Maybe it’s the Hall of Merit training in me, but I feel obligated to give reasons for each of my 28 along with the vote. I tried to balance a belief that the overall quality of play has gotten stronger with an equal belief that what makes this project so fun is having teams from different eras go at with each other. I used a loose guideline of two teams per decade for pre-integration ball, and three teams each decade since then. Here they are, in chronological order (with one exception):

1. 1897 Boston Beaneaters. Best season from the team of the decade. Three Hall of Famers in the line up, and the other five batters all had very productive careers as well. Best pitcher of the decade in Kid Nichols, and Jack Stivetts was also quite a hurler. Maybe the best defensive team ever.

2. 1906 Cubs. Most wins in one season. Or over a two year period. Or a three year period. Or four years. Or five .Or . . . Well, the McCarthy era Yanks catch them at ten.

3. 1909 Pirates. Same core position players as in 1902, but in a stronger league against much stronger rivals. Winning 110 games in a year? Not bad.

4. 1911 A’s. Connie’s first dynasty. Won it all while leading league in RA & RS. Went on to win two more pennants and one more ring in next three years.

5. 1912 Red Sox. The other dominating team of the decade. This was their best season.

6. 1927 Yanks. People who don’t think this team deserves a place in the sim ought to have their children taken away from them.

7. 1929-31 A’s. Personally, I’d prefer the ’31 squad, which lost (yea, they did lose the Series, but it was a tightly played 7 game affair where they actually outscored the Cards. Besides get the 1931 A’s and you get 1931 Lefty Grove). But I’d take the ’29 team over half the others on my ballot.

8. 1939 Yanks: One of the most dominating teams ever, both in regular season and in post-season.

9. 1942 Cards. WWII hadn’t yet taken many NL players, and these guys won 106 games with one of the greatest pennant drives ever. Only team to beat the Yanks in October between Pete Alexander and Sandy Amoros.

10. 1947 Yanks. Only surviving key contributors from ’39 are DiMaggio, and maybe Heinrich. They just kept reloading every year.

11. 1953 Yanks. Most wins by a Stengal pennant winner. Only Rizzuto, Berra, & Reynolds left from ’47, and Berra rode the bench in ’47, and Reynolds didn’t’ pitch enough to qualify for the ERA title in ’53.

12. 1954 Indians. Sure they got swept. They also won 111 frickin’ games. (looks it up). Every team with 107 or more victories in the regular season that I don’t consider to be redundant of a team on the list (the 107 win 1907 Cubs are redundant of the 1’06 Cubs, etc) makes this list. Clearly, I’m mostly a regular season’r. A case for NL vs. AL league quality can be made against them, but unlike the 1910s, one league didn’t dominate October.

13. 1955 Dodgers. Led the league from gate-to-gate. W/L record may understate them as they, like the 1984 Tigers, broke out to a huge start, and could coast the rest of the way. With a 13 ½ game lead in the NL, they pulled off the biggest pennant lead by any team since WWII, and the biggest peacetime win by any NL team since . . . the 1907 Cubs! No NL team would have that big a margin again until the coming of divisional play. Plus they won the Series.

14. 1961 Yanks. One-dimensional? Too reliant on the long ball? Perhaps. But 109 wins. Easy World Series winner.

15. 1967 Cards. Best season by any NL team of the decade. Between their 100+ wins, 10+ pennant win, and World Series victory, they put together the most dominant season by any NL team between the Boys of Summer and the Big Red Machine. Just baaarely missed leading the league in RA & RS.

16. 1968 Tigers. Didn’t realize how good they were until this process began. Led league in RA, RS, won 103 games, won pennant by an even dozen games, and beat Bob Gibson in October. Any team which can lead the league in runs scored while having Ray Oyler as their starting shortstop must be special.

17. 1970 Orioles. Another team which did everything right. Three first-ballot Hall of Fame players, plus a great manager, an MVP, two other pitchers who won 20, and several other very good players.

18. 1972-4 A’s. I can’t really tell which single season of theirs was the best. Frankly, none look that impressive as individual seasons. Generally I look at regular season first when determining greatness, but jeez, a three-peater? Have to take my hat off to that.

19. 1975 Reds . Everyone knows about that lineup, but Gary Nolan was one of only 6 pitchers in the twentieth century to toss 200 IP in the majors in age 19 season, and he was tremendous before hurting his arm. Don Gullett’s one of about 30 to throw that many in his age 20 season, and he was also fantastic before he damaged his arm. It’s frightening to imaging how great this team could’ve been if these guys had stronger arms or if they team had been more careful with them. 120 wins? Maybe.

20. 1984 Tigers. How many teams have ever gone 35-5 at any point in the season? Led league in wins, RA, RS, and World Series rings that year. Nice combo. Nice hitters, nice pitchers, nice bench, nice bullpen. Jesus this was a solid team.

21. 1986 Bad Guys. Led league in wins, rings, runs, ERA, RBIs, arrests, OBP, indictments, SLG, plus second only to the Pirates in drug intake. Heckuva team for a year. Interesting to guess what the franchise’s W/L records would’ve looked like with a balanced schedule in the NL throughout the 1980s.

22. 1988-90 A’s. I have a lot of trouble choosing a year. If they’d at least made the ’88 or ’90 Series competitive I’d vote for one of them but they got killed both times. So I keep going back and forth on which year was their best. When I was a kid, they dominated their league like no other team I’d ever seen.

23. 1995 Indians. One of the greatest offensive teams ever. On pace for 112 wins.

24. 1995/8 Braves. Definitely think the Bobby Cox Braves deserve to be represented. Keep going back and forth between the team that was the best in October or the team that’s best on paper, but usually I’d go with 1998.

25. 1998 Yanks. What’s the downside of this team? Only second in stolen bases?

26. 2001 Mariners. 116 wins impresses me an awful lot.

27. 2002 Angels. I made a case for them in the pre-ballot thread. Someone corrected one of my arguments – that they made it to the playoffs 3 out of 4 years – by pointing out that they didn’t return to the postseason until the owner opened up his wallet and made some serious changes to the team by bringing in guys like Vlad, & Colon. True, but they still won 99 games in the toughest division in baseball history in the era of the unbalanced schedule. Put them in the East or Central or just in a balanced schedule, and I could see them winning 104-5 games, plus the ring. That’s tough to keep out.

Well, that’s 27 teams, but I’m stuck between several for a 28th team. I go back and forth between several teams – 1896 Orioles, a team which won three straight pennants in unileague baseball. The 1921-4 Giants – one of only four teams to win four straight pennants, and the only NL team to ever do so. The 1934-5 Tigers, a very solid team which won one series, and just missed another. The 1977-8 Yanks, won two straight, and also won the pennant in ’76 and ’81, and also won 103 in ’80 for a very nice five year run. Finally, the Jays in 1992-3 also won back-to-backers. Usually I end up going back and forth between John McGraw’s boys and the Drink Stirred By Reggie’s Straw. Five minutes ago I’d pick one, five minutes from now I might pick another, but for right now, I’ll go with . . ..

