PDA

View Full Version : Greatest Baseball Team Ever?



JordansBulls
06-21-2009, 04:34 PM
I'm curious on if anyone here knows any stats or sites where I can find a list of the greatest baseball teams ever?

I'm also curious on where the 2005 White Sox fit in at? Are they one of the best or no?

redwhitenblue
06-21-2009, 04:37 PM
I'm curious on if anyone here knows any stats or sites where I can find a list of the greatest baseball teams ever?

I'm also curious on where the 2005 White Sox fit in at? Are they one of the best or no?
What would you like to consider?
Best record?
Best competition?
Best statistically (non-record, but OPS, ERA, etc)?


2005 White Sox might be top 20 I would guess (without actually going through anything)

pf289
06-21-2009, 04:40 PM
The 04 Sox team was pretty solid

ShinobiNYC
06-21-2009, 05:03 PM
Lol at 04 Sox and 05 Sox.

Heck even the 1986 Mets was better than those 2 teams.

Zaunnie
06-21-2009, 05:07 PM
'74 Oakland A's.

chicagofan71
06-21-2009, 05:13 PM
As a strat player, us strat fans have many debates on this. The '27 Yankees, '69 Orioles, '98 Yankees, '06 Cubs, '53 Dodgers, '75 Reds, '74 Dodgers are all up there

EDIT: Meant '72 A's, not '74

Pavelb1
06-21-2009, 05:27 PM
Lol at 04 Sox and 05 Sox.

Heck even the 1986 Mets was better than those 2 teams.

While the 86 Mets did win 108 games (!) they went 8-5 in the playoffs. They scored 783 runs and gave up 513.

The 04 Sox went 11-3 in the playoffs scored 949 runs and gave up 768. The team with the lowest was 715 runs given up, so clearly we're looking at two diferent eras.

You could argue that without the WC the 04 Sox wouldn't even have made the playoffs, but 'LOL@...even the 1986 Mets', isn't a very persuasive argument.

Regardless, the 27 Yankees is probably the correct answer.

misterd
06-21-2009, 06:18 PM
While the 86 Mets did win 108 games (!) they went 8-5 in the playoffs. They scored 783 runs and gave up 513.

The 04 Sox went 11-3 in the playoffs scored 949 runs and gave up 768. The team with the lowest was 715 runs given up, so clearly we're looking at two diferent eras.

You could argue that without the WC the 04 Sox wouldn't even have made the playoffs, but 'LOL@...even the 1986 Mets', isn't a very persuasive argument.

Regardless, the 27 Yankees is probably the correct answer.

The 04 Sox had a run differential of less than 200, compared to 270 for the '85 Mets. When put as a % of the run totals, the disparity leans even more favorably towards the Mets.

As for the playoff record, that doesn't quite work for me. That's not much better than picking any string of 12-15 games and comparing how they did overall. In the end, they both won.

pf289
06-21-2009, 06:21 PM
Who would you all consider the weakest championship team? Kinda tough to know every team ever but in the past decade or so I would prolly say the 06 Cards.

redwhitenblue
06-21-2009, 06:23 PM
As a strat player, us strat fans have many debates on this. The '27 Yankees, '69 Orioles, '98 Yankees, '06 Cubs, '53 Dodgers, '75 Reds, '74 A's/Dodgers are all up there
Please make it known that you mean 1906 Cubs, not 2006 Cubs

Matt-the-great
06-21-2009, 06:27 PM
i want to see some stats!!!

Matt-the-great
06-21-2009, 06:28 PM
here are the 1927 Yankees stats: http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/NYY/1927.shtml

team Era of 3.20, team line of (.307/.384/.488) ((and that includes 7 non-starters))

nymetsrule
06-21-2009, 06:32 PM
here are the 1927 Yankees stats: http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/NYY/1927.shtml

team Era of 3.20, team line of (.307/.384/.488) ((and that includes 7 non-starters))

Wow...:speechless:

Matt-the-great
06-21-2009, 06:34 PM
1906 Cubs: http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl/player_search.cgi?search=1906+cubs

