Greatest team of all-time?

[Myankee4life]

Which team is the greatest of all-time?

Id say either the '27 Yankees or the '29 A's

[ElHalo]

Those two are certainly in the running. Hard to really come up with other teams that compare, though the 1918 White Sox or one of the Big Red Machine teams would be in the running. Any of the four great Yankee teams -- 27, 39, 61, 98 -- should be considered. Along with the early A's and Cubs teams.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Which team is the greatest of all-time?

Id say either the '27 Yankees or the '29 A's

Everyone always saye the '27 Yankees. But they are not the greatest Yankee's team. I'd go with the '39 or '98 Yankees.

My top five:

1939 Yankees
1976 Reds
1970 Baltimore Orioles
1927 Yankees
1929 A's or 1906 Cubs

Why the '39 Yankees? They are the only team to outscore their opponents by over 400 runs...

[Myankee4life]

What was the record of the '39 Yankees?

It was surprising because considering that by that time Gehrig was "retired"
and Dimaggio being the only notable offensive force

[Honus Wagner Rules]

What was the record of the '39 Yankees?

It was surprising because considering that by that time Gehrig was "retired"
and Dimaggio being the only notable offensive force
Off the top of head I believe they won 110 games. I'm not 100% sure though...

[ElHalo]

The 27 Yanks had bigger names (Ruth, Gehrig, Lazerri, Combs, Meusel, Hoyt, Shocker, Pennock, Shawkey), but the 39 team might have been better.

Dickey - Gordon - DiMaggio are all among the top 10 ever at their positions. Frankie Crosetti was an outstanding defensive SS. Red Rolfe was probably the best 3B in Yankee history before ARod (arguably with Nettles). Tommy Henrich had the nickname "clutch" for a reason (how many utility outfielders have 132 career OPS+'s?). King Kong Keller was one of the great hitters of all time before back trouble limited him at an early age. George Selkirk had a career year. But the pitching was the thing... Ruffing, Gomez, Bump Hadley, Marius Russo, Oral Hildebrand... the Yanks got some great years from anonymous guys that year. The stars really alligned.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Yanks 1936 through 1939 in the World Series... on the big stage... won 16 games and lost only 3 games. Eight consecutive wins 1938-39.

[RuthMayBond]

Which team is the greatest of all-time?

Id say either the '27 Yankees or the '29 A'sThe 29 A's did have a fair weakness at hitting. The 27 Yanks had no weakness on either side

[RuthMayBond]

Those two are certainly in the running. Hard to really come up with other teams that compare, though the 1918 White Sox or one of the Big Red Machine teams would be in the running. Any of the four great Yankee teams -- 27, 39, 61, 98 -- should be considered. Along with the early A's and Cubs teams.18 ChiSox? And the 61 Yanks had weaknesses

[Bill Burgess]

1. 1929 Philadelphia Athletics
2. 1917 White Sox
3. 1910 Philadelphia Athletics
4. 1927 New York Yankees

[RuthMayBond]

Everyone always saye the '27 Yankees. But they are not the greatest Yankee's team. I'd go with the '39 or '98 Yankees.

My top five:

1939 Yankees
1976 Reds
1970 Baltimore Orioles
1927 Yankees
1929 A's or 1906 Cubs

Why the '39 Yankees? They are the only team to outscore their opponents by over 400 runs...Easier in a more offensive environment. Unless you're using time-period adjustments, 98 Yanks aren't as good as 27, either with ERA+, BR+, OPS+ or Runs Scored/Allowed

[RuthMayBond]

1. 1929 Philadelphia Athletics
2. 1917 White Sox
3. 1910 Philadelphia Athletics27 Yanks could wipe up all these teams

[Bill Burgess]

Jeffrey,

Dream on, beautiful dreamer. We won't awaken thee.

Bill Burgess

[leecemark]

--Even if you don't think that the quality of play has increased over time (although what reasonable person would think that), there are some obvious problems for old great teams in matching up with more recent ones. Nobody before the 50s really had any kind of bullpen. Only a few had more than 4-5 pitchers they could rely on at all.
--Unless we are setting these matchups in the deadball era when starters could be expected to go the distance most of the time they couldn't hold up over a season- or probably even a 7 game series - with the deeper teams of modern times.
--That pretty much rules out the 1906-10 Cubs or 1910-14 A's, who were the best of the deadball teams (the 1917-19 (or 20) White Sox can be ruled out because they were anywhere close to being even the best deadball team). It would be a problem even for the great 1926-28 or 36-39 Yankees or 1929-31 A's.
--The Yankees and Dodgers of the 50s are probably the first teams that had modern depth. They would be a decent match for the 1969-71 Orioles or 76-76 Reds or the 98-2000 Yankees. I'd probably pick one of the later 3 though. Although, in spite of their post season disappointments the Braves of recent vintage (pick a group) have probably been as good a team as any in history. For that matter the Orioles didn't have quite the postseason success as the contemporary A's, but I always thought they wer better anyway.

