit off of Brett Tomko. I also think Walter Johnson or Lefty Grove would simply own the Kansas City Royals lineup once they saw the scouting report.

"I think 28 teams (for a 162 game season) makes the most sense."

And it's the most drawn out way to enjoy this too. I'm pretty sure that's what SG had in mind.

Agree with others that the '42 Cards are iffy at best due to the war.

Here are all the NL players on teams competing against the Cardinals away in the service in 1942:

Braves: Bill Posedel, John Dudra, Bama Rowell.

Dodgers: Herman Franks, Don Padgett, Cookie Lavagetto, Joe Gallagher, Tommy Tatum.

Cubs: Walt Lanfranconi, Russ Meers, Eddie Waitkus.

Reds: Benny Zientara.

Giants: Jack Aragon, John Davis, Morrie Arnovich.

Phillies: Roy Bruner, Lee Grissom, Bill Harman, Dale Jones, Hugh Mulcahy, Dick Mulligan, Emmett Mueller, Jim Carlin, Joe Marty.

Pirates: Bill Clemensen, Oad Swigert, Vinnie Smith, Billy Cox, Burgess Whitehead.

The Cardinals themselves were missing Johnny Grodzicki and Walter Sessi.

Seriously, do you think this constitutes a significant drain on the level of competition in the NL in 1942? ALL of the best players from 1941 remained.

I think that Willie Mays's 1965 body would be at best Juan Encarnacion if you put him in the 2005 National League.

I'm a very strong proponent of the concept of improved quality of play over time. But this is completely, totally ludicrous.

Did you watch baseball in the 1960s?

That's not to say that Mel Ott wasn't a great hitter or Carl Hubbell was't a great pitcher; if either one had been born in 1975, they'd be superstars in 2005. But, if you take their skills, in their bodies, exactly as they actually were, they would be of no use competing against the major-league bodies and skills of today.

I agree strongly that Mel Ott's body would be of little use in major league competition today, except perhaps as a prop for frightening the other team.

Seriously, do you think this constitutes a significant drain on the level of competition in the NL in 1942? ALL of the best players from 1941 remained.

Hey man, don't go dissin' Walt Lanfranconi. He was MVP material I etll ya! Also, I'll have you know that those Phillies were about to put it together in '42!!!

OK, I'm in favor of including the '42 Cards.

"I think 28 teams (for a 162 game season) makes the most sense."

And it's the most drawn out way to enjoy this too. I'm pretty sure that's what SG had in mind.

Sounds good to me.

From the list o' 29 I already re-listed, I'd toss out the '76 Reds, the '02 Pirates, and put in the '89 A's.

That's quite true, Candy.

Chacon, look at it this way: Brett Tomko has gotten Barry Bonds out 4 times in 12 PAs. 4 times! If he can have even that degree of success against Bonds, he's probably better than any pitcher Ruth or Gehrig ever saw.

We had the discussion about Johnson's velocity on primer about a year ago... if I recall, it seems that he was "reliably" clocked at about 88, with that reliability tarnished by our lack of information on what type of radar was used and how effective it was. Keep in mind that Johnson was considered an exceptionally fast pitcher for his day, which would mean that even the other good pitchers threw 82-84, probably. Now, Bob Feller was clocked at 98 off flat ground by the Navy in the early forties sometime; that's probably somewhat more reliable, and may indicate that hitting stats from mid-century on are more translatable than those of earlier. Still, Feller was also a great exception as to speed for his time. We're talking about the very greatest, and I was before a bit flowery, perhaps, to use terms like "wouldn't stand a chance." More accurate, I think, would be to say that Hank Greenberg would in the 2005 AL do over-all about what he did against Feller in 1940, and that your 2005 garden-variety Clement or Vicente Padilla would be Feller if he pitched in 1940; more to the point, perhaps, is that Casey Fossum would be Lefty Gomez.

if I recall, it seems that he was "reliably" clocked at about 88, with that reliability tarnished by our lack of information on what type of radar was used and how effective it was.

You aren't serious with this.

Mitch Williams = Steve Dalkowski?

Seriously, do you think this constitutes a significant drain on the level of competition in the NL in 1942? ALL of the best players from 1941 remained.

Yes, 1942 Cardinals should definitely be in. The Cardinals have won numerous World Series, so they definitely should have AT LEAST 1 team in, and the Cardinals of 1941-1948 were one of the greatest "decade" teams ever, even in spite of WWII...

The discussion of Johnson and Feller's velocity is here, and seems to have come to the opposite of the conclusion I remembered. So, I stand behind what I said right at the end of post 28 much more than what I had said earlier. That is, hitters of 1940, if playing today with exactly the same physical characteristics to their bodies, would do only as well over-all as they did at that time against the best handful of pitchers, since most of the pitchers then were worse tha the typical pitcher now, but not all.

Did I ever send you a copy of my little story about the Fred Lieb-arranged showdown between the 1911 A's vs. the 1989 A's? I can't remember.

Sorry, I missed this. No, you didn't, and it sounds like a gas.

No, it got truncated above It's here.

I'm just trying to figure out what rate of annual improvement would turn Willie Mays into Juan Encarnacion. In 1972 a forty one year old Willie Mays could still pull an OPS+ of 131. Eighteen years later a 23 year old Barry Bonds scored a 127 OPS+. Man, that rate of improvement sure makes me appreciate Carlton Fisk all the more - he was an all-star in '72, when that aging Encarnation ringer was still a great player, and was still able to make the all-star team in 1991.