1974 A's: http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl/player_search.cgi?search=1974+a%27s

1974 Dodgers: http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl/player_search.cgi?search=1974+dodgers

1969 Orioles: http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl/player_search.cgi?search=1969+orioles

1998 Yankees: http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl/player_search.cgi?search=1998+yankees

1975 Reds: http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl/player_search.cgi?search=1975+reds

Zep
06-21-2009, 06:34 PM
1998 Yankees (http://www.fangraphs.com/winss.aspx?team=Yankees&pos=all&stats=bat&qual=0&type=0&season=1998&month=0)

Edit: Looks like I was beaten to the punch on all of them, damn this slow connection. :mad:

I guess I'd have to say '27 Yanks.

JordansBulls
06-21-2009, 07:29 PM
Please make it known that you mean 1906 Cubs, not 2006 Cubs

Yeah, I was like WTF when I saw that the Cubs in 2006 on that list.

chicagofan71
06-21-2009, 07:43 PM
Please make it known that you mean 1906 Cubs, not 2006 Cubs

:laugh2: Yes, Yes I did


1906 Cubs: http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl/player_search.cgi?search=1906+cubs

1974 A's: http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl/player_search.cgi?search=1974+a%27s

1974 Dodgers: http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl/player_search.cgi?search=1974+dodgers

1969 Orioles: http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl/player_search.cgi?search=1969+orioles

1998 Yankees: http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl/player_search.cgi?search=1998+yankees

1975 Reds: http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl/player_search.cgi?search=1975+reds

Thanks for posting the stats. I was on my way to dinner and was just listing teams off the top of my head

chicagofan71
06-21-2009, 07:52 PM
The 1929 Cubs were also a verry good team. Rogers Hornsby, Riggs Stephenson, and Hack Wilson all OPSed above 1.000 that year, and Kiki Culyer had a .970 OPS. Hornsby, Wilson, and Culyer are all HOFers

Although, despite that, they're pitching was just decent. Bullpen was horrid, although BP's weren't used much then

01 Mariners overachived by about 7 games, but still a hell of a team. .805 team OPS with a 1.2 Team wHIP and a 118 ERA+

'54 Indians were another +7 overachiever, but another outstanding team. They didn't have the 01 Mariners' numbers offensively, having a 744 team OPS, but a 132 ERA+, and was third in the league in strikeouts. I'll post more teams later

bagwell368
06-21-2009, 08:42 PM
Who would you all consider the weakest championship team? Kinda tough to know every team ever but in the past decade or so I would prolly say the 06 Cards.

Best team: '31 A's

Rank of '05 White Sox: < top 30

Worst WS winner: The Twins v Cards series of '85 I think it was. The winner (Twins) was automatically the worst team to win a WS I ever saw (going back to 1966) dreckk.

The '88 Dodgers were also weak: 1 great pitcher, two OK pitchers, a 1 pinch hit HR.

Cheezombie
06-21-2009, 09:57 PM
Best team: '31 A's

Rank of '05 White Sox: < top 30

Worst WS winner: The Twins v Cards series of '85 I think it was. The winner (Twins) was automatically the worst team to win a WS I ever saw (going back to 1966) dreckk.

The '88 Dodgers were also weak: 1 great pitcher, two OK pitchers, a 1 pinch hit HR.

:(

Matt-the-great
06-21-2009, 10:24 PM
Best team: '31 A's

Rank of '05 White Sox: < top 30

Worst WS winner: The Twins v Cards series of '85 I think it was. The winner (Twins) was automatically the worst team to win a WS I ever saw (going back to 1966) dreckk.

The '88 Dodgers were also weak: 1 great pitcher, two OK pitchers, a 1 pinch hit HR.

who is the girl in your sig ?

degnor
06-21-2009, 11:39 PM
Greatest, in terms of talent and just destroying competition? Yankees of '98 and '27 were amazing.

But when you say greatest team, I think of something else. It's the one you remember. So, your 05 White Sox might be the one you call the greatest, while I call the '86 Mets the greatest, a Red Sox fan would say '04, a Cubs fan would say 1908 (sry, had to). It's about the swagger, the intrigue, the stories, everything surrounding that particular team. The kind of team you compare all future rosters to at the start of spring training, and at season's end, you're always left wishing for a team like that again.