[AG2004]

That reminds me - in November, we started a tournament to help settle that question, but only got about halfway through it. What happened to the person running it?

[Iron Jaw]

Of course, if you put the 2004 Red Sox against the 1905 Giants, the outcome would depend upon which set of rules you used. Modern rules, BoSox win. 1905 rules, Giants win. The current MLB champ with 1905 rules, would be shocked, playing with a ball that didn't go too far, playing with gloves that weren't much better than garden gloves, legal spitballs, the umpires rarely changing the balls (they used about three per game then), and runners running wild on the basepaths, spiking everyone in the process. The pitchers could pitch inside, close shaves, brushbacks, or right at the batter's head without umpire interference. Oh, he'd call a ball, or a hit batsman.

The 1905 Giants, playing the current world champs in 2004, would have a problem. What's a homerun? Why do the umps change balls every five seconds? Why can't my pitcher throw a spitter or chewing tobacco ball? Why are my guys getting tossed for spiking? Man, why does the other team keep changing pitchers? What the heck is a DH - is the pitcher a sissy who can't bat? Why did Joe McGinnity get thrown out of the game for throwing brushback pitches? Man, this ball carries pretty far - what the heck did they do to it?

Hard to compare eras. The rules, and accepted parts of the game were just too different.

[Bill Burgess]

Iron Jaw,

Nice insights. I don't think everyone quite realizes that the modern team would have just as much difficulty adjusting to the old game, as they would have to ours. More so, really. Taking away their great gloves and easy HRs would break their hearts.

Bill Burgess

[ElHalo]

18 ChiSox? And the 61 Yanks had weaknesses

Wrong year on the ChiSox. True, the Yanks had weaknesses, but also one of the greatest outfields of all time, Whitey Ford, Bill Stafford, and relief ace Luis Arroyo.

[Russ]

Bill James has an article in his Abstract denouncing the 61 Yanks. It's pretty persuasive. Their offense is based solely on power and wouldn't stand a chance against the dead-ball era teams or so his argument goes.

[leecemark]

--I think the arguement was the 61 Yankees would not have adapted well if forced to play in the deadball era, which is probably true. Power hitting was what set them apart. Playing any deadball team with the lively ball they would have killed them.
--Iron Jaw, in a short series you may be right that the 2004 Red Sox couldn't adjust fast enough to beat the 1905 Giants. Drop them into 1905 to play the season and they adjust and run away with the pennant.

[RuthMayBond]

Jeffrey,

Dream on, beautiful dreamer. We won't awaken thee.

Bill BurgessYour lack of reasoning does put me to sleep :laugh The 29 A's were only third in Batter Runs+, the '17 ChiSox only had the best pitching by a slim margin & didn't hit overly well. The '10 A's were darn good but a shade under the '27 Yanks (you'd never guess who the fourth & eighth best teams ever are). I'll give ya a day.

[Bill Burgess]

It is an inexplicable wrinkle of the mind that we always assume that we would bring the old teams to the present, via time machine, and force them to play our game.

We never assume we will bring them back to their time, and force our modern teams to surrender their advantages. They would not only have to give up their great gloves, but their modern stategies too. Not more bunching runs in a big inning, via the long ball. Could they hit and run, steal and double steal, triple steal and delay steal? Could their staffs adjust to a 4 man rotation? Go 9 innings? How well do our modern guys bunt? Can we place our line drives between the outfilders? Or play on a relatively poorly kept field.

Our modern bats weren't being manufactured then, we'd have to give up our batting gloves, helmets, great confortable, form-fitting, stretch uniforms for a less-confortable, heavy flannel one, no more great Nike shoes, stationary bases, no wonderful hinged catcher's glove.

But . . . we have more. No more modern dental work, fantastic modern medicine or surgical procedures. So you might not even get into the World Series, due to injuries. No more arriving fresh after modern transportaion. Now, you arrive via a long night of trying to sleep in a train berth on a clicket-clack train all night. And you won't be eating as well either, or popping all those vitain-mineral suppliments, protein bars & smoothies. And turn in that home blender/juicer. (Not to mention, less sanctioned products.) No more Nautillus in your weight rooms. Modern saunas - they probably had, but not with the jet streams to massage those aching back muscles. No more plush, modern, air-conditioned clubhouses, You probably won't have a home work-out device, like Bowflex, Nordic track, or one of those many contraptions they sell on infomercials on Saturday mornings/late at night.

Now . . . Do the post 1970 teams, still look as much of a sure thing as previously? Think it over.

Bill Burgess

[Bill Burgess]

An example of the lack of competitive balance in a league is demonstated by the following data.

Jeffrey,

"Your lack of reasoning does put me to sleep. The '29 A's were only third in Batter Runs+, the '17 ChiSox only had the best pitching by a slim margin & didn't hit overly well. The '10 A's were darn good but a shade under the '27 Yanks (you'd never guess who the fourth & eighth best teams ever are). I'll give ya a day."