28. 1921-4 Giants. The 1922 model’s my favorite – won a ring, and the hitting/pitching’s more balanced than the 1921 team. Normally I’m a big fan of the teams with gaudy win totals (and the ’77-80 Yanks have this team beat in that regard) but I’ll concede to continued dominance of a league (such as the Stengal Yanks and Finley A’s). Winning four straight pennants & two titles is an impressive achievement for any era. Could easily had been three titles in four years had it not been for two of the flukiest bounces in World Series history over Lindstrom’s head in Game 7 of the 1924 Classic. At their October worst, they pushed a team with baseball’s greatest player ever and a fantastic pitching staff (almost 100 fewer runs allowed than anyone else in the AL) six games. My choice for the best team run by the best manager for the winningest franchise in baseball history. Also fills up the big 15 year gap between 1912 BoX and 1927 Yanks. These Giants led the league in runs scored three times, and were second in runs allowed in those trio of campaigns. In the fourth year, 1922, they led the league in runs allowed, and were third in runs scored – just 13 behind first place.

The 1976-81 Yanks were also great, and are my 29th team. They also went to four series, and just missed a fifth, but got swept in one Fall Classic, swept in an ALCS, and the ’81 squad only got in because of Kuhn’s asinine strike-induced playoff format. Given that they both played around .500 after the teams returned, and again in ’82, I find it unlikely they would’ve improved on their real life third place finish. And they had they missed the postseason altogether in ’79. If you could combine the best features of their run into one team - 103 wins, plus ring – I’d vote for it, but they don’t quite do it. Yea, they won 100 in both their ring seasons, but there’s a lot of 100 win teams – even 100 win World Series teams – that I don’t have room for. A tough call. Like I said, I keep going back and forth.

Others just missing out:

1932 Yanks & 1902 Pirates. Both great teams, but too redundant of teams on the list (’27 Yanks & ’09 Pirates) for my tastes. In both cases you had the three most important position players (Ruth, Gehrig, an Lazzeri,; and Wagner, Clarke, and Leach) and two notable pitchers overlap (Pipgras, Pennock; Leever, Phillippe).

The 1904-5 Giants weren’t as impressive as previous dominant NL teams (’94-6 Orioles, the ‘90s Beaneaters, ’02 Pirates), nor future ones (’06-’10 Cubs, ’09 Pirates).

The 1911-3 Giants would’ve gotten in but they didn’t win in October. Given that the NL won only one non-thrown World Series in 11 years, there are serious league quality issues, IMHO.

2005 White Sox – need another year or two.

2004-5 Cards: Need more postseason success. Maybe the best regular season team with no WS rings since the 1911-3 Giants.

1989 Cubs. Relied on big performances from Jerome Walton, Dwight Smith, Lloyd McClendon, Les Lancaster, Mitch Williams, Rick Wrona, Steve Wilson, and Mike Bielicki. Does that scream “greatness” or what? Without making any era adjustment, they win my vote as the worst team to go to the post season.

Non-redundant teams with most wins not listed:
106 – 1904 Giants
105 – 1905 Giants
105 – 1943 Cards
105 – 1944 Cards
105 – 2004 Cards
104 – 1942 Dodgers
104 – 1946 Red Sox
103 – 1942 Yanks
103 – 1962 Giants
103 – 1980 Yanks
103 – 1993 Giants
103 – 2002 A’s

For me...

1902 Pirates
1905 Giants
1906 Cubs
1909 Pirates
1911 A’s
1912 Giants
1927 Yanks
1931 A’s
1939 Yanks
1942 Cards
1948 Indians
1953 Yanks
1954 Indians
1955 Dodgers
1957 Braves
1961 Yanks
1967 Cards
1968 Tigers
1970 Orioles
1974 A’s
1975 Reds
1978 Yanks
1984 Tigers
1986 Mets
1988 A’s
1995 Indians
1998 Yanks
2001 Mariners

Shouldn't this be in the main blog?

1896 Orioles
1905 Giants
1906 Cubs
1912 Giants
1917 White Sox
1921 Yankees
1923 Giants
1927 Yanks
1932 Yanks
1934 Tigers
1942 Cards
1946 Red Sox
1954 Indians
1955 Dodgers
1961 Yanks
1974 A’s
1975 Reds
1984 Tigers
1992 Blue Jays
1995 Braves
1998 Yanks
2001 Mariners

1907 Cubs
1912 Red Sox
1920 Indians
1927 Yankees
1929 Athletics
1939 Yankees
1946 Cardinals
1954 Giants
1955 Dodgers
1958 Yankees
1967 Cardinals
1974 Athletics
1976 Reds
1980 Phillies
1984 Tigers
1986 Mets
1989 Athletics
1995 Braves
1998 Yankees
2004 Red Sox

My 28:

1896 Orioles
1902 Pirates
1905 Giants
1906 Cubs
1911 A’s
1912 Red Sox
1917 White Sox
1927 Yankees
1939 Yankees
1940 Reds
1942 Cards
1948 Indians
1953 Yankees
1955 Dodgers
1957 Braves
1961 Yankees
1967 Cards
1968 Tigers
1970 Orioles
1974 A’s
1975 Reds
1978 Yankees
1984 Tigers
1986 Mets
1992 Blue Jays
1995 Braves
1998 Yankees
2005 White Sox

All have won World Series (except the 1896 Orioles and 1902 Pirates, who obviously didn't have the opportunity) and finished in first place in either their league or division (sorry, '02 Angels and '04 Bosox). Some I eliminated, such as the '32 Yankees, were too close in time to other versions of the franchise.

I should note I based my selections strictly upon the list. Had the '22 Giants and '29 Athletics been on the ballot, instead of the '23 and '31 versions respectively, they would have garnered serious consideration. And I must admit, I would have loved to have seen the '24 Senators and '80 Phillies among the candidates.

1897 Beaneaters
1902 Pirates
1905 Giants
1906 Cubs
1912 Red Sox
1917 White Sox
1927 Yanks
1955 Dodgers
1970 Orioles
1975 Reds
1984 Tigers
1985 Cardinals
1986 Mets
1988 A’s
1992 Blue Jays
1994 Expos
1995 Indians
1995 Braves
1998 Yanks
2001 Mariners
2004 Red Sox

Hi, I’d like to vote to include the following teams:

1897 Boston Nationals
1906 Chicago Cubs
1911 Philadelphia A’s
1923 New York Giants (would prefer ’22)
1927 New York Yankees
1931 Philadelphia A’s (would prefer ’29)
1932 New York Yankees
1936 New York Yankees*
1939 New York Yankees
1942 St. Louis Cardinals
1953 New York Yankees
1955 Brooklyn Dodgers (would prefer ’53)
1961 New York Yankees
1963 Los Angeles Dodgers
1970 Baltimore Orioles
1974 Oakland A’s (would prefer ’73)
1975 Cincinnati Reds
1978 New York Yankees
1986 New York Mets
1988 Oakland A’s (would much prefer ’89)
1995 Atlanta Braves
1998 New York Yankees

I stuck with the representative teams listed on the sample ballot, and put my preferences from within the mini-dynasties in parenthesis in case there is any reason to track them. I’ve got to point out that you’re in danger of simulating Luis Polonia instead of Rickey Henderson here.

*Not a double-vote for the “1936-39 Yankees.” I feel that the both ends of this dynasty should be represented, on the grounds that they are distinct enough (more peaky superstars in ’36-’37; more broad-based, uniform mashing in ’39) to be worth playing out in the simulation.

Thanks to the CTR staff for running the vote and the simulation – I’m interested in the outcome of both.

Chris DeRosa

TerpNats -

Please note the header says this:
This list is by no means exhaustive so if you see a team lacking that you feel deserves to be in the sim, by all means vote for them.

RB, you may want to go back and bold in the part I just quoted so others don't have the same confusion TerpNats experiencd in post #7.

