Some of his comments, and rankings, make no sense. The Nationals ahead of the Twins (or Rangers)? The comment calling the White Sox the AL's version of the Phillies? (Even at their lowest point, between the World Wars, the Sox were never the usual cellar-dweller the Phils were -- and from 1951 to 1967, they had 17 consecutive winning seasons) And as much as I may loathe the Red Sox, it's absurd to rate them a rung below the Orioles (who now are effectively the St. Louis Browns redux).

I'd rank them this way:

1. Yankees
2. Cardinals
3. Dodgers
4. Red Sox
5. Cubs
6. Tigers
7. Braves
8. Giants
9. Mets
10. Athletics
11. White Sox
12. Reds
13. Angels
14. Phillies
15. Indians
16. Twins
17. Pirates
18. Orioles
19. Marlins
20. Royals
21. Blue Jays
22. Padres
23. Astros
24. Diamondbacks
25. Brewers
26. Rays
27. Rangers
28. Rockies
29. Mariners
30. Nationals

I generally gave the pre-expansion franchises an edge, although due to their locations, the Mets and Angels rated a bit ahead of their expansion brethren. The M's and Nats brought up the rear since neither has reached the World Series (until this month, Seattle might have been 28th, Texas 29th).

So which team is the 6th best?

I'd rank the Mariners at #6.

EDIT: Dammit!

9. Mets
10. Athletics

I wish I could agree with this, but there is no way the Mets rank ahead of a franchise with the history of greatness the A's have had. The Athletics have had their extreme down-times, too, certainly more than any other franchise that has had comparable or greater times of glory (hence their overall record of being under .500). But they have nine world championships and 15 pennants -- many more of each per season of the franchise's existence than the Mets, and several distinct dynasties remembered as among the greatest teams in major league history (1909-14, 1928-31, 1971-75, 1988-90).

Wow, the Tigers are doomed.

These lists should really not include a 6th best organization anymore. It should be like the elevators in the buildings that skip the 13th floor. Just go right to the 14th.

I wish I could agree with this, but there is no way the Mets rank ahead of a franchise with the history of greatness the A's have had.

This was the only one that jumped out. I'd probably flip-flop a few here and there, but otherwise TerpNats' list seems pretty close.

I think the reds should make the top 10. I'd put them ahead of the chisox and mets

I realize lists are an impossible task, and their nature leads to great discussion -- but how in the heck are the Mets ahead of the Athletics and how is Houston ahead of the White Sox? Also, Washington is way, way, way too high.

I'm a Detroit fan, but the A's need to be above them, for sure.

I agree with TerpNats' list, even ranking the Mets higher than the A's (1969 and 1986 versus an Oakland team that had a hard time attracting fans even when it dominated the American League in the early 1970s).

I'm also impressed that my two favorite teams (the Mariners and Nationals) are bottom dwellers. It makes me feel warm inside.

I don't argue with the ranking of the Rays nor do I think the comment is mistaken, but as part of the ranking has to do with influence, I would add one point. There is some thought that the success of the new Rays' organization has provided a model for building a contender, and not just for low budget teams.

I also think that those complaining about the ranking of the Red Sox are guilty of short term perspective. After its early 20th century period of dominance, and despite the presence of many huge stars, the two things most associated with Boston's team were the phrase "25 players and 25 cabs" and the fact that they were the last team to integrate. It did once have a reputation for having some famous fans who claimed to be very sophisticated, but that reputation has been buried since they began winning and their fan base was exposed as being just as crass as every other team's.

The comment calling the White Sox the AL's version of the Phillies? (Even at their lowest point, between the World Wars, the Sox were never the usual cellar-dweller the Phils were -- and from 1951 to 1967, they had 17 consecutive winning seasons)

A truer comparison for the Phillies (from 1900-90) might have been the Braves -- they both spent the first half of the 20th century as second-best teams in forgotten parks (Baker Bowl, Braves Field) to more established, dynastic AL franchises in the same city. The Braves won their first post-1900 pennants in 1914 and '48, the Phillies in 1915 and '50.

Seriously, the Orioles are 7th? Has Freddy watched any baseball since 1997? A baker's dozen of suckitude ought to count for something.

I wish I could agree with this, but there is no way the Mets rank ahead of a franchise with the history of greatness the A's have had.

