Best teams of all-time:

[UK1679666180]

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/best_major_league_teams_ever.shtml

 

1-1927 Yankees

2-1939 Yankees

3-1907 Cubs

4-1932 Yankees

5-1902 Pirates

6-1910 Athletics

7-1905 Giants

8-1998 Yankees

9-1906 Cubs

10-1920 Athletics

 

Interesting article.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

No mention of the 2002 Cubs? What a ripoff.

[BigbadB]

No mention of the 2002 Cubs? What a ripoff.

 

THE HORN!!!!!!!!

[cubweiser03]

So the Cubs had the best back to back teams ever. Too bad no one is alive to tell the story. 9 of the 10 teams are pre 1940 except for the yankees. Thats impressive for them. They were best team i ever saw.

[AlwaysaCub]

10-1920 Athletics

 

No. Just no.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/PHA/1920.shtml

 

48-106

[Transmogrified Tiger]

10-1920 Athletics

 

No. Just no.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/PHA/1920.shtml

 

48-106

 

Maybe they meant the 1910 Athletics.

[AlwaysaCub]

10-1920 Athletics

 

No. Just no.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/PHA/1920.shtml

 

48-106

 

Maybe they meant the 1910 Athletics.

 

The 1910 Athletics are already on the list...They probably meant 1929.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/PHA/1929.shtml

Edited January 16, 2006 by AlwaysaCub

[Transmogrified Tiger]

10-1920 Athletics

 

No. Just no.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/PHA/1920.shtml

 

48-106

 

Maybe they meant the 1910 Athletics.

 

The 1910 Athletics are already on the list...

 

You and your checking the list.....

 

I dunno, the 1930 team won 102 games and a WS.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

The 1910 Athletics are already on the list...They probably meant 1929.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/PHA/1929.shtml

 

Maybe 1920 was right and #11 was the 2002 Cubs...

[Chris]

Here's how that list will look this November

 

1-2006 Cubs

2-1927 Yankees

3-1939 Yankees

4-1907 Cubs

5-1932 Yankees

6-1902 Pirates

7-1910 Athletics

8-1905 Giants

9-1998 Yankees

10-1906 Cubs

 

:shock:

[AlwaysaCub]

The 1910 Athletics are already on the list...They probably meant 1929.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/PHA/1929.shtml

 

Maybe 1920 was right and #11 was the 2002 Cubs...

 

Tru Dat. Fassero was unbeatable.

[Omar]

2004 Cubs should be on the list. Seriously.

[rocket]

2004 Cubs should be on the list. Seriously.

 

No, they shouldn't.

[stitchface]

the list seems to be ancient history biased.

[Coach C]

Interesting. The 1907 Cubs, as a team, had a .311 SLG, .318 OBP with a .628 OPS.

[stitchface]

which goes to show the importance of walks as far back as 1907.

[Andy]

2004 Cubs should be on the list. Seriously.

Based solely on pure talent, I don't think I'll ever see a better Cubs team than 2004.

 

Sosa, Nomar, Ramirez, Alou (at the height of his powers), CPatt (ditto), Wood, Prior, Z, Maddux, Hawkins, Grudzie/Walker (both having great years).

 

The only problem is that many of these players were not playing at their best. I have no doubt that that team would have at least won the pennant had they made the playoffs, especially the way Prior and Wood were going at the end.

[Omar]

2004 Cubs should be on the list. Seriously.

Based solely on pure talent, I don't think I'll ever see a better Cubs team than 2004.

 

Sosa, Nomar, Ramirez, Alou (at the height of his powers), CPatt (ditto), Wood, Prior, Z, Maddux, Hawkins, Grudzie/Walker (both having great years).

 

The only problem is that many of these players were not playing at their best. I have no doubt that that team would have at least won the pennant had they made the playoffs, especially the way Prior and Wood were going at the end.

 

Let's not forget Zambrano's Cy-Worthy year... He probably would've won the Cy Young Award if he had more wins... of course we had a "fab" offense.

 

2004 was an awesome team. I had the most confidence going into the 2004 season. That confidence has sort of come back going into the 2006 season, and was the least going into the 2005 season.

[cubbieinexile]

First problem is the playoff weighting. A team that only has to play one series has an easier time racking up that high % while a modern team has a more difficult time doing. What is more impressive the 1998 Yanks going 11-0 or a team going 4-0 in 12 or so?

 

second problem is that in a league of 8 teams playing in an era of poor infrastructure, resource management, and improper/inadequate governing body it is easier for one team to separate from the pack then in newer times.

 

Teams of the early 20th century were able to rack up the wins because team building and team maintenance overall was so horrible. And everything he is using to measure teams exacerbates the problem. Run differentials are going to be greater when teams can't build and maintain quality teams. Separation from the pack will be greater, and in imbalance in leagues is likely to occur which will favor the team who is built better then the best team in the sister league.

 

One small quibble is that for some reason he uses teams ERA instead of runs allowed. Not sure why he would do this. This also helps early 20th century teams out because it hides an enormous amount of runs allowed while not masking any of the runs scored. For instance the 1907 Cubs had 264 earned runs, while they actually allowed 390 runs to score. The teams hitters scored 3.7 runs per game. They had a 1.73 ERA, but actually allowed 2.52 runs to score. A huge difference, a difference that dissipates as the years move on and the defenses improve. In fact the more I think about it the more I realize that it isn't a small quibble but another major mistake

[David]

2004 Cubs should be on the list. Seriously.

Based solely on pure talent, I don't think I'll ever see a better Cubs team than 2004.

 

Sosa, Nomar, Ramirez, Alou (at the height of his powers), CPatt (ditto), Wood, Prior, Z, Maddux, Hawkins, Grudzie/Walker (both having great years).

 

The only problem is that many of these players were not playing at their best. I have no doubt that that team would have at least won the pennant had they made the playoffs, especially the way Prior and Wood were going at the end.

 

Let's not forget Zambrano's Cy-Worthy year... He probably would've won the Cy Young Award if he had more wins... of course we had a "fab" offense.

 

2004 was an awesome team. I had the most confidence going into the 2004 season. That confidence has sort of come back going into the 2006 season, and was the least going into the 2005 season.

 

Eek... What gives you any confidence going into 2006?

 

2004 was a great team. They just picked the wrong time to go into a team-wide slump... the end of that season was such a heart-breaker...Almost as much as 2003...

 

I was really looking forward to taking on the Cardinals in the NLCS that year.

[stitchface]

I sure hope we see a team better than 2004.

[NorthsideAvenger]

Eek... What gives you any confidence going into 2006?

 

Pixy dust?

 

2004 was a great team. They just picked the wrong time to go into a team-wide slump... the end of that season was such a heart-breaker...Almost as much as 2003...

 

Hawkins "forgetting" how to pitch, was the biggest crime.

 

I was really looking forward to taking on the Cardinals in the NLCS that year.

 

Yeah, I was looking forward to the Cubs kicking the Cards butt. But hey....I believe the Cubs COULD beat the Arizona Cardinals......Maybe..