1896 Orioles
1897 Beaneaters
1902 Pirates
1906 Cubs
1912 Giants
1912 Red Sox
1921 Yankees
1927 Yanks
1931 A’s
1932 Yanks
1939 Yanks
1942 Cards
1942 Yankees
1946 Red Sox
1953 Yanks
1954 Indians
1955 Dodgers
1961 Yanks
1968 Tigers
1970 Orioles
1975 Reds
1984 Tigers
1986 Mets
1988 A’s
1994 Expos
1995 Indians
1998 Yanks
2001 Mariners

1896 Orioles
1906 Cubs
1909 Pirates
1911 A's
1912 Red Sox
1923 Giants
1927 Yankees
1931 A's
1939 Yankees
1942 Cardinals
1946 Red Sox
1953 Yankees
1955 Dodgers
1961 Yankees
1963 Dodgers
1970 Orioles
1974 A's
1975 Reds
1984 Tigers
1985 Cardinals
1986 Mets
1988 A's
1992 Blue Jays
1995 Indians
1995/9 Braves
1998 Yankees
2001 Mariners
2005 White Sox

List has balance among decades (2 per decade then more after expansion) and includes 18 different franchises for variety. Choice for my last spot was between 46 Red Sox and 68 Tigers. I went with the 46 Red Sox for decade balance and to include Ted Williams. My first choice for the Cox era Braves would be the 1999 team so that 28 different years are represented on the sim. 1963 Dodgers was a write-in vote.

1. 1896 Orioles
2. 1897 Beaneaters
3. 1905 Giants
4. 1906 Cubs
5. 1909 Pirates
6. 1911 A’s
7. 1912 Giants
8. 1927 Yanks
9. 1931 A’s
10. 1939 Yanks
11. 1942 Cards
12. 1948 Indians
13 1953 Yanks
14. 1954 Indians
15. 1955 Dodgers
16. 1961 Yanks
17. 1968 Tigers
18. 1970 Orioles
19. 1974 A’s
20. 1975 Reds
21. 1978 Yanks
22. 1984 Tigers
23. 1986 Mets
24. 1988 A’s
25. 1992 Blue Jays
26. 1995 Braves
27. 1998 Yanks
28. 2001 Mariners

1902 Pirates
1905 Giants
1906 Cubs
1909 Pirates
1912 Red Sox
1927 Yanks
1931 A’s
1931 Cards
1932 Yanks
1939 Yanks
1946 Red Sox
1948 Indians
1953 Yanks
1955 Dodgers
1961 Yanks
1968 Tigers
1970 Orioles
1974 A’s
1975 Reds
1984 Tigers
1986 Mets
1988 A’s
1992 Blue Jays
1994 Expos
1995 Braves
1998 Yanks
2001 Mariners
2004 Red Sox

I tried to put at least one representative from all 16 pre-expansion team and balance the teams through time. I also threw in a couple of personal favorites that I don't expect to get a lot of votes. I also didn't stick to the list, but here's my 28 teams in chronological order:

1897 Boston Beaneaters
1905 New York Giants
1906 Chicago Cubs
1909 Pittsburgh Pirates
1910 Philadelphia Athletics * (I like the '10 A's better than the '11 A's, but feel free to count this toward 1911 if that team gets more votes)
1912 Boston Red Sox
1927 New York Yankees
1929 Philadelphia Athletics
1931 St. Louis Cardinals
1939 New York Yankees
1942 St. Louis Cardinals
1946 Boston Red Sox
1955 Brooklyn Dodgers
1957 Milwaukee Braves
1963 Los Angeles Dodgers
1966 Baltimore Orioles -- best World Series performance ever!!
1968 Detroit Tigers
1970 Baltimore Orioles
1975 Cincinnati Reds
1980 Philadelphia Phillies -- this is forced, but they've been around for 130+ years, I thought they deserved a team
1984 Detroit Tigers
1986 New York Mets
1991 Minnesota Twins -- see the Phillies comment
1994 Montreal Expos -- see the Phillies comment
1995 Cleveland Indians
1998 New York Yankees
2001 Seattle Mariners
2005 Chicago White Sox

1984 Tigers
1994 Expos
2002 Angels

Instead of the best of the best, consider that the 1991 Angels (81-81) are considered by some to be the greatest last place team in baseball history. Throw them in the mix to see who can stack up against the best of the worst.

Name the only team with a winning record regular season record agaisnt the 1998 Yankees...

I'll vote for teams later, but wanted to inquire about the format. Is going to be the AL 2-division format of 12x7 other division + 13x6 same division = 162 games, or a one division 6x27 = 162 games round robin? Or something completely different?

2002 Angels

Second-place teams? Ick. Unless a sim could be run that includes, like, all 95+ victory seasons (Pyth or otherwise). Or pick some more convenient cutoff if you don't like 95. But something more inclusive that would comprise all possible candidates would be good.

2005 White Sox

Speaking as a White Sox fan: har.

I think the "toughest division race of all time" was a good argument for the '02 Angels inclusion.

I think you have to add the 1919-1920 White Sox...they led the league in most offensive (including nose hair...obscure movie reference) and defensive categories, and the latter was one of only two teams ever with 4 20-game winners...

Granted, they may have had a little problem with certain guys playing square...but the talent was there, as well as the performance when the odds were right....

Shoeless

How often are these sims being run? Are you doing just one or say, 10-20 and then releasing the averages?

Teams have some comments after them. Hopefully it isn't too hard to decipher.

'96 Orioles - I think they were better than Boston. Hughie Jennings and John McGraw at their best. I am not taking the 1902 Pirates (despite their amazing record) because the NL in 1902 was pretty watered down. I think there are a lot of teams from right around that time that could have won that many games in that league.

'05 Giants
'06 Cubs - The best of those Cubs teams, though the only one to lsot a World Series

'11 A's - $1,000,000 infield with a very good pitching staff

'12 Giants - I am not that big a fan of the 1912 Red Sox, it is odd but they beat a superior team in the WS. Those 10's REd Sox may have been the worst team ever to win 4 WS in a decade. Then again, that is quite a list of teams.

'27 Yanks - They or the '39 yanks are the best ever.

'31 A's - why not '29?

'39 Yanks - They or the '27 Yanks are the best ever. When MLB.com did a big tournament like they they curiously used the 1937 Yankees because Gehrig was on the team. Nevermind that the 1939 version was superior even with Dahlgren playing 1B. By the way, in their computer sim, the '27 Yankees beat the '75 Reds.

'42 Cards
'46 Red Sox - They weren't better than their yankee contemporaries, so i am tempted to place the '47 or '49 Yanks here. But the Yankees are represented in '53 and '39. Odd that they woudl have no one on the list in a decade in which they won 4 titles.

'53 Yanks
'54 Indians
'55 Dodgers
'61 Yanks - I know they weren't as great as many think they are but I still believe they need to be here, if only to finish near the bottom.

'67 Cards - I chose the Gibson Cards over the Kaline/McClain Tigers. It was close though. Part of me wants to see how the 60's Giants of Mays/Cepeda/McCovey/Perry/Marichal would do. But they never really won anything. Most disappointing team ever on a year by year basis?

'70 O's
'74 A's
'75 Reds
'78 Yanks - A lot of 70's teams but then again there were four teams that were at least mini-dynasties

'84 Tigers
'86 Mets
'88 A's
'92 Jays - Deserve to be here asmuch as some of these teams, they did win two consecutive WS.

'95 Indians
'95 Braves - s this the best Braves team? I know they are the only one to win the series but I am not sure they are the best. Then again the 1997 Braves weren't even in the series.