Maybe it's 'cause of the 'roids explosion. . . . .

(wanders off to stab self repeatedly with a spork).

If Max Greevey was still with the force, he'd be lucky to be as important a cop as Profaci used to be.

If Max Greevey was still with the force, he'd be lucky to be as important a cop as Profaci used to be.

Espcially since--not unlike Hank Greenberg--he's no longer with us. On the other hand, Profaci turned out to be a dirty cop, so who knows?

But, if you take their skills, in their bodies, exactly as they actually were, they would be of no use competing against the major-league bodies and skills of today.

Of course, if Mel Ott played today, he'd probably lift weights, be on all sorts of nutritonal supplements (possibly other), and swing a lighter bat in better fitting uniforms that wouldn't make him sweat like a stuck pig in the summer.

If Carl Hubbell was today, he'd get a lot more velocity out of his legs - and he had a pretty good fastball in 1935 and be taught a wicked circle change instead of a screwball. So he'd basically be like what Johan Santana was last year.

And with the better food available today, Mel Ott might be about 5'11 instead of 5'9, so he could very well be a super-Brian Giles as a hitter. This argument is positively redonkulous to me.

Sorry, not the best syntax there.

Anyway, the point is simple to me. I'm also a believer in the improvement of play throughout the years, but due to the increase in population in the US and the increase of countries throughout the world that play baseball, rather than a simple claim that Walter Johnson didn't throw hard. You can't judge older players based on the fact that more ballplayers lift weights now, because that just wasn't an option available to players back then. Science and conventional wisdom at the time just didn't tell Pepper Martin that it was more prudent to spend a winter lifting weights than farming or hunting quail.

Plus the money was far less, something that can't be underestimated.

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

How many Cleveland Spiders teams are allowed in? Will there be more or less than the number of Padre teams?

Without doing any checking whatsoever, it seems like it's a lot easier for a team to have a prolonged period of being really, really lousy than it is to have even a few years of greatness.

I always thought in order to do this right, you needed to set it up with three year averages for each player (say for the 1929 A's, use the 1928, 1929 and 1930 seasons and average them for each player).

This would lessen the impact of the Johnny Blanchards of the world, and give a little more weight to the teams with the better overall players playing near their peaks. I couldn't begin to guess how that would change things, and what teams would suddenly look stronger and weaker, but it seems like a better estimate of team quality than simply using a single season.

No, it's an enormous computer.
"Forty-two."

I have absolutely nothing to add to the discussion. But I'm contractually obliged to post in any thread that references this book.

I wouldn't allow any Cleveland Spiders teams in. I'm afraid that that one season, 1899, has gotten so famous that people think they were some kind of long-running joke, like the Kansas City A's. That's not it at all - the Spiders were a good team (mostly) with a couple of great players: Cy Young and Jesse Burkett. Through the corruption of interlocking ownership, the 1899 Spiders died so that the Cardinals could live (although Young and Burkett both jumped to the newborn AL as soon after that as they could.)

I'm afraid that that one season, 1899, has gotten so famous that people think they were some kind of long-running joke, like the Kansas City A's.

Even aside from the 1899 team (and seriously, 20-134?) you've got 1887 (39-92) and 1890 (44-88), both of which project to over a hundered losses over a 162-game season (108 and 113). As a franchise, the Spiders went 827-938, a .469 winning percentage that, when compared to current teams, is only better than the Phillies (.468), the Rangers (.467), the Rockies (.465), the Padres (.459), and the Devil Rays (.401).

For reference, the Kansas City A's (1955-1967, I think) went 829-1224, for a .404 clip. Their worst season was 1956, when they went 52-102, which still isn't as bad as the Spiders in 1887 or 1890 (or 1899, obviously).

I'm not saying the Spiders were always terrible. In fact, they had seven consecutive winning seasons, including winning whatever passed for the World Championship in 1892. But for a franchise that only lasted 13 years, there are some pretty bad seasons in there.

While I'm looking at the baseball-reference.com Teams page, here is a completely unrelated comment: the "Cleveland Infants" might be the least intimidating team name ever, in any sport.

Wait, no, it looks like the Spiders actually lost the (exhibition) World's Championship in 1892 to the Boston Beaneaters, 5-0-1. I was confused by the way it says "WC" on the Spiders' page and "NL" on the Braves (nee "Beaneaters" and a bunch of other stuff) page.

No Negro League teams?

Black people don't count, Ivan.

The 1998 Yankees and 1986 Mets are actually very similar teams.

Mets:
116 OPS+
1st in runs w/783 (2nd place team had 739)
114 ERA+
1st in ERA w/3.11 (2nd place team had 3.15)
averaged 99 wins from '85-'87

Yankees:
116 OPS+
1st in runs w/965 (2nd place team had 940)
117 ERA+
1st in ERA w/3.82 (2nd place team had 4.19)
averaged 102 wins from '97-'99

Also, both were incredibly deep teams -- neither really benefited from MVP seasons from their stars, and both received contributions from almost everyone on the roster. Both also had a mix of young players, players in their prime, and vets.

It's interesting that the Mets had a more dominant offense and the Yankees had more dominant pitching. I would have thought it was the reverse.

Another interesting point: if you add a 4th year to the average win totals ('88 and '99), both teams had a 4 year win total of 398.

The Yankees overall run prevention was better, and they won 6 more games (not an insignificant #), so I think it's fair to say that they were slightly better. But overall they're pretty similar.

From the list o' 29 I already re-listed, I'd toss out the '76 Reds, the '02 Pirates, and put in the '89 A's.