I do not lack reasons. They simply may not be obvious to you. I can only rate the '27 Yanks 4th, due to the deplorable lack of competitive balance in the league that season. The Yanks were quite well-known at the time to have beaten up on the weak sisters in the league and only broken even with the better teams.

For example, in '27 the Yanks rolled up the St. Louis Browns, 21-1, and went 18-4 against the BoSox and 17-5 against the ChiSox. So part of the glitz/glamour of the '27 Yanks, I attribute to the lack of good competitive balance in the leagues.

But . . . just to be fair, I felt I must also show how the '29 Athletics did that year, against similar opposition. Just so I can't be charged with hiding anything.

But still, against weak opponents, a team can look like super-heroes. So that's my main charge against the '27 Yankees, as the best team ever. I do have my reasons, Jeffrey.

1927 New York Yankees---------------1929 Philadelphia Athletics-----------------
St. Louis Browns-------21-1----.955-----Boston Red Sox--------18-4---.818------
Boston Red Sox--------18-4----.818-----Detroit Tigers----------18-4---.818------
Chicago White Sox-----17-5----.773-----Washington Senators---16-4---.800-----
Philadelphia A's---------14-8----.636-----Cleveland Indians------14-7---.667-----
Detroit Tigers----------14-8----.636-----New York Yankees------14-8---.636-----
Washington Senators---14-8----.636-----Chicago White Sox------13-9---.591----
Cleveland Indians-------12-10--.545-----St. Louis Browns--------11-10--.524---


Bill Burgess

[Bill Burgess]

Jeffrey,

"(you'd never guess who the fourth & eighth best teams ever are)"


In Burgessland or Jamesville? The 2 kingdoms disagree on rare occasions. Hope this isn't one of them.

Bill Burgess

[RuthMayBond]

The Yanks did well against Philly, Washington & Detroit. 29 A's didn't do so well against St. Louis. Your point?

[RuthMayBond]

Jeffrey,

"(you'd never guess who the fourth & eighth best teams ever are)"


In Burgessland or Jamesville? The 2 kingdoms disagree of rare occasions. Hope this isn't one of them.

Bill BurgessI'm glad you think it's of rare occasions. I don't pretend to know what's going on in Burgessland, so let me know your fourth& eighth best.

[Bill Burgess]

Lack of competitive balance in the league. Who can go 21-1 against even lousy teams anymore? Yanks look better due to a lopsided competitve envirornment.

That is my point. By cleaning up on the weak sisters, the '27 Yanks appear better than they really were. If the league had been better balanced, like today, we'd not have seen the '27 Yanks lauded, undeservedly for 80 yrs., like we've had to suffer through.

Can you grasp it yet?

Bill Burgess

[Bill Burgess]

My Candidates for the Greatest Teams of All Time:


1. 1929-31 Philadelphia Athletics
2. 1917-20 Chicago White Sox
3. 1910-14 Philadelphia Athletics
4. 1926-28 New York Yankees
5. 1921-24 New York Giants
6. 1894-96 Baltimore Orioles
7. 1955-58 New York Yankees
8. 1949-56 Brooklyn Dodgers
9. 1936-43 New York Yankees
10. 1997-2002 New York Yankees
11. 1906-10 Chicago Cubs
12. 1970-76 Cincinnati Reds
13. 1988-92 Oakland A's
14. 1972-74 Oakland A's
15. 1976-81 New York Yankees

The order of the above teams is soft & flexible after the 1st 4 teams. I tinker with it all the time.

Bill Burgess

[RuthMayBond]

Lack of competitive balance in the league. Who can go 21-1 against even lousy teams anymore? Yanks look better due to a lopsided competitve envirornment.

That is my point. By cleaning up on the weak sisters, the '27 Yanks appear better than they really were. If the league had been better balanced, like today, we'd not have seen the '27 Yanks lauded, undeservedly for 80 yrs., like we've had to suffer through.

Can you grasp it yet?

Bill BurgessIt's not quite the same but the O's went 12-0 vs. the KC Royals one year, and they haven't been around that long

[RuthMayBond]

My Candidates for the Greatest Teams of All Time:


1. 1929-31 Philadelphia Athletics
2. 1917-20 Chicago White Sox
3. 1910-14 Phiadelphia Athletics
4. 1926-28 New York Yankees
5. 1921-24 New York Giants
6. 1894-96 Baltimore Orioles
7. 1955-58 New York Yankees
8. 1949-56 Brooklyn Dodgers
9. 1936-43 New York Yankees
10. 1997-2002 New York Yankees
11. 1906-10 Chicago Cubs
12. 1970-76 Cincinnati Reds
13. 1988-92 Oakland A's
14. 1972-74 Oakland A's
15. 1976-81 New York Yankees

The order of the above teams is soft & flexible after the 1st 4 teams. I tinker with it all the time.