VenezuelanMet
06-21-2009, 11:43 PM
2001 Mariners. OH WAIT. ****.

The 1984 Tigers were a bulldozer.

TheLogical
06-22-2009, 12:02 AM
There are many teams that come into consideration for this.

For me it would have to be the:

'01 Mariners(Regular Season performance)

or:

'04 Sox(Playoff performance)

although the 2004 Sox did not perform very well until that huge winning streak from August to September correct me if i'm wrong.

Les Cowboys
06-22-2009, 12:31 AM
Lol at 04 Sox and 05 Sox.

Heck even the 1986 Mets was better than those 2 teams.

According to what?

BTownTeamsRKing
06-22-2009, 12:47 AM
this question is impossible to answer. the eras were different. the style of the teams. the way pitchers were managed.

The best team I have ever seen assembled since I started watching in 1999 was those hated new york yankees of jeter, mo rivera, clemens, pettite, paul o'niel, posada, brosius, knublach, torre, etc...

that team was realllyyy good. broke my heart a few times.

then theres the Red Sox of Pedro, Schill, Wakefield, Manny, Ortiz, Faulk, Lowe, Damon, Francona, Bill Mueler, Trot Nixon, Varitek, etc...

degnor
06-22-2009, 12:55 AM
According to what?

someone else showed the stats of the 86 Mets, they were ridiculously good. Again, if its a statistical thing, the 04 Sox team was not extraordinary. But as far as memorable goes....well, people are always going to remember them

pennybank
06-22-2009, 01:00 AM
2001 Mariners

Les Cowboys
06-22-2009, 01:01 AM
someone else showed the stats of the 86 Mets, they were ridiculously good. Again, if its a statistical thing, the 04 Sox team was not extraordinary. But as far as memorable goes....well, people are always going to remember them

Statistically, the 2003 Red Sox were pretty special. They were the Red Sox team that broke a bunch of records. I like the chances of the team with Schilling and Pedro at the top of their rotation in a playoff series though.

BoomBaby35
06-22-2009, 01:02 AM
I'm curious on if anyone here knows any stats or sites where I can find a list of the greatest baseball teams ever?

I'm also curious on where the 2005 White Sox fit in at? Are they one of the best or no?


I would take the 1990 REDS over the 05 White Sox in a heartbeat

abe_froman
06-22-2009, 01:04 AM
in no order,except the first one:
27 yanks
98 yanks
big red machine
gashouse gang
29 a's(won the ring as opposed to 31,so...)

i know many(probably most here dont agree)but i disqualify those that dont win the champ.because for a team thats the whole point,and if you dont than its a failure(you choked)....and you put into another category,the greatest team to never win a title;thats separate from those that have

MrBloop
06-22-2009, 01:25 AM
I'm curious on if anyone here knows any stats or sites where I can find a list of the greatest baseball teams ever?

I'm also curious on where the 2005 White Sox fit in at? Are they one of the best or no?

The 98' Yanks are easily the best team in baseball. They tasted success in 96', lost it in 97', only to retool and come back in 98' and have the most successful season in baseball history, on route to two more championships in a row. They did all this under the media scrutiny that comes with playing in NY, combined with a myriad of off the field personal issues (doc, torre cancer, darryl etc)

That team wasn't the best team as far as overall talent goes, but there was no weak cog in that lineup or pitching staff. Every time somebody went down, some other person, for whatever reason, got it done in a big way. That was as magical a season as there ever was, I don't care how much you hate the Yanks. The way we dominated in the regular season was great, but the way they won in the postseason really lead me to truly believe at the time, I would never see a team play that well from start to finish.

No argument can be made to say another team was better than the 98' yanks...you can say,"a team was as good" or "around that good" w/e, but better??? not quite.

MrBloop
06-22-2009, 01:53 AM
who is the girl in your sig ?

