20 Best Teams All-Time

[statman]

I'm looking for a little help on putting together a league with the 20 best teams of All-Time. I don't want the teams to be to close in years (Reds 75 or 76, not both). I have listed 15 of them below and thought I would throw it out to the forum to complete the list.

1927 Yankees
1961 Yankees
1976 Cincinnati
1936 Yankees
1970 Orioles
1998 Yankees
1986 Mets
1955 Dodgers
1984 Tigers
1948 Indians
1990 Oakland
1965 Dodgers
1967 Cardinals
1974 Oakland
1998 Yankees

[Ryan W.]

None of the Reds teams from the 70's?

The '69 Mets would be a good story.

My personal favorite would be the '91 Twins because I am a huge Twins fan and it was one of the best World Series ever.

[joeswell]

You have to add the 1929 Philadelphia Athletics - the Best Team of All Time

1951 Giants
1954 Indians
1952 Dodgers - better stats than 1955?

[Eric]

I wonder if pitching heavy teams from the dead ball era would dominate.

[ejbucs]

1909 Pirates won 110 games and beat Cobb's tigers for the WS

[lewis31lewis52]

I'd get rid of the '84 Tigers, and put the '35 Tigers in instead. I don't know if that's too close to another team, though.

[HolyCow98]

Originally Posted by Ryan W.

My personal favorite would be the '91 Twins because I am a huge Twins fan and it was one of the best World Series ever.

I do not have fond memories of the '91 Twins...Damn Hrbek.

[rasnell]

I tested this extensively during beta testing. Just as a tip, start with the best teams of an era. You get better results by sticking within a particular era.

Taking the best since 1970 works really well.

Regarding the Reds, it's a tossup between 1975 and 1976.

[DRaysGoRocco]

I actually have been working on a set like this on and off over the past couple of months. But instead of 20, I'm working on the greatest 140 teams of all time.

The way I counteracted the "era" problem was by normalizing all statistics to a certain norm. That way, the '68 Tigers and '29 Athletics would be playing in the same field and not be effected by their respective eras. In addition to that, I used park factors to adjust the effects of each team's home park to the norm. The Era and Park Factor Adjustment calculations are too complicated for me to explain right now.

My set includes about 8 of the greatest negro league teams, 3 19th century teams, every World Series team (minus dynasty multiples, ie 75/76 reds) and other great teams of Baseball History.

This type of roster set would be a lot of fun to play with. They're not really intended for multiple seasons of play, but more for playing 1 season over and over again trying to win the championsip with different "great" teams.

[statman]

Rasnell, does going into different era's really cause wide difference in stats or another reason why you suggest this?

[Matches]

If you are mixing eras, go for the 1906 Cubs. Statistically a mind-boggling pitching staff:

Brown 26-6 1.04
Pfiester 20-8 1.51
Lundgren 17-6 2.21
Reulbach 19-4 1.65
Taylor 12-3 1.83
Overall 12-1.88

And my personal preference, the 1995 Indians, who went 100-44 with an incredibly potent offense and an underrated pitching staff

Also, Hard to ignore the 2001 Mariners who won 116 games.

[84CubsFan]

My favorite article ever to rank the best teams in baseball was done by SI a long while back. I filed it away somewhere and may dig it out again -- I remember using it to create an all-time league for LaRussa baseball. Man that took a long time to enter.

Anyway, it ranked only World Series winners, so the '06 Cubs were out. Pound-for-pound, its best team was the '27 Yanks followed by the '61 Yanks, with the '07 Cubs coming in a close third.

[84CubsFan]

Originally Posted by Matches

And my personal preference, the 1995 Indians, who went 100-44 with an incredibly potent offense and an underrated pitching staff.

That was the team where Manny Ramirez batted 8th. Yikes.

[Matches]

Originally Posted by 84CubsFan

That was the team where Manny Ramirez batted 8th. Yikes.