Bill BurgessOK, you're going more by almost "dynasties", not by single year

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Easier in a more offensive environment. Unless you're using time-period adjustments, 98 Yanks aren't as good as 27, either with ERA+, BR+, OPS+ or Runs Scored/Allowed
I am taking the quality of play into consideration. It's close though. I still think the '39 Yankees are the greatest Yankee's team ever. But I may be convinced to change my mind with a good argument.
In a high offnesive era it would be harder to dominate in run scored NOT easier because everyone would be scoring runs like crazy. Think of it this way. If every team played in a Coors Field like environment every team would be pretty close in runs scored. The '39 Yankes scored 967 runs and only allowed 556 runs (+413). The Red Sox were next wiht 890 runs and 700 RA (+190). The next best were the Indians with 797/700 split (+97). That was just shear domination.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Of course, if you put the 2004 Red Sox against the 1905 Giants, the outcome would depend upon which set of rules you used. Modern rules, BoSox win. 1905 rules, Giants win. The current MLB champ with 1905 rules, would be shocked, playing with a ball that didn't go too far, playing with gloves that weren't much better than garden gloves, legal spitballs, the umpires rarely changing the balls (they used about three per game then), and runners running wild on the basepaths, spiking everyone in the process. The pitchers could pitch inside, close shaves, brushbacks, or right at the batter's head without umpire interference. Oh, he'd call a ball, or a hit batsman.

The 1905 Giants, playing the current world champs in 2004, would have a problem. What's a homerun? Why do the umps change balls every five seconds? Why can't my pitcher throw a spitter or chewing tobacco ball? Why are my guys getting tossed for spiking? Man, why does the other team keep changing pitchers? What the heck is a DH - is the pitcher a sissy who can't bat? Why did Joe McGinnity get thrown out of the game for throwing brushback pitches? Man, this ball carries pretty far - what the heck did they do to it?

Hard to compare eras. The rules, and accepted parts of the game were just too different.

I nominate this post for the "Post Of The Day"! :D

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Off the top of head I believe they won 110 games. I'm not 100% sure though...
I checked and the '39 Yankees wen 106-45 (.702) and won the AL flag by 17 games.

[ElHalo]

Lack of competitive balance in the league. Who can go 21-1 against even lousy teams anymore? Yanks look better due to a lopsided competitve envirornment.

That is my point. By cleaning up on the weak sisters, the '27 Yanks appear better than they really were. If the league had been better balanced, like today, we'd not have seen the '27 Yanks lauded, undeservedly for 80 yrs., like we've had to suffer through.

Can you grasp it yet?

Bill Burgess

And yet somehow you think that the league was more significantly more balanced in 29 than in 27? Having a hard time following you here.

The A's in 29 had 6 games worse of a record than the 27 Yanks. So if they did better against first division teams than the Yanks did, doesn't that of necessity mean that they did worse against second division teams than the Yanks did? And isn't that even more a blotch against them than the Yanks's poorer record against good teams? I mean, after all, there's at least an excuse for not beating up on the really good first division teams.

[WillieMaysHayes]

I think somewhere in this discussion the 1998 yankees have to be considered.
When you take into account all the variables that label a team great, be it regular season record, playoff/world series success etc. They have to be considered.
They had one of the great regular season records (114-48), they went through the playoffs 7-2, and they swept the WS. 4-0.
Is it fair to compare them to pre 1969 straight to the WS teams, or the 1969-1993 LCS only era?
I just remember the playoffs and WS being nothing more than a formality-actually, a coronation.
It was always refered to as a team with no "superstars", which of course was poppycock.

[Bill Burgess]

Jim,

"The A's in 29 had 6 games worse of a record than the 27 Yanks. So if they did better against first division teams than the Yanks did, doesn't that of necessity mean that they did worse against second division teams than the Yanks did? And isn't that even more a blotch against them than the Yanks's poorer record against good teams? I mean, after all, there's at least an excuse for not beating up on the really good first division teams."


The above is illogical, Jim. My bitch against the '27 Yanks is that they typically went 14-8 against the strong teams and slaughtered the weak sisters by 18-4. They were most efficient in disposing of the sissies, and hence, only had to hold the better teams to 14-8.

They ran the score up on the league by not letting the bums escape. I'd have more respect for a team that did better against the better competition, instead of shooting ducks in a barrell. The sissies couldn't score well, because the Yanks had such tight pitching/defense. I never looked it up, but the Yanks probably used their pitchers most deftly, to make sure the weak teams couldn't win hardly any games from them. And then held the good ones to 14-8. Cowardly, if you asked me.

Bill Burgess

[Bill Burgess]

Honus,

What did you think of my post #22? Any thoughts?

Bill Burgess

[Honus Wagner Rules]

It is an inexplicable wrinkle of the mind that we always assume that we would bring the old teams to the present, via time machine, and force them to play our game.