I'm cool with removing the '76 Reds since they're kind of redundant with the better '75 Reds and adding the '89 A's. I'm not so sure about pulling the '02 Pirates, they seem to be better than the '09 team. We could pull one or the other and then we'd be at 28.

The 1985 Cardinals always do verywell in these multi era DMB simulations. They one a sweet 16 I ran a few years ago, and were doing very well in a top 64 tourney I was running before I got burned out.

Oh, ok if we're looking at 32 teams, I'm gonna throw out the 1917 White Sox again. They were good enough to throw the World Series two years later. They sure did suck in 1918.

Possibly war related? Joe Jackson spent most of the season in a war related job. Red Faber started only 11 games. Happy Felsh and Lefty Williams missed about half the season. I don't know how many stars other teams lost.

However, the reamining players failed to pick up the slack. 67 OPS+ from Schalk, 99 ERA+ from Cicotte. Eddie Collins had his worst year between 1907 and 1921.

And with the better food available today, Mel Ott might be about 5'11 instead of 5'9,

Not to completely change the subject, but this is not at all true.

I was looking "average height" info up yesterday (slow day on the car lot...), and the average american male is no taller than 60 years ago while the rest of the world is growing.

The culprit? The researchers blame our diet.

The Yankees overall run prevention was better, and they won 6 more games (not an insignificant #), so I think it's fair to say that they were slightly better. But overall they're pretty similar.

But again:

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

I agree that these are two very similar teams, but when you look at the years surrounding it, I think you can see which team had the edge. I wouldn't put all that much significance in the 98 Yanks' 114 wins per se, since if you do that then you have to bring in obviously flukish teams like the 1954 Indians into the discussion. It's the 114 wins plus all those other factors, including the postseason and the accomplishments of the respective surrounding years.

Face it, with so many dominant single season teams near the top of the list, all of which were at (or near) the top of their league in multiple categories, you have to look at the postseason and surrounding years accomplishments in order to make a final ranking.

And of course the bottom line is that it likely comes down to your definition of "best."

And with the better food available today, Mel Ott might be about 5'11 instead of 5'9,

Not to completely change the subject, but this is not at all true.

I was looking "average height" info up yesterday (slow day on the car lot...), and the average american male is no taller than 60 years ago while the rest of the world is growing.

The culprit? The researchers blame our diet.

It's more likely that the researchers are comparing apples to oranges, since the makeup of our population over the past sixty years reflects an enormous influx of Latin Americans and Asians, both of which would drag down the average considerably.

The article noted that the Dutch are taller now, but it had no figures on Dutch-Americans, or on any other ethnic groups which formed 98% of the U.S. population of 1945. If the researchers had included this, they likely would have come to a different conclusion.

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're completely underestimating how much the three-division/Wild Card setup has changed the postseason. Those three Mets second-place finishes were to the Cubs, Cardinals, and Cardinals, none of whom are in their division now. You can't make an exact comparison, because there were no Marlins, but the Mets were better than every team in the current NL East from 1984-1988.

Or look at it this way: For those five years the Mets were 3rd, 2nd, 1st, 2nd and 1st in the NL in wins. In their five-year run, the Yankees were 2nd, 2nd, 1st, 1st and 5th in the AL in wins. No great difference there that I can see.

In their five-year run the Mets won 488 regular season games. The Yankees won 487.

One more thing: The 1998 Yankees were competing in an expansion year. They went 11-1 against the Devil Rays that season.

What differentiates the Yankees from 1996-2000 is their phenomenal record in the postseason, for which they deserve a ton of credit. But the only reason they wre able to post that postseason record is because of the current setup. As a multi-year regular-season team, they're not exceptional.

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.

You're comparing apples to oranges with no adjustment. The 1984-1988 Mets would have won the NL East each year for 5 division titles under the current divisional format. Or the 1996-2000 Yankees would have made the playoffs twice (1998 and 1999) and missed the playoffs every other year under the old divisional format.

This, of course, leaves out 1989 (where the Mets would have won today's NL East with 87 wins, 4th best record in the league) and 1990 where they had the 2nd best record in the league.

The Mets weren't a one-year wonder. They had the 2nd best record in the league three times in 6 years and missed the playoffs. They had the best record in the league in 1986 and 1988. They led the league in runs per game 4 times in the 5 years from 1986-1990 playing in arguably the third-worst park for hitters in the league. In 1986 and 1988, they led the league in runs scored per game and runs allowed per game.

The 1986 version (which is the best year) had a team OPS+ of 116 and a team ERA+ of 114. The 1998 Yankees are very similar (OPS+: 116, ERA+:117).

You want to say there's no contest between the 1986 Mets and the 1927 Yankees, I'll concede the point. But there should be little question that the 1986 Mets and 1998 Yankees belong together in a discussion of greatness.

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.

You're comparing apples to oranges with no adjustment. The 1984-1988 Mets would have won the NL East each year for 5 division titles under the current divisional format. Or the 1996-2000 Yankees would have made the playoffs twice (1998 and 1999) and missed the playoffs every other year under the old divisional format.

This, of course, leaves out 1989 (where the Mets would have won today's NL East with 87 wins, 4th best record in the league) and 1990 where they had the 2nd best record in the league.

The Mets weren't a one-year wonder. They had the 2nd best record in the league three times in 6 years and missed the playoffs. They had the best record in the league in 1986 and 1988. They led the league in runs per game 4 times in the 5 years from 1986-1990 playing in arguably the third-worst park for hitters in the league. In 1986 and 1988, they led the league in runs scored per game and runs allowed per game.