'98 Yanks
'01 Mariners - I probably shouldnt' have them here but I woudl be really interested in how they would fare. They were handled pretty easily by the Yanks in the LCS that year, however.

'04 Red Sox

1902 Pirates
1906 Cubs
1911 A�s
1912 Red Sox
1917 White Sox
1923 Giants
1927 Yankees
1931 A�s
1932 Yankees
1934 Tigers
1939 Yankees
1942 Cardinals
1946 Red Sox
1947 Yankees
1948 Indians
1953 Yankees
1955 Dodgers
1957 Braves
1961 Yankees
1967 Cardinals
1968 Tigers
1970 Orioles
1974 A�s
1975 Reds
1978 Yankees
1986 Mets
1998 Yankees
2001 Mariners

1897 Beaneaters
1906 Cubs
1909 Pirates
1911 A’s
1912 Red Sox
1912 Giants
1927 Yanks
1931 A’s
1939 Yanks
1942 Cards
1946 Red Sox
1953 Yanks
1955 Dodgers
1961 Yanks
1967 Cards
1968 Tigers
1970 Orioles
1974 A’s
1975 Reds
1984 Tigers
1986 Mets
1988 A’s
1995 Indians
1995 Braves
1998 Yanks
2001 Mariners
2002 Angels

I'll vote for teams later, but wanted to inquire about the format. Is going to be the AL 2-division format of 12x7 other division + 13x6 same division = 162 games, or a one division 6x27 = 162 games round robin? Or something completely different?

DCA, the current plan is two 14 team leagues with 3 games home and 3 games away against the other 27 teams. No playoffs though.

How often are these sims being run? Are you doing just one or say, 10-20 and then releasing the averages?

Actually, I was shooting for 1000 runs and then releasing the averages. It may not be as interesting to read as a daily/weekly rundown though so I'm open to suggestions.

1886 St Louis Browns
1897 Beaneaters
1903 Red Sox
1905 Giants
1906 Cubs
1909 Pirates
1911 As
1912 Red Sox
1917 White Sox
1923 Giants
1927 Yankees
1931 As
1939 Yankees
1946 Red Sox
1951 Giants
1954 Indians
1955 Dodgers
1961 Yankees
1968 Tigers
1970 Orioles
1974 As
1975 Red Sox
1979 Pirates
1980 Royals
1984 Tigers
1995 Indians
1998 Yankees
2004 Red Sox
-- a few write-ins here!

1896 Orioles
1902 Pirates
1903 Red Sox
1905 Giants
1906 Cubs
1912 Red Sox
1921 Yankees
1923 Giants
1927 Yanks
1931 A’s
1931 Cards
1939 Yanks
1942 Yankees
1946 Red Sox
1947 Yanks
1948 Indians
1955 Dodgers
1957 Braves
1961 Yanks
1967 Cards
1970 Orioles
1974 A’s
1975 Reds
1984 Tigers
1985 Cardinals
1986 Mets
1988 A’s
1998 Yanks

1886 St. Louis Browns (The AA was a major league)
1905 Giants
1906 Cubs
1909 Pirates
1912 Red Sox
1912 Giants
1927 Yankees
1929 Athletics
1932 Yankees
1942 Cardinals
1954 Indians
1955 Dodgers
1961 Yankees
1962 Giants
1968 Tigers
1970 Orioles
1975 Reds
1978 Yankees
1984 Tigers
1986 Mets
1998 Yankees
2004 Cardinals

There are a few write ins there.

No playoffs though.

Well, that sucks. I wanted to be able to pick all-time all-star teams to determine homefield in the World Series. And why bother splitting into leagues with no playoffs instead of just finishing with a 1-28 ranking.

1886 St. Louis Browns (The AA was a major league)
1905 Giants
1906 Cubs
1909 Pirates
1912 Red Sox
1912 Giants
1927 Yankees
1929 Athletics
1932 Yankees
1942 Cardinals
1954 Indians
1955 Dodgers
1961 Yankees
1962 Giants
1968 Tigers
1970 Orioles
1975 Reds
1978 Yankees
1984 Tigers
1986 Mets
1998 Yankees
2004 Cardinals

There are a few write ins there.

No playoffs though.

Well, that sucks. I wanted to be able to pick all-time all-star teams to determine homefield in the World Series. And why bother splitting into leagues with no playoffs instead of just finishing with a 1-28 ranking.

Sorry about the double post. My internet messed up and told me to refresh, creating a double post.

Well, that sucks. I wanted to be able to pick all-time all-star teams to determine homefield in the World Series. And why bother splitting into leagues with no playoffs instead of just finishing with a 1-28 ranking.

I have to split it into leagues due to the way Diamond Mind sets up their leagues, there's no option for one super league. I guess we could do a playoffs after we determine the top 8 teams, a one shot deal maybe. I also am not sure how to set up rules like the DH, etc., so if anyone has any suggestions on that please let me know.

No write-ins:

1906 Cubs
1909 Pirates
1911 A’s
1912 Giants
1917 White Sox
1927 Yanks
1931 A’s
1932 Yanks
1934 Tigers
1939 Yanks
1942 Yankees
1948 Indians
1953 Yanks
1954 Indians
1961 Yanks
1967 Cards
1968 Tigers
1970 Orioles
1974 A’s
1975 Reds
1978 Yanks
1984 Tigers
1986 Mets
1992 Blue Jays
1994 Expos
1995 Braves
1998 Yanks
2001 Mariners

I also am not sure how to set up rules like the DH, etc.

All NL and pre-1973 AL teams do not play with the DH at home, while post-1973 AL teams play with the DH at home. It should be that simple.

Is one person going to control the MPs for all 28 teams? Because each team deserves its own unique MP setup.

But if you have 28 different guys controlling MPs, there will be a bias in terms of who's great at controlling a team's MP and who isn't.

Also, will you be having PT limits?

Anyway, if you need volunteers to control a team, count me in, and I'll ask to be assigned the 1975 Reds but don't really have a preference except I won't control a New York or Chicago team.

Is one person going to control the MPs for all 28 teams? Because each team deserves its own unique MP setup.


I was going to use Diamond Mind's MPs for whatever teams I have or will get. Not sure how we should set up the teams that I will have to create, but maybe we could have a couple of people for each team that needs one set up.

Also, will you be having PT limits?

I was planning to use the limit bench-playing time option so that players come close to their actual PT in the season in question. Otherwise we'll end up with 1998 Shane Spencer hitting 90 HRs a year, not that I would have a problem with that.

Anyway, if you need volunteers to control a team, count me in, and I'll ask to be assigned the 1975 Reds but don't really have a preference except I won't control a New York or Chicago team.

I like this idea. Anyone interested in verifying the Manager's profiles for a team feel free to volunteer as well.

1989 Cubs. Relied on big performances from Jerome Walton, Dwight Smith, Lloyd McClendon, Les Lancaster, Mitch Williams, Rick Wrona, Steve Wilson, and Mike Bielicki. Does that scream “greatness” or what? Without making any era adjustment, they win my vote as the worst team to go to the post season.

I dunno. Bielecki's fluke was more that he actually pitched a full season than anything else. Smith and McClendon made a fine platoon but were probably not legitimate every day players; this is hardly novel. Walton wasn't that great, and Rick Wrona and Wilson were hardly what I would call significant contributors. Lancaster was lights out, and Williams was pretty much Williams.