We never assume we will bring them back to their time, and force our modern teams to surrender their advantages. They would not only have to give up their great gloves, but their modern stategies too. Not more bunching runs in a big inning, via the long ball. Could they hit and run, steal and double steal, triple steal and delay steal? Could their staffs adjust to a 4 man rotation? Go 9 innings? How well do our modern guys bunt? Can we place our line drives between the outfilders? Or play on a relatively poorly kept field.

Our modern bats weren't being manufactured then, we'd have to give up our batting gloves, helmets, great confortable, form-fitting, stretch uniforms for a less-confortable, heavy flannel one, no more great Nike shoes, stationary bases, no wonderful hinged catcher's glove.

But . . . we have more. No more modern dental work, fantastic modern medicine or surgical procedures. So you might not even get into the World Series, due to injuries. No more arriving fresh after modern transportaion. Now, you arrive via a long night of trying to sleep in a train berth on a clicket-clack train all night. And you won't be eating as well either, or popping all those vitain-mineral suppliments, protein bars & smoothies. And turn in that home blender/juicer. (Not to mention, less sanctioned products.) No more Nautillus in your weight rooms. Modern saunas - they probably had, but not with the jet streams to massage those aching back muscles. You probably won't have a home work-out device, like Bowflex, Nordic track, or one of those many contraptions they sell on infomercials on Saturday mornings/late at night.

Now . . . Do the post 1970 teams, still look as much of a sure thing as previously? Think it over.

Bill Burgess
bill,
intersting post. In our "dream" games what environment we used would greatly influence the outcome of an old-time team vs a modern team. Using the -ol team's environment would give then an advantage of course...

[Bill Burgess]

Thanks, Honus!

Bill

[AG2004]

Jim,

My bitch against the '27 Yanks is that they typically went 14-8 against the strong teams and slaughtered the weak sisters by 18-4. They were most efficient in disposing of the sissies, and hence, only had to hold the better teams to 14-8.

They ran the score up on the league by not letting the bums escape. I'd have more respect for a team that did better against the better competition, instead of shooting ducks in a barrell. The sissies couldn't score well, because the Yanks had such tight pitching/defense. I never looked it up, but the Yanks probably used their pitchers most deftly, to make sure the weak teams couldn't win hardly any games from them. And then held the good ones to 14-8. Cowardly, if you asked me.

Bill Burgess

Think about what 14-8 means. 14-8 is a .636 winning percentage. That is a 42-24 record against all the other AL teams with winning records in 1927. Add their series record, and the 1927 Yankees had a winning percentage of .657 against teams with winning records.

To put it into perspective, there have only been 9 teams since World War II to have recorded a .650 winning percentage during the regular season. But that's the first time I've heard a .636 winning percentage called poor.

Now, let's look at the 1931 Philadelphia Athletics. They were 11-11 against both second-placed New York and third-placed Washington. The 1930 Athletics were 12-10 against third-placed Washington and 10-12 against second-placed Washington.

To be fair, the 1929 Athletics went 14-8 against New York, 14-7 against Cleveland. Add in their record against the Browns and the Cubs, and the 1929 Athletics went 43-26 against teams with winning records, a .623 winning percentage, or 27 points worse than the Yankees had. They also went 18-4 against both Detroit and Boston.

Bill, the trouble with your argument against the 1927 Yankees is that it applies just as well - actually, slightly better - to the 1929-31 Athletics, who you rank first on your list.

Now a slight aside about El Halo's statement:

"The A's in 29 had 6 games worse of a record than the 27 Yanks."

Technically, the 1929 Athletics were only 4 games worse than the 1927 Yankees: 104-46 vs. 110-44. Had the Athletics played those extra 4 games, they probably would have had 106 or 107 wins.

[Yankees7]

The 1961 Yankees had not only one of the best outfields, they also boasted one of the best infields in Boyer,Kubek,Richardson, and Skowron. While their detractors can argue they relied heavily on power, who are you going to walk to avoid that power, and can you avoid it for 9 innings?? The 61 Yankees were not the best team of all time, but to think a deadball team would have beaten them is ludicrous, if you split the difference in time and play this game in the Mid 1930's its a blowout by the Yankees. I think its hard to make these arguments, but going by what I saw the 61 Yankees belong in the Top 10 of all time.

[Bill Burgess]

But that's the first time I've heard a .636 winning percentage called poor.


You still haven't heard it from me. Can you show me where I implied that?"


Bill Burgess

[RuthMayBond]

I am taking the quality of play into consideration. It's close though. I still think the '39 Yankees are the greatest Yankee's team ever. But I may be convinced to change my mind with a good argument.
In a high offnesive era it would be harder to dominate in run scored NOT easier because everyone would be scoring runs like crazy. Think of it this way. If every team played in a Coors Field like environment every team would be pretty close in runs scored. The '39 Yankes scored 967 runs and only allowed 556 runs (+413). The Red Sox were next wiht 890 runs and 700 RA (+190). The next best were the Indians with 797/700 split (+97). That was just shear domination.Wonder why they didn't win more than 70% of their games

[RuthMayBond]

I think somewhere in this discussion the 1998 yankees have to be considered.
When you take into account all the variables that label a team great, be it regular season record, playoff/world series success etc. They have to be considered.
They had one of the great regular season records (114-48), they went through the playoffs 7-2, and they swept the WS. 4-0.
Is it fair to compare them to pre 1969 straight to the WS teams, or the 1969-1993 LCS only era?
I just remember the playoffs and WS being nothing more than a formality-actually, a coronation.
It was always refered to as a team with no "superstars", which of course was poppycock.98 Yanks were good, although their ERA+ was only one percent better than the next best pitching staff

[AG2004]

But that's the first time I've heard a .636 winning percentage called poor.