The 1986 version (which is the best year) had a team OPS+ of 116 and a team ERA+ of 114. The 1998 Yankees are very similar (OPS+: 116, ERA+:117).

You want to say there's no contest between the 1986 Mets and the 1927 Yankees, I'll concede the point. But there should be little question that the 1986 Mets and 1998 Yankees belong together in a discussion of greatness.

You want to say there's no contest between the 1986 Mets and the 1927 Yankees, I'll concede the point. But there should be little question that the 1986 Mets and 1998 Yankees belong together in a discussion of greatness.

No, this is the fanboyest of fanboy fandom in the history of fans!

I am at work and don't have time to read this whole thread, but have the '84 Tigers been accepted/rejected? Yeah, they were a one year wonder. I know.

I'm generally on Vaux's side, though I think he overstates the case. Rather than diverting this thread, however, I want to highlight the fact that his point raises issues about how this will be conducted. For example, if you simply accept Ruth's, Gehrig's, et al.'s stats from 1927 at face value, it's hard to see any team beating those Yankees. There has to be an era adjustment or the result wii be skewed in favor of older teams.

Another issue: will you give players their actual usage or will you correct managers' mistakes? For example, I believe that the 1962 Giants were the greatest team in franchise history. However, Al Dark did weird things like play Willie McCovey only part time. If you play McCovey full time, his rates stats will make him an MVP candidate even though in the real season he wasn't because of playing time. Similar issues will arise wrt lineup construction.

Sorry about the double post. It looks a little like a triple post but the one above mine is from a different member. I guess great minds think alike. :)

What differentiates the Yankees from 1996-2000 is their phenomenal record in the postseason, for which they deserve a ton of credit. But the only reason they wre able to post that postseason record is because of the current setup. As a multi-year regular-season team, they're not exceptional.

Well then all hail the 1906-10 Cubs. No further arguments.

As I said before, at the top of the list, there are many teams bunched up there in many regular season factors, especially if you limit your pick to one isolated year. But this is exactly why you have to factor in the postseason: It's a tiebreaker.

As for the regular season, though, the Yankees did what they had to do to get to the postseason in all five years, while the Mets didn't in three of them. And what is the point of the regular season, if not to advance to the postseason?

In 1996 Cleveland had 7 more wins than the Yankees, but it might be noted that the Yankees, against their three strongest rivals (Baltimore, Cleveland and Atlanta), didn't lose a single game on the road, either in the regular season or the postseason. You tell me whether 7 extra meaningless regular season wins is a better indicator of team strength than that.

You want to say there's no contest between the 1986 Mets and the 1927 Yankees, I'll concede the point.

I wouldn't. I'd take the 86 Mets, because of the overwhelmingly superior nature of the competition. I realize that this isn't "fair", but the point remains. I think Vaux exaggerates in his posts about the older game vs. modern game (since he doesn't factor in the ability of the modern players to adjust to old-time conditions, which I wouldn't say is a given), but his overall general argument is certainly valid.

Now as to relative dominance, the 27 Yankees would rate an edge. But the 86 Mets would beat them easily on the field.

Well then all hail the 1906-10 Cubs. No further arguments

I'd want more balance or more precisely more offense than that set of teams exhibited. IMO.

In 1996 Cleveland had 7 more wins than the Yankees, but it might be noted that the Yankees, against their three strongest rivals (Baltimore, Cleveland and Atlanta), didn't lose a single game on the road, either in the regular season or the postseason. You tell me whether 7 extra meaningless regular season wins is a better indicator of team strength than that.

If we're going to cherry-pick road series results, what about division winner Texas, where the Yankees went 1-5 on the road against them in the regular season? Or 2-4 against the 85-win ChiSox on the road? Or 2-4 against the 85-win Red Sox on the road?

I don't put a lot of stock in the results of a handful of games. The 1996 Yankees were a good team, but there is little that is historically great about them. We're talking about a team that was 9th in the league in runs scored and 5th in pitching. Nice comeback in the world series though. That Leyritz HR in game 4 destroyed Wohlers' career. :)

I never claimed that the 96 Yankees were historically great, but when you go 18-0 against your three strongest rivals on the road, that goes a bit beyond "cherry picking." The fact remains that they won all of the games that they had to win, which is all you can ask of a team, but which is something that the 84-85 and 87-88 Mets didn't do.

Again, it comes down as to how much weight to assign the postseason. Obviously I assign it a lot more (as a tiebreaker, anyway) than many others here. Within the framework of "regular season only," however, all of your points are well stated, and arguable.

And with the better food available today, Mel Ott might be about 5'11 instead of 5'9,

Not to completely change the subject, but this is not at all true.

I was looking "average height" info up yesterday (slow day on the car lot...), and the average american male is no taller than 60 years ago while the rest of the world is growing.

The culprit? The researchers blame our diet.

It's more likely that the researchers are comparing apples to oranges, since the makeup of our population over the past sixty years reflects an enormous influx of Latin Americans and Asians, both of which would drag down the average considerably.

There was another link (I can't find it now) that refuted the idea that people have grown significantly in historic terms - that on average, white Americans were probably still 5'8" or 5'9" back in the 1700's.

an enormous influx of Latin Americans and Asians, both of which would drag down the average considerably

Yea, but Yao Ming probably raises it back up all by himself.