I look at the 1989 Cubs and see a team that had two Hall of Famers, one having one of his best years (Sandberg) and the other having a season that he wouldn't be ashamed of (Maddux), plus a borderline guy who may end up in the Hall of Fame (Dawson), who was hurt but contributed. Really, it was a team with a very solid pitching staff, and an offense that really didn't have any gaping holes. Well, except for third base, but Luis Salazar came along and contributed nicely at the end. The 1988 team might have done the same thing if the offense had been a little better and the bullpen not a complete disaster. I guess the '89 team had something of a miracle bullpen, but that's nothing unusual.

If I were to point to a fluky team, I'd probably be more inclined to point to the '84 Cubs than the '89 version.

Otherwise we'll end up with 1998 Shane Spencer hitting 90 HRs a year, not that I would have a problem with that.

I would. Spencer did not play much because he was just not that good of a player. He had a good performence in limited playing time, but to suggest that he could have done that full time is unrealistic.

Interesting, two Yankee fans submit lists with no Red Sox teams on them.

1886 Browns
1899 Spiders
1909 Pirates
1927 Yankees
1962 Mets
1970 Orioles
1984 Tigers
1986 Mets
1995 Braves
1998 Yankees
2003 Tigers
2004 Cardinals

FWIW...

1897 Beaneaters
1906 Cubs
1909 Pirates
1911 A's
1912 Red Sox
1927 Yanks
1931 A's
1939 Yanks
1946 Red Sox
1947 Yanks
1953 Yanks
1954 Indians
1955 Dodgers
1961 Yanks
1967 Cards
1968 Tigers
1970 Orioles
1973 A's
1975 Reds
1975 Red Sox
1984 Tigers
1986 Mets
1990 A's
1995 Indians
1998 Braves
1998 Yanks
2001 Mariners
2004 Red Sox

If I were to point to a fluky team, I'd probably be more inclined to point to the '84 Cubs than the '89 version.

I'd disagree with this -- the only fluky seasons I'd point to in '84 were Sutcliffe, Dernier, and maybe Sanderson. Still, we're moving offtopic and can debate this elsewhere.

With a nod to the most recent teams, my top 20:

04 Red Sox
98 Yankees
95 Braves
92 Blue Jays
88 A's
86 Mets
78 Yankees
75 Reds
74 A's
70 Orioles
67 Cardinals
63 Dodgers
61 Yankees
55 Dodgers
53 Yankees
39 Yankees
31 A's
27 Yankees
11 A's
06 Cubs

I'd disagree with this -- the only fluky seasons I'd point to in '84 were Sutcliffe, Dernier, and maybe Sanderson. Still, we're moving offtopic and can debate this elsewhere.

I'm not saying the '84 Cubs were particularly fluky, just moreso than the '89 team for which I wouldn't really use that label.

1903 Red Sox
1917 White Sox
1921 Yankees
1927 Yanks
1929 Athletics
1939 Yanks
1940 Reds
1942 Cards
1942 Yankees
1946 Red Sox
1947 Yanks
1948 Indians
1953 Yanks
1954 Indians
1955 Dodgers
1957 Braves
1961 Yanks
1967 Cards
1975 Reds
1980 Royals
1984 Tigers
1986 Mets
1988 A’s
1992 Blue Jays
1994 Expos
1995 Braves
1998 Yanks
2001 Mariners

Aw nuts. Pleasefix. Please fix (crosses fingers

What the?

My first post...

1. 1896 Orioles
2. 1897 Beaneaters
3. 1905 Giants
4. 1906 Cubs
5. 1909 Pirates
6. 1911 A’s
7. 1912 Red Sox
8. 1912 Giants
9. 1927 Yanks
10. 1931 A’s
11. 1932 Yanks
12. 1939 Yanks
13. 1942 Cards
14. 1946 Red Sox
15. 1953 Yanks
16. 1954 Indians
17. 1955 Dodgers
18. 1961 Yanks
19. 1968 Tigers
20. 1970 Orioles
21. 1975 Reds
22. 1984 Tigers
23. 1986 Mets
24. 1988 A’s
25. 1995 Indians
26. 1995 Braves
27. 1998 Yanks
28. 2001 Mariners

1896 Orioles
1902 Pirates
1905 Giants
1906 Cubs
1917 White Sox
1921 Yankees
1923 Giants
1927 Yanks
1931 A’s
1931 Cards
1939 Yanks
1946 Red Sox
1953 Yanks
1954 Indians
1955 Dodgers
1967 Cards
1970 Orioles
1974 A’s
1975 Reds
1978 Yanks
1980 Royals
1985 Cardinals
1988 A’s
1993 Braves
1995 Indians
1998 Yanks
2001 Mariners
2002 Angels

1902 Pirates
1905 Giants
1911 A's
1912 Red Sox
1917 White Sox
1927 Yankees
1931 A's
1931 Cardinals
1936 Yanks
1939 Yanks
1942 Cardinals
1953 Yanks
1955 Dodgers
1961 Yanks
1967 Cardinals
1970 Orioles
1975 Reds
1984 Tigers
1986 Mets
1988 A's
1995 Braves
1998 Yanks

Running a sim of the 28 worst teams ever has some appeal to me too

How about this blend...mix the 14 first-year expansion franchises (from the '61 Angels and Senators to the '98 Devil Rays and Diamondbacks) with 14 of the worst teams ever (1899 Spiders, 1904 Senators, 1916 Athletics, 1988 Orioles, 2003 Tigers and the worst teams from the Browns, Phillies and Boston Braves, among others).

1902 Pirates
1906 Cubs
1912 Red Sox
1923 Giants
1927 Yanks
1931 A’s
1939 Yanks
1942 Cards
1948 Indians
1953 Yanks
1955 Dodgers
1957 Braves
1961 Yanks
1968 Tigers
1970 Orioles
1974 A’s
1975 Reds
1978 Yanks
1984 Tigers
1985 Cardinals
1986 Mets
1988 A’s
1992 Blue Jays
1995 Indians
1995 Braves
1998 Yanks
2001 Mariners


I don't see how you can include wild card teams in this, unless the team that won the division is also in the top 28.

How about this blend...mix the 14 first-year expansion franchises (from the '61 Angels and Senators to the '98 Devil Rays and Diamondbacks) with 14 of the worst teams ever (1899 Spiders, 1904 Senators, 1916 Athletics, 1988 Orioles, 2003 Tigers and the worst teams from the Browns, Phillies and Boston Braves, among others).

That'd be fun ... you lose 100 games in that league, man, you've earned those losses.