You still haven't heard it from me. Can you show me where I implied that?"


Bill Burgess

That's the way I interpreted: "I'd have more respect for a team that did better against the better competition, instead of shooting ducks in a barrell."

And: "They were most efficient in disposing of the sissies, and hence, only had to hold the better teams to 14-8."

It's just the way I interpreted it, but I thought you meant a top team would need to do better than a .636 winning percentage against the league's top teams to reach the top of your list, and thus it wasn't good enough. My mistake.

[RuthMayBond]

The 1961 Yankees had not only one of the best outfields, they also boasted one of the best infields in Boyer,Kubek,Richardson, and Skowron. While their detractors can argue they relied heavily on power, who are you going to walk to avoid that power, and can you avoid it for 9 innings?? The 61 Yankees were not the best team of all time, but to think a deadball team would have beaten them is ludicrous, if you split the difference in time and play this game in the Mid 1930's its a blowout by the Yankees. I think its hard to make these arguments, but going by what I saw the 61 Yankees belong in the Top 10 of all time.The '61 Yanks had an ERA+ of 107, two points above fourth place

[ElHalo]

I think somewhere in this discussion the 1998 yankees have to be considered.
When you take into account all the variables that label a team great, be it regular season record, playoff/world series success etc. They have to be considered.
They had one of the great regular season records (114-48), they went through the playoffs 7-2, and they swept the WS. 4-0.
Is it fair to compare them to pre 1969 straight to the WS teams, or the 1969-1993 LCS only era?
I just remember the playoffs and WS being nothing more than a formality-actually, a coronation.
It was always refered to as a team with no "superstars", which of course was poppycock.

The only likely Hall of Famers on that team were Mo Rivera and Derek Jeter. Not that they're not superstars, but most teams have more than 2 HoF'ers if they're going to be considered among all time great teams.

[Bill Burgess]

AG2004,

"but I thought you meant a top team would need to do better than a .636 winning percentage against the league's top teams to reach the top of your list, and thus it wasn't good enough. My mistake."


Ok. I can see how my wording could be misunderstood. Any team that compiles a winning W-L record % of .636 more than deserves to win a pennant and be called great. But that was not my focus.

My point was that the '27 Yanks so beat up on the weak sisters of the league that they were called the greatest ever. My unwritten assumption, was that a team need not be that good against the worse teams. And I don't feel that that was an accurate assessment of that team.

But I do agree with you that any team that wins, let's say 95 of its 162 games, .586, deserves the pennant. Winning 100 games is icing on the cake. And it goes from merely good to great, for that year.

But that is not how I determine greatness in a team. I use Connie Mack's venerable yardstick. He told his A's, "Any good team can win a pennant. It takes an excellent team to repeat. And only a great team can win 3 in a row." So that yardstick is good enough for me. That is the measuring stick I have always used. And sometimes I fudge, or cheat on that.

Sorry for the confusion I caused. Hope this clarifies it.

Bill Burgess

[leecemark]

--Those 27 Yankees did win 3 in a row (26-28) and swept the NL pennant winner in the series in both 27 and 28.

[Bill Burgess]

Yes, Mark, I know that. Hence I rank them the 4th greatest team in history. And I don't consider that criticism. I think that's high praise. The '29 A's did the same and won 2 WS also.

I rank my greatest teams by 3 yr. aggregates. And sometimes, I allow mitigating factors to enter the equasion.

My 2nd place team, the 1917-20 White Sox, didn't even win the pennant in '18, due to loss of several of their key players, like Jackson's working in a Philadelphia shipyard all year. Or Collins, Schalk and others not playing full seasons.

And my 3rd place team, the 1910-14 A's, lost the pennant to BoSox in '12, breaking up their drive for 3 in a row. But they came back in '13-14. But blew the '14 WS.

So I do make exceptions to my own rules. But I have my reasons. I apply my rules flexibly. As I notice you also, on occasion.

Bill Burgess

[leecemark]

--My "rules", which are flexible ,allow for a one season break in winning the pennant (or division post 1969). The 1910-14 A's winning 4 of 5 is plenty good enough for me. The White Sox, however, would need be be given an 11 season bit of slack to get to 3 pennants (1906, 17 and 19). Or 40 years on the back end :D . Yes, the Black Sox scandal led to 40 years of wandering the wilderness for the once proud Chicago franchise.