Again, it comes down as to how much weight to assign the postseason. Obviously I assign it a lot more (as a tiebreaker, anyway) than many others here. Within the framework of "regular season only," however, all of your points are well stated, and arguable.

I think it's a fair tiebreaker when you're talking apples to apples. I would give teams a lot less credit for making the playoffs in the wild-card era with twice as many spots available, but I would also give them a little more credit for winning the WS, because of the extra series you have to win now.

Although I think his original post was an overstatement, there is truth in Vaux's post. Its unlikely a great team from the past would be very competitive against a great team from the present. Let's look at what we do know:

Hitters:

The progression of human accomplishment indicates that strenght and speed do increase fairly linearly. There are some jumps in performance, or very rarely, dips in achievement. Most, if not all, of the jumps usually coincide with a clear technological advancement, e.g. Fosbery flop, etc. Most of the DIPS in performance coincide with rule changes to combat the advancement. In fact, the only real prolonged dip is attributable to removing doping from sport.

Strength and speed do contribute greatly to baseball hitting and fielding. Increasing either attribute does not negatively impact any other performance criteria. Thus, hitters should be better.

The only way this is not true is if some other attribute has atrophied. Another major contributor to the performance is visual accuity. Doping may have improved visual accuity, but there is no suggestion that visual accuity has otherwise been enhanced. However, I'm not aware of any evidence that visual accuity has declined.

Moreover, I'm not aware of any evidence that any other factor related to hitting performance has declined.

All the talk about Ruth on a modern diet is not relevant. Ruth was not own said diet when he put up his performance. If you want to recast Ruth into the modern era as an infant that is an entirely different argument than whether the Ruth that played in the past compares well to the modern athlete.

The balance of the evidence would indicate the modern hitter should be able to hit better than his predessor.

Pitching:

The evidence is less suggestive about pitching performances. The velocity numbers from the past are sporadic; however they do indicate that some pitchers were able to achieve the same velocity as some of the harder throwing modern pitchers.

However, I'd like to examine that in Vaux's contention about the relative ability of pitchers.

Contrary to most saberist teachings, I believe pitching has more gaps in research than fielding. The techniques involving hitting are pretty well established. Most of the variation in hitting involves timing, not execution. For instance, Sheffield, Batista, and Jones would have a very similar looking swing from the moment the swing actually starts. Its the preperation for the swing that differs. The difference in the result usually deals with the timing and strength of the batter. Flaws in technique are easily seen (but maybe not corrected) when they are causing a problem.

Pitchers are not the same. We have not reproduced an optimum delivery that is discernable to coaching. In fact, defects in the delivery are often compared to a baseline of the individual pitcher during optimum performance. Moreover, preperation and execution differ from pitcher to pitcher. You can't often make the same recommendation to Brad Chadford that you would to Billy Wagner.

Moreover, we are still babes on the medical and kinesiological implications. Respected experts will disagree on when something is harmful to the body itself. We have made some technical advancements in this field. We can repair damage better. We also tend to not abuse pitchers as bad through greatly improved utilization practices.

Strength is not a big a factor in velocity as mechanics. Moreover, velocity likely has an upper bound based sheerly on physical criteria. As we previously mentioned, those mechanics may vary in optimization from player to player.

Even today, I opine that many of the long terms successful pitchers are those that just managed to "get it right" early with mechanics. There isn't a repeatable procedure that we can reliably give to all pitchers. I'm not aware of any reason to believe that pitchers of today are better at stumbling into "getting it right" than pitchers of yesteryear.

However, since we have improved repair procedures and deployment, you will have far more pitchers pushing the envelope of performance. So, the class of todays pitchers are probably better than the class of previous pitchers in actual performance; however, the extremes of either generation are likely to be close in performance. Since the pitchers of yesteryear were able to face lower quality hitters, they probably would not perform overall as well. That is, Walter Johnson may not match Pedro Martinez in every year he pitches, but could still be a perennial All Star.

One thing to note though is the delivery of the class of older pitchers. In most footage, I see them take huge windups with higher leg kicks. Those pitchers would have a disastrous time in holding runners on base. I'm not sure just learning a slide step would allow them to maintain their same level of performance. That motion was integral to their success, and likely very integral to their not being injured due to the inferior utilization techniques.

On balance that means, I think the 1998 Yankees kill the 1927 Yankees if the thought experiment is just transporting one team in a time machine to the other location, and with benefit of modern equipment.

If you force the 1998 Yankees to use 1927 equipment it may be close due to the learning curve.

If you transport the 1927 Yankees as infants to a modern time and let them grow into some kind of team, they would be close to the 1998 Yankees, but I still think the latter wins.

What to me is far more interesting to ponder is what if you took Ichiro Suzuki and transported him as is back to the olden days. I think he then looks like the greatest baseball player of all time.

Does Diamond Mind replicate real playing time? If not, that could be a problem if the virtual manager decides to use guys like .910 slugging Shane Spencer every game. Other than that, using 1 year stats looks better to me because "flukes" actually contributed to the success of those teams. I mean, if five starters have fluke years and win 30 games each, and the team finishes 155-7, even if they all tank and the team finishes 70-92 the next season, the 155-7 version would have to be considered the best ever, no?

But what of the 75-76 Reds?

75 - won their division by 20 games, scored 105 more runs than anyone else in the league (and 44 more than anyone in the AL), only 2 hitters with OPS+ under 100 won Gold Gloves, 4 total Gold Gloves, 3 of the top 5 in MVP voting (including the winner), team 117 OPS+, team 107 ERA+.