1886 St. Louis AA
1895 Brooklyn (or 1896)
1897 Boston NL
1905 New York NL (or 1904)
1906 Chicago NL (OR 1907)
1909 Pittsburgh
1910 Philadelphia AL (or 1911)
1912 Boston AL
1919 Cincinnati
1927 New York AL
1929 Philadelphia AL (or 1931)
1939 New York AL
1941 Brooklyn
1942 St. Louis NL
1948 Cleveland (or 1954)
1953 Brooklyn (or 1955)
1953 New York AL
1969 Baltimore (or '70 or '71)
1974 Los Angeles
1976 Cincinnati (or 1975)
1984 Detroit
1985 St. Louis (or 1982)
1986 New York NL (or 1988)
1994 Montreal
1995 Cleveland
1998 New York AL
1998 Atlanta (or 1997)
2001 Seattle

1) 1905 Giants
2) 1906 Cubs
3) 1925 Pirates
4) 1927 Yanks
5) 1931 A’s
6) 1931 Cards
7) 1932 Yanks
8) 1934 Tigers
9) 1939 Yanks
10) 1953 Yanks
11) 1954 Indians
12) 1957 Braves
13) 1961 Yanks
14) 1968 Tigers
15) 1970 Orioles
16) 1975 Reds
17) 1978 Yanks
18) 1979 Pirates
19) 1980 Royals
20) 1984 Tigers
21) 1985 Cardinals
22) 1986 Mets
23) 1992 Blue Jays
24) 1995 Indians
25) 1995 Braves
26) 1998 Yanks
27) 2001 Mariners
28) 2002 Angels

1906 Cubs
1909 Pirates
1910 A's
1912 Red Sox
1912 Giants
1927 Yankees
1929 A's
1934 Tigers
1939 Yankees
1941 Dodgers
1942 Cardinals
1946 Red Sox
1953 Yankees
1955 Dodgers
1961 Yankees
1963 Dodgers
1967 Cardinals
1970 O's
1974 A's
1975 Reds
1984 Tigers
1985 Cardinals
1986 Mets
1995 Indians
1995 Braves
1998 Yankees
2001 Mariners
2005 White Sox

I'm only voting from 1920 on, because I don't know enough prior. So I'll limit myself to 20:

1)1927 Yanks
2)1931 As
3)1932 Yanks
4) 1934 Tigers
5)1939 Yanks
6)1946 Red Sox
7)1953 Yanks
8)1955 Brooklyn
9)1957 Braves
10)1968 Tigers
11)1970 Orioles
12)1974 A’s
13)1975 Reds
14)1978 Yanks
15)1980 Royals
16)1984 Tigers
17) 1988 As
18)1992 Blue Jays
19)1995 Indians
20)1998 Yankees

So sue me:

21)2001 Mariners

Relied on big performances from Jerome Walton, Dwight Smith, Lloyd McClendon, Les Lancaster, Mitch Williams, Rick Wrona, Steve Wilson, and Mike Bielicki.

When I lived in Taiwan, I kinda knew Steve Wilson, as I ate at his sports bar fairly often. Tons of 89 Cubs stuff on the walls, good nachos.

What's the logic with the 2002 Angels and the 2004 Red Sox? Neither of them even won their division. In fact the Angels only had the third best record in the league.

Yes, I'm aware that they won the World Series. But why are they somehow more deserving than all those other teams that won the World Series, and didn't make this list?

This stinks of recentism.

Just to clarify my point: I'm certainly not trying to say that they weren't (at least) very good teams. But "greatest of all time"? That's extremely difficult to believe when they weren't even the greatest in their division.

1895 Brooklyn (or 1896)

?

Did you mean Baltimore? Brkn was a fifth place team in '95 and 58-73 in '96.

What's the logic with the 2002 Angels and the 2004 Red Sox?

I explained my vote for Ana in post #1: adjust for the unbalanced schedule, and they're a 104-5 win team IMHO. And then they played pretty dang good in the postseason and won themselves a ring. The only teams that won 104 games & the Series that I didn't vote for were the 1905 Giants, and 1944 Cards. Much stronger league in 2002 then either of those seasons, and a 104ish quality win teams are much rarer now as well. I consider them to be a 21st century version of the 1984 Tigers whose greatness was disguised by changes in baseball scheduling.

How about this blend...mix the 14 first-year expansion franchises (from the '61 Angels and Senators to the '98 Devil Rays and Diamondbacks) with 14 of the worst teams ever (1899 Spiders, 1904 Senators, 1916 Athletics, 1988 Orioles, 2003 Tigers and the worst teams from the Browns, Phillies and Boston Braves, among others).

Would anyone actually be willing to run the sims for something like this?

People gotta give more love to the 1968 Tigers. They used to rock my MicroLeague Baseball leagues.

1896 Orioles
1897 Beaneaters
1906 Cubs
1909 Pirates
1911 A's
1912 Red Sox
1923 Giants
1927 Yankees
1931 A's
1939 Yankees
1942 Cardinals
1947 Yankees
1954 Indians
1955 Dodgers
1963 Dodgers
1967 Cardinals
1968 Tigers
1970 Orioles
1973 A's
1975 Reds
1984 Tigers
1986 Mets
1994 Expos
1995 Indians
1998 Yankees
1998 Braves
2001 Mariners
2002 A's

Please add the 1994 Expos ... they never had the chance to win anything else. And they were cooking at a 104-win pace when the season ended. No they weren't that good of a team and to be "fair" you might have to figure out some way to regress their numbers a bit over a 162-game schedule.

1906 Cubs
1909 Pirates
1910 A's
1912 Red Sox
1912 Giants
1927 Yankees
1929 A's
1934 Tigers
1939 Yankees
1941 Dodgers
1942 Cardinals
1946 Red Sox
1953 Yankees
1955 Dodgers
1961 Yankees
1963 Dodgers
1967 Cardinals
1970 O's
1974 A's
1975 Reds
1984 Tigers
1985 Cardinals
1986 Mets
1995 Indians
1995 Braves
1998 Yankees
2001 Mariners
2005 USC

I left off the 19th Century teams because I don't know squat about 19th Century baseball, and I left off the 1902 Pirates because of the AL raids that year which caused the NL to be historically weak. Possibly an injustice.

And the early deadball era may be overrepresented, but anyway....

(Non-Series winners are italicized, and my top 10 are in boldface)

1905 Giants
1906 Cubs
1909 Pirates
1910 A's (much, much better than the 1911 team---look it up.)
1912 Red Sox

1922 Giants

1927 Yanks
1931 Cardinals
1931 A's

1936 Yanks
1939 Yanks
1942 Cardinals

1948 Indians
1953 Yanks
1953 Dodgers
1955 Dodgers

1961 Yanks

1968 Tigers

1970 Orioles
1974 A's
1975 Reds

1984 Tigers
1986 Mets

1995 Braves
1995 Indians
1998 Yanks (The best of the bunch)
2001 Mariners
2001 A's
2004 Red Sox

You can see my bias against non-Series winners, but nevertheless I did stick 6 of them in there, including 3 of my top 10, and including both the Mariners (top 10)and the A's (top 28) from 2001. And I did include one wild card winner, but the 2004 Red Sox were a powerful team which had one of the great postseason runs ever against three excellent teams.

The 1910's and early 1920's are lacking, probably due to the relative balance in the game for that brief period, especially in the NL. The 1922 Giants were likely the best team in that era.

One last note: I put both the 1936 and 1939 Yankees on the list, since they were both so overwhelmingly dominant, but in a sort of reverse affirmative action, I only took the 1939 team for my top 10, even though the 1936 team almost certainly belongs there as well.

And I omitted the 1969 Orioles, since I had the 1970 team in there, and since the 1969 team blew the Series. If they'd won that year as well, I would have put them both in there, like the 1936 and 1939 Yankees.

And Steve will note that I added a third non-winner to my top 10. Those 1995 Indians were just too good to leave off, and the Braves got exceptional pitching to beat them.

2004 USC
2005 USC
1927 Yankees

That's all you need. Have a blind 3 team round robin triple elimination tournament.

I explained my vote for Ana in post #1: adjust for the unbalanced schedule, and they're a 104-5 win team IMHO.

And how many wins, in your humble opinion, are the 2002 A's, after adjusting for the unbalanced schedule?

The 2002 A's who beat the Angels by four games. In the same division.

1896 Orioles - most wins 1894, 1895, 1896.
1897 Beaneaters - most wins 1891, 1892, 1893, 1897, 1898.
2 best teams throughout the 1890s. The Beaneaters of the 90s are one of the most dominant defensive teams of all times.