I was just thinking the same thing. Wat a set on that little minx.:smoking:

degnor
06-22-2009, 03:49 AM
The 98' Yanks are easily the best team in baseball. They tasted success in 96', lost it in 97', only to retool and come back in 98' and have the most successful season in baseball history, on route to two more championships in a row. They did all this under the media scrutiny that comes with playing in NY, combined with a myriad of off the field personal issues (doc, torre cancer, darryl etc)

That team wasn't the best team as far as overall talent goes, but there was no weak cog in that lineup or pitching staff. Every time somebody went down, some other person, for whatever reason, got it done in a big way. That was as magical a season as there ever was, I don't care how much you hate the Yanks. The way we dominated in the regular season was great, but the way they won in the postseason really lead me to truly believe at the time, I would never see a team play that well from start to finish.

No argument can be made to say another team was better than the 98' yanks...you can say,"a team was as good" or "around that good" w/e, but better??? not quite.

I love how the off-the-field problems are all ex-Mets, lol

degnor
06-22-2009, 03:50 AM
Statistically, the 2003 Red Sox were pretty special. They were the Red Sox team that broke a bunch of records. I like the chances of the team with Schilling and Pedro at the top of their rotation in a playoff series though.

Might have been. Too bad the only thing people will remember about that team is Tim Wakefield walking off the mound

Pinstripe pride
06-22-2009, 09:16 AM
2009 Washington Nationals...........

Pavelb1
06-22-2009, 09:18 AM
The 98' Yanks are easily the best team in baseball. They tasted success in 96', lost it in 97', only to retool and come back in 98' and have the most successful season in baseball history, on route to two more championships in a row. They did all this under the media scrutiny that comes with playing in NY, combined with a myriad of off the field personal issues (doc, torre cancer, darryl etc)

That team wasn't the best team as far as overall talent goes, (1)but there was no weak cog in that lineup or pitching staff. Every time somebody went down, some other person, for whatever reason, got it done in a big way. That was as magical a season as there ever was, I don't care how much you hate the Yanks. The way (2)we dominated in the regular season was great, but the way they won in the postseason really lead me to truly believe at the time, I would never see a team play that well from start to finish.

No argument can be made to say another team was better than the 98' yanks...you can say,"a team was as good" or "around that good" w/e, but better??? not quite.

1. Not even Chuck "can't throw it" Knoublauch. The Fat Toad and David "Perfect I'm Not" Wells.....but yeah, (no sarcasm) that was a pretty good team.

2. heh

hammerinhank
06-22-2009, 11:13 AM
1998 Atlanta Braves 106-56 (lost NLCS)

Starters combined averages
18-7/207ip/3.04era/1.15whip/144era+
23hr/.279/.355/.478/.832/117ops+

Southsideheat
06-22-2009, 11:34 AM
I think the 2005 White Sox will go down as one of the best rotations in history simply for the fact that they were dominant in the steroid era.

Pavelb1
06-22-2009, 11:50 AM
I think the 2005 White Sox will go down as one of the best rotations in history simply for the fact that they were dominant in the steroid era.

Can I change my Homer vote?

The four complete games in the ALCS will be remembered as an interesting quirk. Almost no one outside of Chicago will remember that rotation....and 2005 is post-steroid.

bagwell368
06-22-2009, 12:15 PM
2001 Mariners. OH WAIT. ****.

The 1984 Tigers were a bulldozer.

That's the first time in a long time I have read about 1984 Tigers when it did not start - "the 34-5 start 1984 Tigers". I'm a Red Sox fan and that is my favorite non Red Sox Title team ever. Why? Because I put a $100 on them to win the WS and got 14-1 odds. Sadly I tried to double up over the next 4-5 years and only succeeded in losing $100 a year... oh well..

the young lady in my sig - Krystle Lina - words just don't seem to do her justice.

Southsideheat
06-22-2009, 01:14 PM
Can I change my Homer vote?

The four complete games in the ALCS will be remembered as an interesting quirk. Almost no one outside of Chicago will remember that rotation....and 2005 is post-steroid.

First, i didn't vote, all i talked about was their rotation. I don't know what people remembering them outside Chicago has anything to do with it either. And it would be nice to believe that 2005 was post-steroids, but if there still isn't blood testing, i think we're still in it. Maybe i should have said PED-era.