[Bill Burgess]

I understand and that was a good post, old friend. Let's not let the Black Sox or Joe Jackson come between us. We have more in common than in opposition.

Bill Burgess

[AG2004]

AG2004,

"but I thought you meant a top team would need to do better than a .636 winning percentage against the league's top teams to reach the top of your list, and thus it wasn't good enough. My mistake."


Ok. I can see how my wording could be misunderstood. Any team that compiles a winning W-L record % of .636 more than deserves to win a pennant and be called great. But that was not my focus.

My point was that the '27 Yanks so beat up on the weak sisters of the league that they were called the greatest ever. My unwritten assumption, was that a team need not be that good against the worse teams. And I don't feel that that was an accurate assessment of that team.


Bill Burgess

I'm not sure what you mean by "wimming W-L record %."

My point was that, according to the standard you first used, the '29 Athletics had less of a claim to the title of "greatest ever" than the '27 Yankees. (The "three pennants in a row" argument applies equally to both.)

Against the second-, third-, and fourth-placed teams in the AL and the NL pennant winners, the '27 Yankees had a winning percentage of .657. (It goes down to .636 if you ignore the World Series.)

Against the second-, third-, and fourth-placed teams in the AL and the NL pennant winners, the '29 Athletics had a winning percentage of .623. (It goes down to .609 if you ignore the World Series.)

Note that these winning percentages DO NOT include any games against teams in the bottom half of the AL standings. They are the percentages against the TOP TEAMS ONLY.

You stated that you would have more respect for the 1927 Yankees if they had a better record against the top teams. Yet their record against the TOP TEAMS is better than the 1929 Athletics' record against the TOP TEAMS. And, as I pointed out earlier, in 1930 and 1931, the Athletics went only .500 against the second- and third-placed teams in the AL.

So why does your main complaint against the 1927 Yankees - that they went only 14-8 against each of the AL's top teams - not apply as well to the 1929 Athletics?

[Bill Burgess]

AG2004,

Yes, thank you for the excellent insight. You have shown me to be a subjective, biased man. One who allows personal prejudice to sway their shallow opinions!

I cop to the charge, and throw myself on the mercy of the court. Please commute my sentence, Your Honor. My kids need a father!

Bill Burgess

[HDH]

I can only say that the 76 Reds were the best team I've ever witnessed. They were all smart and heady players. They had a great offense, leading the league in every single category, that just kept coming at you. There were no weaknesses in the batting order and had the most overall team speed of any team I've ever seen. Also, they had the the best up-the middle defense of any of the great teams. Bench is legendary, Morgan and Concepcion rank 11th and 12th in all-time assists, and Cesar Geronimo was stellar in CF. Even the bench was perfectly balanced with Dan Driesen and Doug Flynn taking defensive turns and pinch hitters Bob Bailey (RH) and Mike Lum (LH).

Other than Don Gullett, who was a top pitcher; the starters were solid and under-rated. The relievers have to be rated as one of the stronger crews. They didn't use a single closer but used several relievers who pitched more than one inning. Borbon, McEneney, and Eastwick were thought of as some of the best relievers at this time when relievers were just beginning to receive attention. The pitchers statistics were effected by the way Sparky, known the as Capt. Hook, used them. At that time, he was the most impatient manager in the history of MLB for any pitcher.

Its hard to look only at best win-loss record. The overall records are partly effected by the strength of competion in the league. LA, PHI, and PIT were fielding some of their best teams with NYM throwng a great pitching staff. Also, teams in that era played minor league call ups after August to take a look at the future talent.

[Iron Jaw]

I actually thought the 1970 Reds were every bit as good as the 1975-76 generation of Redlegs - they just happened to lose the World Series to another team (Orioles) that might pass as one of the greatest all-time teams. The 1970 Reds, the first version of the Big Red Machine, had great hitting, great power, excellent defense, and good pitching - until the last month of the season when their ace pitcher went down with an injury (Jim Merritt). Tony Perez was playing third that season because the Reds still had power-hitting first sacker, Lee May. Their pitching rotation of Merritt, Nolan, McGlothlin and Simpson wasn't bad - when healthy. But, after dominating the league and the NLCS, they went into the World Series against a great team without their number one and number four pitcher - Merritt did pitch against the O's, but he was still injured and pitched very badly - he was knocked out in two innings. Their other ace, Gary Nolan couldn't start until the third game because he pitched the last game of the playoffs.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Wonder why they didn't win more than 70% of their games
Winning 70% of one's games is EXTREMELY rare. The '39 Yankees may have been a bit unlucky. Using the Pythagorean equation their expected win total should have been 111 wins (.733). They were 5 games under that. They only played 151 games that season.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

The only likely Hall of Famers on that team were Mo Rivera and Derek Jeter. Not that they're not superstars, but most teams have more than 2 HoF'ers if they're going to be considered among all time great teams.
You forgot about Tim Raines! ;)

[prof93]