1906 Cubs - 90 or more wins 1904 - 1912. 4 pennants, 2 WS.
1909 Pirates - 90 or more wins 1901 - 1909 with 1 yr at 87. 4 pennants, 1 out of 2 in WS.
The Cubs of this era are the winningest teams of all time, 1 yr, 2 yr, 3 yr, ... 8 yr. The Cubs and Pirates were both fantastic defensive teams.

1911 A’s - 90 wins 1909-1914, 4 pennants, 3 WS.
1912 Red Sox - Pennants and World Series in 1912, 1915, 1916, 1918. Of all the dominant teams, this one may have had the most roster turnover during its period of dominance.

1923 Giants - 4 Pennants, 2 WS. Fantastic hitters. Did not have dominant starting pitchers.
1927 Yanks - Duh. Monster years from Ruth, Gehrig, and Lazzeri. Great performances from every pitcher.

1931 A’s - Dominant teams, 1929-1931. If only Mr. Mack could have afforded to keep Cochrane, Grove, Foxx, Simmons, et al. for a few more years.
1939 Yanks - won 98 games in 7 out of 8 years from 1936-1943. Won 7 Pennants and 6 WS while the entire roster was turned over.

1942 Cards - won 95 games in 6 straight years, 1941-1946. 4 Pennants, 3 WS. The fruits of Branch Rickey's farm system.
1942 Yanks - See the 1939 Yanks. Great defenses to go with great offenses.

1953 Yanks - Part of 14 Pennants in 16 years. 5th of 5 straight WS winners. 12 straight years of 92 wins, 1947-1958. Had to beat excellent Cleveland teams every year and McCarthy's Red Sox bombers.
1954 Indians - Finally broke through against the Yankees. 88 wins or more from 1948-1956, 7 years over 92. Finished 2nd to Yankees in 1951, 1952, 1953, and 1955.
1955 Dodgers - 9 years over 92 wins out of 11, 1946-1956. 6 Pennants, 1 WS. 5 losses to Yankees.

1961 Yanks - 5 pennants, 2 WS. Dominant offense, great infield defense. Whitey Ford's best year and one of the best relief years ever.
1963 Dodgers (write in) - 3 Pennants, 2 WS. Imagine teams trying to score in mid-60s Dodger Stadium?
1967 Cards - 3 Pennants, 2 WS. Alternated with the Dodgers in the 1960s NL.
1968 Tigers - Maybe the most underachieving team over along with the 1950s Braves, but very good for this year.

1970 Orioles - 3 Pennants, 1 WS. Most wins in AL in 1969, 1970, 1971, 1973, 1974. One of the most defensively dominant teams ever. If they play the 1900s Cubs will anyone ever score?
1974 A’s - 3 Pennants, 3 WS, 5 straight division titles. Just win baby.
1975 Reds - 4 Pennants, 2 WS, division titles in 1970, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1976, 1979.

1984 Tigers - Great team for one year, but what a year. Pitching, bench, hitting. Coasted after 35-5 start. Never pushed.
1986 Mets - Great team. Boy, did they piss away great talent. How did they not dominate the NL in the late 80s?
1988 A’s - 3 Pennants, 1 WS, division titles in 1988, 1989, 1990, 1992.

1995 Indians - 2 Pennants, no WS, division titles in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001. Almost 100 percentage points better than the next best team in the AL. Just couldn't get good enough pitching.
1995 Braves - 5 Pennants, 1 WS, 14 division titles. Best pitching staffs of all-time? Always at least one error to take advantage of.
1998 Yanks - 6 Pennants, 4 WS, 9 division titles in 10 years. Amazingly deep and consisent team.

The 2002 A's who beat the Angels by four games. In the same division.

And lost in the first round of the playoffs to a team the Angels creamed. I take postseason performance into account as well.

1980 Philadelphia Phillies -- this is forced, but they've been around for 130+ years, I thought they deserved a team

The '77 Phils were better.

And lost in the first round of the playoffs to a team the Angels creamed.

Right, those 2002 A's. How many wins?

P.S. On my list in #64 above, I just noticed that due to a Freudian slip I italicized the 2004 Red Sox, thereby denying that they won the World Series. Sorry, Kevin, but that was a tough October for me.

2005 USC

This is limited to Major League teams only.

And Steve will note that I added a third non-winner to my top 10. Those 1995 Indians were just too good to leave off, and the Braves got exceptional pitching to beat them.

Andy rocks!

Can I cst a negative vote against the 1995 Braves? They were 9th in the NL in scoring. 9th!
I know they were the lone WS winner of a dynasty, but I don't see how the other 13 teams failing to win the WS makes the 1995 team any greater.

(out of order)- Athletic contests do not follow the laws of arithmetic.

The '77 Phils were better.

You're probably right, but I'm biased toward World Series winners.

1896 Orioles
1897 Beaneaters
1902 Pirates
1906 Cubs
1909 Pirates
1910 A's (Much better than '11)
1912 Giants
1912 Red Sox
1917 White Sox
1921 Yankees
1927 Yanks
1931 A’s
1939 Yanks
1940 Reds
1942 Cards ('44 isn't too bad either)
1948 Indians
1954 Indians
1955 Dodgers
1968 Tigers
1969 Orioles
1975 Reds (I like the '76 team better, but it doesn't matter)
1984 Tigers
1986 Mets
1990 A's (Better than '88)
1995 Indians
1998 Braves (Much better than '95)
1998 Yanks
2001 Mariners

I had a hard time dropping from 29 to 28. Apologies to the 1995 Indians, who were the final cut. I am mostly in agreement with the years for multiyear dynasties, but I feel that the A's are ALL wrong. All teams won WS -- I'm a stickler for that -- unless they put up ungodly regular season records (1906 Cubs, 1954 Indians, 2001 Mariners)

1903 Red Sox
1905 Giants
1906 Cubs
1909 Pirates
1910 A’s -- 1910 A's were better than 1911; 102-48
1912 Red Sox
1917 White Sox
1922 Giants -- 2 WS in a row, prefer 1922 version to 1923
1927 Yanks
1929 A’s -- much prefer 1929 A's 104-46 won WS from the 1929-31 bunch
1932 Yanks
1939 Yanks
1942 Cards
1948 Indians
1953 Yanks
1954 Indians
1961 Yanks
1968 Tigers
1970 Orioles
1972 A’s -- IMO the best of the 72-74 bunch
1975 Reds
1978 Yanks
1984 Tigers
1986 Mets
1989 A’s -- not 1988; 1989 A's won WS and would be the best choice
1995 Braves
1998 Yanks
2001 Mariners

DCA,

Please, please not the 1954 Indians over their 1995 team.

Going by OPS + and ERA+, they were a statistical wash. But forget that for a second.

Just look at the talent in those two starting lineups, position by position. And look at the lineups in the competition they faced. You can find all this on BB-Reference.

It's like night and day. The 95 team faced more star players on single opposing teams (Seattle, for instance) than the 54 team faced in the entire league. This is no exaggeration: Look at the rosters if you don't believe me. You'll drop your jaws at the sheer skankiness of the bottom five AL teams of 1954.

And look at the 1954 team's record against the three teams they faced with a winning record: 22 and 26. They swamped five of the worst teams on earth in order to compile that 111-43 record.

The 95 Indians were a truly great team which ran into a historically great Braves starting rotation in a short series, and came up short. The 54 Indians had a great pitching staff, but for the most part they were little more than a two-legged man in a track meet full of cripples.