Against lefties they soemtimes ran a lineup that had a staggering EIGHT .300 hitters. Herbery Perry played for Paul Sorrento, and the only guy in the lineup that wasn't a .300 hitter was Gold Glove shortstop Omar Vizquel when Alomar was healthy and Perry was playing. I'm pretty sure Perry-Sorrento hit 8th though. I think Ramirez hit 7th behind Thome, and maybe 6th against lefties.

[statman]

Originally Posted by 84CubsFan

My favorite article ever to rank the best teams in baseball was done by SI a long while back. I filed it away somewhere and may dig it out again -- I remember using it to create an all-time league for LaRussa baseball. Man that took a long time to enter.

Anyway, it ranked only World Series winners, so the '06 Cubs were out. Pound-for-pound, its best team was the '27 Yanks followed by the '61 Yanks, with the '07 Cubs coming in a close third.

Nice info, would be nice to see that article. But the only way the "07" Cubs, or any Cubs team would be considered in the top teams would be "fantasy".

Did I mentioned I'm a die hard White Sox fan!!!

[metsgeek]

Originally Posted by statman

Nice info, would be nice to see that article. But the only way the "07" Cubs, or any Cubs team would be considered in the top teams would be "fantasy".

Did I mentioned I'm a die hard White Sox fan!!!

You do realize they're talking about 1907, right?

[Tycobbler]

'68 Tigers & Cardinals,

nuff said

[rasnell]

Originally Posted by statman

Rasnell, does going into different era's really cause wide difference in stats or another reason why you suggest this?

You're going to have a problem with HR, SB and pitcher endurance if the eras cover way too many years -- such as deadball vs. modern.

You might want to narrow down to the best 20-year period for best stats.

The 1929-1932 era is almost like the HR era of modern-day so some of those periods work OK.

I've tried the entire history. Depends on what you like. You might have to compromise between all the SB of the deadball era and all the HR of modern times. It's still a lot of fun either way.

[ftursi]

My Picks:

1. 1939 Yankees. The dominant team of their era. Maybe the best team to step on a diamond.
2. 1927 Yankees. Great pitching and two of the greatest hitters of all time.
3. 1970 Orioles. The heart of a dynasty that won 109, 108 and 101 games from 1969-'71.
4. 1998 Yankees. Another dynastic heart, but these guys did when it took more post-season games to win a championship.
5. 1906 Cubs. Yes, baseball was different back then, but this team played it best.
6. 1975 Reds. If they had a No. 1 pitcher, this team would rank higher.
7. 1929 A's. Lefty Grove, Mickey Cochrane, Double X won a lot of games and two World Series.
8. 1986 Mets. Folded in October, but a great team led by a great manager.
9. 1961 Yankees. The Bronx Bombers lived up to their name back then. I may have them too high, but I'm a Yankee fan.
10. 1953 Yankees. Another dynastic powerhouse that won five World Series in a row.
11. 1942 Cards. The war helped but this probably would have been a great team in any era.
12. 1955 Dodgers. A sentimental choice.
13. 1974 Oakland A's. The heart of that dynasty.
14. 1911 Philadelphia A's. A dead-ball era team that dominated the AL for five years or so.
15. 1912 Giants.
16. 1939 Yankees. Ed Barrow thought this team was better than the '27 Yanks.
17. 1917 White Sox. The Black Sox scandal will forever mar the on-the-field abilities of a very good baseball team.
18. 1902 Pirates. An incredible season (103-36 record) highlighted by that bow-legged wonder named Honus.
19. 1915 Red Sox. Ruth's debut. Speaker roamed center. The golden age of the Red Sox.
20. 1968 Tigers. McLain won 31. Lolich dominated the Series.

[TheeeeeeeeeYankeesWin]

[quote=ftursi;2124166]My Picks:

1. 1939 Yankees. The dominant team of their era. Maybe the best team to step on a diamond.
16. 1939 Yankees. Ed Barrow thought this team was better than the '27 Yanks.

Hmmmmm
That is impressive.