76 - won division by 10 games, scored 87 more runs than anyone else in the league (and 114 more than anyone in the AL), lowest OPS+ for a regular was 107, 4 more GG, 4 of top 8 in MVP (including winner), team OPS+ of 129, team ERA+ only 100, only team in divisional era to sweep postseason.

Since it was brought up RE: the 98 NYY and 86 NYM, 3 year wins: 308, 4 year: 407, 5 year: 502.

75 was awesome offensively, defensively, and damn good pitching; 76 was either the greatest (every hitter over 100 OPS+) or 2nd greatest (27 NYY had a higher team OPS+) offense ever, still great defensively, but average pitching.

Someone stated earlier that both teams shouldn't be included because they were almost identical. One of these teams looks like easily one of the top 10 of all time; how do you exclude the other?

As for the regular season, though, the Yankees did what they had to do to get to the postseason in all five years, while the Mets didn't in three of them.

I don't find that at all persuasive. I don't consider the 2005 Padres better (or even more successful) than the 98-win 1985 Mets, or the 1949 Red Sox, or the 1909 Cubs. Were there any successful teams in 1904, when there was no postseason?

And what is the point of the regular season, if not to advance to the postseason?

To find out which is the best team. To entertain the fans. To sell tickets.

I never claimed that the 96 Yankees were historically great, but when you go 18-0 against your three strongest rivals on the road, that goes a bit beyond "cherry picking."

This is the first time I've ever heard "road record against three strongest opponents" used to argue for a team's greatness. That's what makes it "cherry picking."

What were the 1995 Braves against their three strongest rivals on the road? How about the 2005 White Sox? The 2001 Diamondbacks? If you can't answer that, and don't care what the answer is, then the 1996 Yankees record on the road against their three strongest opponents isn't much more than trivia.

I think the 1998 Angels won the season series against the Yankees, therefore they should be included. :)

road record against three strongest opponents
Gotta love those new stats. My team has a better RRATSO than yours! Sounds good!

It's more likely that the researchers are comparing apples to oranges, since the makeup of our population over the past sixty years reflects an enormous influx of Latin Americans and Asians, both of which would drag down the average considerably.

Do you have data on this or just racial stereotyping? Everything I've seen says that the bulk of the height disparity is diet--on the old diets, East Asians were shorter and live longer than European Americans.

Post-War, the average height in East Asian countries without major malnourishment problems has been rising to the point that they are roughly equivalent to European Americans heights. (Naturally, I'm talking about adolescent average heights, as the absolute mean height would move more slowly--a well nourished 60 year-old is not going to grow six inches...)

Furthermore, it's not like there aren't domestic data pools to gauge your theories--multi-generational Asian Americans tend to have heights comparable to their non-Asian American counterparts.

Now, if you just want to discuss first-generation immigrants or malnourished working-class folks, you might have a point. But that has a lot more to do with economics, which is only contextually related to ethnicity, not in any genetic or absolute way, as your post seems to imply.

Annoying disclaimer: I'm not trying to call anyone a "racist" or any such thing with this post, I just find the topic interesting and the assumptions often made on it baffling.


Annoying fanboyism:
I would also argue for the inclusion of the 1917-1920 White Sox. Even with the event that ended their success, I think that's just a sentimental reason to root against them. Their ability on the field is what's up for debate and I think they sneak into the end of the long list of great teams.

Reaching:
It also might be a nice, "we were so wrong..." to put the 2005 club on there. After all, they did win 110 games, and it would be fun to see how the "best" team from this year competes against the other historic teams.

If we're putting in teams based on one year only, and we're including the '89 A's, then the 2005 White Sox are not a reach.

Do you have data on this or just racial stereotyping? Everything I've seen says that the bulk of the height disparity is diet--on the old diets, East Asians were shorter and live longer than European Americans.

According to the Wiki, it appears that Mexican-Americans are driving down the average; I could find no other ethnic breakdown that varies much from average.

it would be fun to see how the "best" team from this year competes against the other historic teams.

Agreed. But since the sim will be performed in 2006, I'd go with the 2006 Yankees, using SG in ATL's projection system, instead of the White Sox :o)

Strength and speed do contribute greatly to baseball hitting and fielding. Increasing either attribute does not negatively impact any other performance criteria. Thus, hitters should be better.

That's putting aside loss of flexibility issues and how raising strength behind a certain point inhibits speed (there are no track champions who can also be competitive weightlifters). But that's for another discussion.

Even so, certain areas of the game have almost certainly regressed (although the cause may very well be non-physical).

The 20s and 30s are a standout era for doubles, particularly from non-sluggers. The closest you'll get to that type of player in say, the last 50 years, is Biggio, and he's much more of a power hitter than the guys who used to lead the league in doubles.

And for all the speed increases in today's athletes, where have all the triples gone? You have to go all the way down to the 88th best single-season in triples to find the first active player (Christian Guzman, the only active player in the top 110).

Or, for that matter, stolen bases. Certainly we could make an allowance for Rickey Henderson to have been one of the all-time talents and not expect 130, but why isn't there even one active player with 80+ steals in a season? The best stolen-base season in the last ten years is Lofton's 1996 (75 steals, which is tied for 88th).

The game has changed a lot over the years, but if Babe Ruth could hit Walter Johnson in his prime, I'd bet he could hit Randy Johnson in his prime. You know, assuming he wasn't dead or in jail from the better class of substances we can abuse these days.