End of sermon, but even ranting preachers stumble upon the truth now and then.

1896Baltimore
1897Boston
1905New York (N)
1906Chicago (N)
1909Pittsburgh
1910Philadelphia (A)
1912Boston (A)
1917Chicago (A)

1927New York (A)
1929Philadelphia (A)
1931St.Louis (N)
1939New York (A)
1942St.Louis (N)
1948Cleveland
1953New York (A)
1953Brooklyn

1967St.Louis
1968Detroit
1969Baltimore
1975Cincinnati

1984Detroit
1986New York (N)
1988Oakland
1995Cleveland
1998Atlanta
1998New York (A)
2001Seattle
2004St.Louis

My biggest worry with a project like this is how the era conversions affect the outcome of the games. My solution would be to have 4 8-team divisions play the std. 154 sched. (22/tm), then have a 4-team playoff (best of 15 series). You could then say "for certain" that the '09 Pirates are the best deadball team, but we could all debate forever whether the '53 Bums beating them was just luck (like the current MLB playoffs).

To round out my scenario, add 1961 NY(A), 1965 Minnesota (gives everyone in the original 16 a team), 1974 Oakland and 1976 Philadelphia (see Minn.) to the '55-'80 division.

And look at the 1954 team's record against the three teams they faced with a winning record: 22 and 26. They swamped five of the worst teams on earth in order to compile that 111-43 record.

It's tempting. Like I said, it was easy to pick the top 29 -- top 28 was a bit harder. Another day, and it'd probably be the 1903 Red Sox getting the axe.

The 1992 Blue Jays and the 1994 Expos deserve more love from the electorate, methinks.

Principles: Teams that played in smaller leagues, with less competition, have to have dominated their competition more than teams who played later and with more competition. The same goes for teams that played before the color-barrier was broken and those that played after. I attach more significance to several-year success for a team that retained largely the same personnel than to a team that had one great year but was pedestrian in the surrounding years. I attach no significance to events of the post-season exhibition tournament.

1902 Cubs
1927 Yankees
1939 Yankees
1942 Cardinals
1953 Yankees
1955 Dodgers
1970 Orioles
1971 Pirates (representing the sustained success of the full decade)
1974 A's
1975 Reds
1978 Yankees
1988 A's
1995 Braves
1998 Yankees

That's an even number of teams, so just play the AL schedule and see what happens. I predict the '98 Yanks, '74 A's, and '70 Orioles, and'95 Braves would win noticably more often than the others.

Add the '02 A's to my ballot, and since I now need a 16th team, the '98 Astros, representing the '97-'01 (and in some ways -present) run, which has had slow turnover, at least. They're sort of a tie with the '00-present Cardinals.

Vaux,

This vote --

1902 Cubs

Did you mean the 1906 Cubs or the 1902 Pirates? I have trouble believing you really meant to include the 68-69 1902 Cubs.

the '98 Astros, representing the '97-'01 (and in some ways -present) run, which has had slow turnover, at least

This team went 2-12 in the playoffs. Why did you vote for them?

Vaux- The .625 WP% 1995 Braves? Did we stumble into some kind of bizarro world where not only are those Braves a reasonable top 30 team of all time they are on the level of the 1998 Yankees? Even more bizarre coming from someone who allegedly discounts the postseason.

Any ballot that doesn't have each of the following teams should be thrown out under the theory that the voter misunderstood what they were being asked to vote on:
1927 Yankees
1939 Yankees
1998 Yankees
1995 Indians
2001 Mariners
1906 Cubs(or 1907 Cubs, but at least one of the two)


I know this should've gone in the other thread but it's been Backlashered to worthlessness.

will the teams (players?) post-season stats be included in the DMB Sim?

1897 Beaneaters
1906 Cubs
1912 Red Sox
1917 White Sox
1927 Yanks
1931 A’s
1939 Yanks
1942 Cards
1946 Red Sox
1947 Yanks
1954 Indians
1955 Dodgers
1961 Yanks
1967 Cards
1968 Tigers
1974 A’s
1975 Reds
1978 Yanks
1984 Tigers
1985 Cardinals
1986 Mets
1988 A’s
1994 Expos
1995 Indians
1995 Braves
1998 Yanks
2001 Mariners
2004 Red Sox

will the teams (players?) post-season stats be included in the DMB Sim?

This would hurt teams that won the WS as they'd end up facing some more tougher pitchers and hitters.

This whole process is kind of fun, but it's all in the execution. As has been said, if you don't try to regress the stats from teams like the 1927 Yankees, they're going to end up the clear favorite I think.

Did you mean Baltimore? Brkn was a fifth place team in '95 and 58-73 in '96.

Uh, yes, pleas note that I meand BALTIMORE 1895 or 1896.

Please, please not the 1954 Indians over their 1995 team.

The 1948 Indians team was beter than the 1995 team even...and for those who think post-season is very important, the '48 team was World Champion.

Any ballot that doesn't have each of the following teams should be thrown out under the theory that the voter misunderstood what they were being asked to vote on

Now that is just wrong. In this country, people are free to vote for whoever they want. I could take your theory a step further and say that everybody who voted for Ralph Nader should have their ballot discounted, because they made such a poor choice. If somebody wants to waste a vote on a team like the 1902 Cubs (as Vaux did) there should be no problem with it. And if enough people write in a crappy team, like say a bunch of people vote for the 1962 Mets, and that team takes the place of a more deserving team, so be it. The winners of elections are those who get the most votes, not the ones with best merits. You can not discount a ballot just because of bad choices.

Please, please not the 1954 Indians over their 1995 team.

The 1948 Indians team was beter than the 1995 team even...and for those who think post-season is very important, the '48 team was World Champion.

You’re appealing to my bias, and the 1948 Indians are on my list of 28. They had a remarkable pitching staff, with a team ERA over a full run below the AL average. That’s been done about twice since 1901, I believe. And in an era which was before the effects of integration were really being felt (comparatively, that is), the AL’s top teams were very good, and the Red Sox and Yankees in particular.

In addition, they had one HOFer (Boudreau)who had a career year to end all career years (look it up) , plus a 2B (Gordon) and a 3B who had OPS+ numbers of 135 and 146. Boudreau’s, BTW, was 165, and in addition, Boudreau struck out but 9 times in 560 AB,
had a fielding percentage and range factor well over the league norm, and of course was the team’s manager. It also had Dale Mitchell (119) and Larry Doby (134). The team OPS+ was 120 and the team ERA+ was 126. It was strong defensively up the middle, with Jim Hegan, Boudreau, Gordon, and Doby.

And it also won the World Series in six games, even after a questionable call likely cost them Game 1. That was a great team, which had the mark against it of being a more or less isolated champion, surrounded by years where they weren’t really in serious late season contention.

So I want to agree with you---but I can’t.

The 1948 team had slightly better overall comparative numbers, but the 1995 team just dominated their division, swept the Red Sox in the DS, and then beat a very good (and white hot) Seattle team in the ALCS, beating the hottest postseason pitcher that year (Randy Johnson) in the clincher for good measure. They then lost in a closely contested World Series to an Atlanta team which had four outstanding starters that year. It was hardly a disgrace to lose to Atlanta in 1995.

Their only real weaknesses were at catcher and when Omar Vizquel stepped up to bat.

I will say it’s a very close call, and I’d give it to the 1995 team on the basis of the overall competition, which I’d use as a tiebreaker. But that 1948 Cleveland team is very underrated by most casual fans, just as much as their 1954 team is very overrated.