The A's also had four decades of epic suckitude.

And yet, despite four decades of utter suckitude, the A's still have a better overall winning percentage than my Mets.

Alderson really better be the next Frank Cashen. We need it.

There are so many factors to consider that it's tough to know where to begin, but I'm putting a space between teams that IMO aren't all that close. I have an admitted bias towards the original 16 teams, and I'm including the Browns with the Orioles, all 3 A's franchises, etc.

1. Yankees

2. Dodgers - extra credit for integration and bringing baseball to the West Coast
3. Cardinals - extra credit for the invention of the farm system
4. Giants - fewer years of absolute horror than any team besides the Yankees

5. Red Sox - Their down period was historically dreadful, otherwise I'd eliminate the gap
6. Athletics - the little girl with the curl
7. Tigers - consistently good until the 70's, and with another good run in the 80's
8. Cubs - one of the dominant NL teams for 45 years, but El Stinko ever since

9. Browns / Orioles - for 25 years baseball's best, but other than that---BLECCCHHH
10. Braves - same argument as the Orioles, only not quite as long a run of success

11. Indians - 60 years of perennially good teams, with a brief bit of glory in the 90's added
12. Pirates - Two long stretches of excellence, nearly forgotten in recent years
13. Reds - The Big Red Machine plus a scattering of contenders

14. Angels - overtaken the Royals in the 21st century
15. Royals - far and away the best run expansion team for the longest stretch of time (20 years)
16. Nats / Twins - more years of semi-contention than is generally remembered
17. White Sox - throw away the first 20 years and the 50's, and you're clutching at straws
18. Blue Jays - second only to the Royals in building up a good franchise fairly quickly
19. Phillies - a few good short runs of success can't make up for what went before
20. Mets - two great teams combined with lots of hype and underachievement

21. Mariners
23. Marlins - the Athletics of the expansion teams
23. Brewers
24. Rays
25. Astros
26. Rangers
27. Rockies
28. Padres
29. Diamondbacks
30. Nationals

Andy, if you count integration as a factor, you're going to have to close that gap between the Yankees and Dodgers.

Andy, if you count integration as a factor, you're going to have to close that gap between the Yankees and Dodgers.

I do count it as a factor, but it's not enough to make up for the difference of 719 wins (1901-2010) and 21 championships. That's just too big a differential, and in fact it wouldn't surprise me if no other two pre-expansion teams have a post-1900 gap between them that's that wide. Hell, the Yankees have 535 more wins than the Phillies do in the Phillies' entire history, even though the Phillies began play in 1883!

The funny thing about the ranking of the Royals ahead of the White Sox on Andy's list is that the first 40 years of both franchises are pretty similar. So I'd flip 'em, but I'm not exactly impartial.

The funny thing about the ranking of the Royals ahead of the White Sox on Andy's list is that the first 40 years of both franchises are pretty similar. So I'd flip 'em, but I'm not exactly impartial.

I put the Royals ahead of the White Sox because I continue to be impressed with the way that the Royals made themselves into contenders within about 5 or 6 years, without the benefit of a Sugar Daddy and free agency, and with the contrasting records of all of the other 7 expansion teams, discounting the Mets' rather flukish 1969 season. It's hard to imagine nowadays, but for a good 10 or 15 years that team was a model franchise in a small market. Among the expansion teams, only the Blue Jays in the 80's and early 90's really accomplished anything comparable, and I could have in fact jumped the Blue Jays up a notch or two.

The White Sox were great for the first 20 years, and then were solid wannabee contenders from 1951 through 1967, but other than that, they get dragged down by 30 years after the Black Sox, and by the years of mediocrity after 1967. They haven't been able to sustain anything since then for more than a year or two.

"I thought it might be a nifty time waster to rank the teams based not on accomplishment but how important they have been to baseball fans.

These rankings are purely subjective and based solely on my own little whims based on a combination of accomplishment, lore and influence."
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Above is what Freddy says his criteria is. There is something of a contradiction between the first and second sentence regarding accomplishment, but apparently actual success is at best a part of the ranking, and not necessarily the key part. Given that, I would give the Reds some extra credit for being the first professional franchise. Certainly that was an influential development for baseball. In a sense, if "lore" is part of the criteria, the White Sox should get points FOR the Black Sox scandal. How many memories rank with "Say it ain't so, Joe"? And the hitless wonders are part of baseball lore as well. Ozzie Guillen (and Ken Williams) may be adding another chapter to White Sox lore as we watch.

discounting the Mets' rather flukish 1969 season.