As far as triples ar concerned, I would guess the smaller stadiums are the main culprits. I mean, I can see a guy hitting triples at the Polo Grounds. As for doubles, I don't know, maybe it can be attributed to a lack of power? Have home runs gone up when the doubles went down? Some people here know much more than I about that but, in case they're not here, I offer these suggestions.

As for stolen bases, I would think it's more revealing of a change in strategy than of a decrease in speed. Maybe 10 years from now steals will be fashionable again.

Maybe it's less evident, or even present, in baseball, but if you look at hockey players even from the seventies, they look like turtles compared to today's guys. More than that, they look like weak small turtles!

That's putting aside loss of flexibility issues and how raising strength behind a certain point inhibits speed (there are no track champions who can also be competitive weightlifters). But that's for another discussion.

You are right, its an entirely seperate discussion about whether one person increasing their strength decreases their flexibility in the process, and whether increases in strength among the entire population has resulted in a decrease in flexibility. its also a nonstarter to argue that ALL increases in stregth result in a proportionate decrease in flexibility.

Do you opine that athletes as a class are less flexible than athletes of twenty years ago. If so, on what evidence do you base this assertion.

The game has changed a lot over the years, but if Babe Ruth could hit Walter Johnson in his prime, I'd bet he could hit Randy Johnson in his prime.

On what basis would you make that bet, gut instinct, or is there some evidence that you would point too to make that bet.

It's more likely that the researchers are comparing apples to oranges, since the makeup of our population over the past sixty years reflects an enormous influx of Latin Americans and Asians, both of which would drag down the average considerably.

Do you have data on this or just racial stereotyping? Everything I've seen says that the bulk of the height disparity is diet--on the old diets, East Asians were shorter and live longer than European Americans.

Now, if you just want to discuss first-generation immigrants or malnourished working-class folks, you might have a point. But that has a lot more to do with economics, which is only contextually related to ethnicity, not in any genetic or absolute way, as your post seems to imply.

In fact I was thinking about the great numbers of first generation immigrants who have arrived here in the past 30-odd years, largely Vietnamese, Cambodians, Mexicans, and Central Americans. All of these groups as they have arrived in the U.S. over the past 30 years are shorter than the average European- or African-American. You don't need an elaborate database to know this, just two eyes.

I am not attributing this in any way to "short genes" or any other such claptrap. The nutrition may very well account for the entire difference.

All I was saying was that if the researcher in that article had controlled for ethnicity, he would have found that (for instance) Dutch-Americans have grown over the past 60 years just as much as Dutch people living in the Netherlands. And that the actual immigrants who have arrived here in that period (but mainly since 1975), who are largely working class, would bring down the average height. And that's it. It was a simple statistical point, not any attempt to generalize about the inherent height limitations of any group.

As for the regular season, though, the Yankees did what they had to do to get to the postseason in all five years, while the Mets didn't in three of them.

I don't find that at all persuasive. I don't consider the 2005 Padres better (or even more successful) than the 98-win 1985 Mets, or the 1949 Red Sox, or the 1909 Cubs. Were there any successful teams in 1904, when there was no postseason?

Now "better", I'll grant you, in the sense that the 1985 Mets were almost certainly a stronger team. And relative to their time, you can say that about the other four teams as well, plus the Chesboro Highlanders for good measure.

But "more successful," nah. I doubt if their fans would think so. Though a better way to look at it from your pov might be this: The 1949 Red Sox were a lot closer (one game) to getting into the Series than the 2005 Madres. But as long as your goal is to reach the Series, I don't see how you can count a second place finish within your division as being any more "successful" than a second place finish in the 1965-75 Southeast Asian war games. Great fight, but who got there in the end?

I never claimed that the 96 Yankees were historically great, but when you go 18-0 against your three strongest rivals on the road, that goes a bit beyond "cherry picking."

This is the first time I've ever heard "road record against three strongest opponents" used to argue for a team's greatness. That's what makes it "cherry picking."

What were the 1995 Braves against their three strongest rivals on the road? How about the 2005 White Sox? The 2001 Diamondbacks? If you can't answer that, and don't care what the answer is, then the 1996 Yankees record on the road against their three strongest opponents isn't much more than trivia.

So going 18 and 0 on the road against your three strongest opponents "isn't much more than trivia," even though by doing so you win the LCS and the World Series in the process.

Whereas winning 7 more games in the regular season is in itself of monumental significance, even though all that extra talent somehow disappeared when the chips were down.

Interesting arithmetical concept, but it doesn't say much about which team was better that year. Perhaps we can retroactively arrange a series of Indians' games against the three worst teams in baseball that year in order to reinforce your boys' confidence and credentials. We can even throw in one of those foam rubber fingers to get you fired up.

if the researcher in that article had controlled for ethnicity, he would have found that (for instance) Dutch-Americans have grown over the past 60 years just as much as Dutch people living in the Netherlands.

Andy, I believe this has been done and they have not. I'll see if I can find it.

that on average, white Americans were probably still 5'8" or 5'9" back in the 1700's.

This is likely true. However it's also true that average heights in the late 1800s were much less (about 5'6"). The reasons were immigration and industrialization -- people simply didn't eat as well.

You are right, its an entirely seperate discussion about whether one person increasing their strength decreases their flexibility in the process, and whether increases in strength among the entire population has resulted in a decrease in flexibility. its also a nonstarter to argue that ALL increases in stregth result in a proportionate decrease in flexibility.