My Greatest Teams

Top 5

1.1936-1939 NYY 4 AL Pennants & 4 WS Titles
2.1949-1953 NYY 5 AL Pennants & 5 WS Titles
3.1928-1931 Phil. A's 3 AL Pennants & 2 WS Title
4.1926-1928 NYY 3 AL Pennants & 2 WS Titles
5.1952-1956 Brooklyn 4 NL Pennants & 1 WS Title

[RuthMayBond]

I actually thought the 1970 Reds were every bit as good as the 1975-76 generation of Redlegs - they just happened to lose the World Series to another team (Orioles) that might pass as one of the greatest all-time teams. The 1970 Reds, the first version of the Big Red Machine, had great hitting, great power, excellent defense, and good pitching - until the last month of the season when their ace pitcher went down with an injury (Jim Merritt). Tony Perez was playing third that season because the Reds still had power-hitting first sacker, Lee May. Their pitching rotation of Merritt, Nolan, McGlothlin and Simpson wasn't bad - when healthy. But, after dominating the league and the NLCS, they went into the World Series against a great team without their number one and number four pitcher - Merritt did pitch against the O's, but he was still injured and pitched very badly - he was knocked out in two innings. Their other ace, Gary Nolan couldn't start until the third game because he pitched the last game of the playoffs.The 70 Reds did have the 1st or 2nd best hitting in the league but only the 3rd best pitching. The 75 Reds had the best hitting and the 3rd best pitching. 76 Reds had the best hitting (by far) but only the 6th best pitching. Hard to compare

[RuthMayBond]

Winning 70% of one's games is EXTREMELY rare. The '39 Yankees may have been a bit unlucky. Using the Pythagorean equation their expected win total should have been 111 wins (.733). They were 5 games under that.Or overrated managing :eek:

[RuthMayBond]

The only likely Hall of Famers on that team were Mo Rivera and Derek Jeter. Not that they're not superstars, but most teams have more than 2 HoF'ers if they're going to be considered among all time great teams.Arguably the fourth best team ever had one HoFer. Fourth best, unless they happened to be hit by WW2 way less than other teams

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Or overrated managing :eek:
Perhaps. :D :D
Joe McCarthy did win pennants with the Cubs and Red Sox, too...

[RuthMayBond]

Perhaps. :D :D
Joe McCarthy did win pennants with the Cubs and Red Sox, too...
1) Actually McCarthy did not win a pennant with the BoSox
2) Davey Johnson won a pennant and divisions with two other different teams, don't see his name much

[Imapotato]

1909 Pirates

Whom did the Yankees have to face of a high caliber in '27? No one


The Pirates had to face a tough Giants team, A Cub team that could hurt you and a Brooklyn and Philly team that was on the rise.

[RuthMayBond]

1909 Pirates

Whom did the Yankees have to face of a high caliber in '27? No one


The Pirates had to face a tough Giants team, A Cub team that could hurt you and a Brooklyn and Philly team that was on the rise.The '27 A's weren't bad. Yeah, that '09 Brooklyn team was real tough :laugh :laugh

[Imapotato]

RMB

Need I remind that although their record looks subpar, that 1909 Brooklyn team had an injured Harry Lumley...and didn't receive it's bountiful players until August, like I said they were up and coming, they did much better in the 2nd half IIRC then in the 1st...cause that was Zack Wheat's 1st year. Plus Nap Rucker and Farmer Bell were damn fine pitchers

[RuthMayBond]

RMB

Need I remind that although their record looks subpar, that 1909 Brooklyn team had an injured Harry Lumley...and didn't receive it's bountiful players until August, like I said they were up and coming, they did much better in the 2nd half IIRC then in the 1st...cause that was Zack Wheat's 1st year. Plus Nap Rucker and Farmer Bell were damn fine pitchersUp and coming doesn't do you any good in 1909 (and they didn't win more than 65 until 1914). They went 29-49 over their last 78, wow.

[AlecBoy006]

2001 Seattle Mariners

[Myankee4life]

2001 Seattle Mariners

They sure proved that in the post season.

[Myankee4life]

This thread is almost 2 years old. I was a young pup when I started. My opinion has now changed...I believe the '39 Yanks are the greatest team of all-time.

[AlecBoy006]

Hey, they made it all the way to the ALCS.

But, 116 wins in the modern era? Come on!

[TBT]

I did a "playoff" at whatifsports.com with four teams:
1. 1929 Philadelphia Athletics
2. 1927 NY Yankees
3. 1939 NY Yankees
4. 1998 NY Yankees

1927 Yanks vs. 1929 A's
1927 Yanks win series 4-0

1939 Yanks vs. 1998 Yanks
1939 Yanks win series 4-1

1927 Yanks vs. 1939 Yanks
1927 Yanks win series 4-0

That's what whatifsports.com thinks (of course these are only 4 teams).
I personally find the 1998 Yankees to be the best, because they won 114 games in the modern era and swept the competition in the postseason.