I don't think '69 was a fluke. It seemed that way because they came out of nowhere but they stayed good after that, they had really good players, and made it back to the WS 4 years later, with many of the same crew.

Given that, I would give the Reds some extra credit for being the first professional franchise.

But, as often stated here earlier, the current Reds are an outgrowth of the 1880s American Association Reds, not the original 1869 franchise. If you're going to use that criteria, move the Reds down, move the Braves and Cubs up, as both have roots dating back to the 1870s.

Arizona Diamondbacks -– Other than one magical year, the Diamondbacks have offered little overall to the game of baseball.

They won a division title in their second season, a World Series in their fourth year, and reached the postseason three of their first five seasons. That's a more impressive start than any other expansion franchise, even better than the Marlins or Mets.

discounting the Mets' rather flukish 1969 season.

I don't think '69 was a fluke. It seemed that way because they came out of nowhere but they stayed good after that, they had really good players, and made it back to the WS 4 years later, with many of the same crew.

I shouldn't have used "flukish" in the sense that it wasn't a solid team for that one year, and in fact with that pitching staff I think the word "upset" regarding the 1969 World Series is thrown around way too strongly. But after that, they sunk down to 83 wins for 3 years, then won a watered down (82-79) division title and an LCS that really could be described in "upset" terms, and then finished 20 games below .500 the year after that. They had a much better non-pitching core in the mid-80's than they did in 1969, as evidenced by their overall record from 1984 through 1990 compared to their overall record from 1969 to 1973.

--------------------

Arizona Diamondbacks -– Other than one magical year, the Diamondbacks have offered little overall to the game of baseball.

They won a division title in their second season, a World Series in their fourth year, and reached the postseason three of their first five seasons. That's a more impressive start than any other expansion franchise, even better than the Marlins or Mets.

It is in terms of instant success, but it was accomplished largely by picking up high priced free agents like Johnson and Schilling, without whom they wouldn't have won anything. Given what they had to go with in terms of resources, both the Royals and the Blue Jays were much more impressive in terms of building an ongoing winning organization.

I'm going rank them in order of how much I like their names.

1. Milwaukee Brewers
2. Chicago Cubs
3. Chicago White Sox
4. Boston Red Sox
5. Baltimore Orioles
6. Pittsburgh Pirates
7. Minnesota Twins
8. Cincinnati Reds
9. New York Mets
10. Kansas City Royals
11. Detroit Tigers
12. Washington Nationals
13. St Louis Cardinals
14. San Diego Padres
15. Oakland Athletics
16. Florida Marlins
17. Houston Astros
18. New York Yankees
19. Philadelphia Phillies
20. Toronto Blue Jays
21. San Francisco Giants
22. Texas Rangers
23. Seattle Mariners
24. Colorado Rockies
25. Tampa Bay Rays
26. Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim
27. Los Angeles Dodgers
28. Atlanta Braves
29. Cleveland Indians
30. Arizona Diamondbacks

Now are you judging them purely on the team name?
Does the name of the city come into play at all?

Also how can the Athletics be behind the Reds?
I think you are being slightly less than objective...I'm going to need to see the formula you used.

Square root of [(Euphony of City Name) * (Euphony of Team Name)], further weighted by appropriateness to city and general cleverness or idiocy.

The big difference between Bob's list and mine would be the Diamondbacks would be found at the other end. I love the name, providing both of the key elements for a good name, uniqueness plus a connection to the city/region it represents. On top of that, the nickname contains a certified baseball term (diamond) strictly by happenstance. Outstanding. The only drawback is the length (one more syllable than I'd like), and the less said about the abbreviated version the better.

I'm going rank them in order of how much I like their names.

The definitive, inarguable and super-duper scientific ranking of MLB team nicknames

The only drawback is the length (one more syllable than I'd like),

I never noticed before but I must have the same inclination, because I never actually manage to say "Diamondbacks", it always comes out as "Diamnbacks"

I think mine would be the exact reverse of Bob's. I don't care about its history; "white sox" is a terrible name.