Proportionate? I wouldn't go so far at all. I would say that there is a correlation between many strength gains and loss of flexibility simply by the nature of increased muscle size (limiting the range of motion of a joint... for example, when I bend my arm inward, the bicep is the limiting factor in movement, not the strain on my elbow). There's also a correlation between strength gain and speed loss because increasing strength adds muscle mass, and it's harder to move a heavier body. This is particularly significant when the musculature added is not the primary muscle group used to create the motion (runners have strong legs, but tend not to have massive chests).

Do you opine that athletes as a class are less flexible than athletes of twenty years ago. If so, on what evidence do you base this assertion.

Not at all. I'd probably say the opposite (it's more likely that a 2005 weightlifter uses more advanced techniques and equipment to reduce the loss of flexibility than his 1920 counterpart). I'm simply saying that there is some loss of flexibility that comes with strength increases, and its an oversimplification to say that added strength carries only positives, particularly in baseball where talent and technique are often far more important than physical prowess.

On what basis would you make that bet, gut instinct, or is there some evidence that you would point too to make that bet.

There are a number of factors:

Anecdotal and statistical evidence of the quality of Walter Johnson's "stuff." Walter Johnson pitched in an era when players were "strikeout-averse" and held the career strikeout record until Nolan Ryan broke it. (Ruth's season-high of 93 strikeouts was considered to be almost obscene.) Note that there's no player in the top 100 of single-season strikeouts that player before 1960. Still, the Big Train struck out over 300 batters in two seasons.

From baseballlibrary.com
In the early days of game, striking out was a disgrace. Cobb, Speaker, Lajoie, Wagner and Collins rarely were strike out victims and they took great pains to avoid such a humiliation. Cobb struck out only 357 times in more than 11,000 official plate appearances, and the four other greats had similar statistics.

Things changed when Babe Ruth popularized the home run as well as the strike out, but even the free swingers in those years had some discipline. Ruth never struck out 100 times in a season. His highest total was 93 in 1923, but he batted .393, hit 41 home runs, and had an incredible on base average of .545. Still, striking out was shameful and Ruth was criticized for it.

Anecdotal and statistical evidence of the quality of Babe Ruth's bat. Babe Ruth obviously had good plate discipline, which is unrelated to strength and conditioning. With all the enhanced power of today's baseball player, it took quite a long time to break Ruth's HR record (especially if you consider only the first 154 games of a season), even with bandbox stadiums and the high-altitude of Colorado. Some might argue that the players who DID break the record didn't even do it fairly. :)

The nature of pitching especially is not related to strength nearly so much as talent and technique. All the weightlifting and all the coaching in the world won't make me able to throw a major league fastball, but I could, with some effort, have stronger muscles than the majority of major league pitchers. Billy Wagner's ability to throw over 100 MPH isn't because he's one of the strongest humans in the world; he's simply a lucky freak of nature that has the ability to throw that fast without injuring himself. If all it took was hitting the weights, it wouldn't be such a special ability.

Few thoughts:

Someone stated earlier that both teams shouldn't be included because they were almost identical. One of these teams looks like easily one of the top 10 of all time; how do you exclude the other?

Because they're almost identitical. I'm also against including the 1907 Cubs, 1908 Cubs, 1936 Yanks, 1937 Yanks, 1938 Yanks, 1952 Yanks . . . et al.

Which brings me to some of the main points I wanted to make when I logged in:

Re: the list of teams in post #269 & how to work with that & other teams toward creating a possible league.

There's 29 teams on the list, including both '75 and '76 Reds. I'm amazed anyone argued that both should be on the list, but I can't seriously imagine that there's a chance that'll happen (otherwise we would've already seen persuasive arguments for the 1937 Yanks, & so on). A few thoughts on that list.

First - here's the breakdown of the 28 teams (tossing off the '76 Reds) by decade:

1890s: 2
1900s: 4
1910s: 3
1920s: 2
1930s: 1
1940s: 1
1950s: 3
1960s: 2
1970s: 3
1980s: 3
1990s: 3
2000s: 1

Few problems - why are there more teams from the 1900s than anywhere else? That can't be right. Not only was it the weakest talent level of any in the century, I'd argue it was worse than the 1890s. 12 teams in 1900 then four more in 1901. A 33% expansion is the most in MLB history. Talent would've been thinner earlier on, and we've got teams from 1902 & 1903. I'm willing to believe that by the end of the decade, as the informal system of scouting by contacts grew, that the talent level and league strength level was approaching what it had been during the Cleveland admin, but that's as far as I'm willing to go.

In particular I'm (as mentioned earlier) bothered by the inclusion of both the 1902 & 1909 Pirates. Riddle me this: how can this project's proponents, in all good concience, include both those Pirates but leave off the 1932 Yanks? That clubs had the same big three hitters that anchored the '27 squad - Ruth, Lazzeri, and Gehrig. The three best position players on the '02 Pirates were Wagner, Clarke, & Leach. All were the anchors of the '09 squad. The '32 Yanks had two pitchers from the '27 squad - Pennock & Pipgras. Neither was the most important pitcher on either squad both were contributers. The '02 & '09 Pirates had Sam Leever & Deacon Phillippe. Neither was the most important pitcher on either squad both were contributers.

My point isn't to say that the '32 Yanks should be in this DMB sim (though that's a fair argument to make) but that one of those Pirates teams should be dropped.

I'd argue for dropping the '02 Pirates. The league's overall talent level was considerably weaker. By being closer to the AL's beginning not only was it closer to the 33% expansion, but the league hadn't had time to settle down, so some teams had larger gaps in talent compared to others. Also, the NL was the weaker league at the time. The '02 squad had a slightly better winning p