No: Not the exact reverse. Like the brewers.

I'm going rank them in order of how much I like their names.

The only four teams with totally "natural" nicknames are:

Baltimore Orioles (the state bird of Maryland)
Texas Rangers
Milwaukee Brewers
Colorado Rockies

To a slightly lesser extent:

Seattle Mariners
Houston Astros
New York Yankees
Minnesota Twins
St. Louis Cardinals
Toronto Blue Jays
Arizona Diamondbacks

Taking it down another notch:

San Diego Padres
Tampa Bay Rays
Florida Marlins

Barely making the grade:

Washington Nationals (Senators would be in the top category)

The rest of them make no more sense than those idiotic cartoony names for all those minor league teams.

How are the Diamondbacks not totally "natural"? It's a real snake.

Why are Rangers natural but not the Padres?

How are the Diamondbacks not totally "natural"? It's a real snake.

That's what Eve said.

The definitive, inarguable and super-duper scientific ranking of MLB team nicknames

This is a good read, but when Chris declared the Twins "the worst nickname in Minnesota sports" I think he forgot that there's a hockey team called the Minnesota Wild. Ugh.

How are the Diamondbacks not totally "natural"? It's a real snake.

Because AFAIK an "Arizona Diamondback," unlike a "Baltimore Oriole," is not a specific named species. "Diamondbacks" could just as well be the name of a team from any of a number of other cities or states besides Phoenix or Arizona.

Why are Rangers natural but not the Padres?

The Texas Rangers are the actual name of a Texas state law enforcement agency. A "San Diego Padre" is merely a Padre who happens to be based in San Diego, and there's no inherent connection between "San Diego" and "Padre."

EDIT: By my own reasoning, I suppose that "Milwaukee Brewers" should be moved down a category, since obviously they make beer everywhere. But OTOH Milwaukee has long had a reputation as the center of American beermaking, and so the connection seems fairly "natural."

Finches please. None of you have ever caught a Marlin. It is more majestic than you are.

EDIT: By my own reasoning, I suppose that "Milwaukee Brewers" should be moved down a category, since obviously they make beer everywhere. But OTOH Milwaukee has long had a reputation as the center of American beermaking, and so the connection seems fairly "natural."

Considering the number of church festivals that feature multiple beer tents, coupons for $1 off a pitcher in a church bulletin, and the fact that beer is served everywhere and for everything in this city, yes, it is natural. Beer may be brewed everywhere, but beer is always available everywhere in Milwaukee unlike any other city in the US

Southern California was home to many Spanish missions. Hence, San Diego Padres. It's just as natural as Arizona Diamondbacks or Milwaukee Brewers.

Because AFAIK an "Arizona Diamondback," unlike a "Baltimore Oriole," is not a specific named species. "Diamondbacks" could just as well be the name of a team from any of a number of other cities or states besides Phoenix or Arizona.

Andy, did you know they now call that species the "Northern Oriole"? Why? Because it can be found just about everywhere in North America. I saw one in the Garden of the Gods outside Colorado Springs once. It fits even worse than the Diamondback.

The only four teams with totally "natural" nicknames are:

The Platonic ideal to me is a team whose name is "totally natural" in the way you describe *and* has a baseball connotation. I don't know if there is any such thing, but the Altoona Curve come pretty darn close.

To a slightly lesser extent:

[...]
New York Yankees

More than slightly, I would say.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/16000-diamondbacks-fans-killed-on-complimentary-ra,18061/

Money quote:
"When Diamondbacks reliever Blaine Boyer was spotted in the bullpen wildly convulsing in a writhing knot of rattlesnakes, the stadium grew quiet, save for a steady undercurrent of rattling."

I was a fan of Omaha Golden Spikes which may be why they retired it.

The most annoying thing is the "Arizona Cardinals". Arizona is the home of the Pyrrhuloxia, a bird which resembles the cardinal (can be called "gray cardinal") but is distinctly Arizonan. If you can't name the team after them, at least make that the mascot, instead of the generic all-red cardinal that is found everywhere else in the continent.

The Arizona Pyrrhuloxias? It looks like the name for the champion of the Optometrist's Softball League.