Username:	Password:

Remember me

Forgot your username/password?

Print Email

Home>Articles

The Greatest Team in Baseball History Part II

By Bill James

May 5, 2011

Without further delay, this is my list of the 25 greatest teams of all time, based on the method explained here yesterday:

Rank	YEAR	City	Team	Total
1	1998	New York	Yankees	853
2	1937	New York	Yankees	848
3	1939	New York	Yankees	845
4	1938	New York	Yankees	844
5	1995	Atlanta	Braves	840
6	1975	Cincinnati	Reds	835
7	1997	Atlanta	Braves	835
8	1999	New York	Yankees	830
9	1907	Chicago	Cubs	822
10	1941	New York	Yankees	815
11	1953	New York	Yankees	815
12	1996	Atlanta	Braves	814
13	1930	Philadelphia	A's	812
14	1908	Chicago	Cubs	811
15	1996	New York	Yankees	811
16	2000	New York	Yankees	811
17	1929	Philadelphia	A's	810
18	1970	Baltimore	Orioles	810
19	1936	New York	Yankees	808
20	1976	Cincinnati	Reds	807
21	1952	New York	Yankees	806
22	1944	St. Louis	Cardinals	804
23	1951	New York	Yankees	804
24	1998	Atlanta	Braves	803
25	1950	New York	Yankees	798

If the 1957 Kansas City A’s had been the greatest team of all time, obviously the 1956 and 1958 Kansas City A’s would be in there somewhere as well, so there is a logic in presenting the list in this form. It is rather unsatisfying, however, to see what are in essence the same teams listed over and over, so let’s reduce that problem by making a rule that once a team has appeared on this list, that franchise cannot appear again within a three-year period; in other words, since the 1998 Yankees are the number one team, no other Yankee team from 1995 to 2001 will be shown on the list. If we make that rule, this is our list of the 30 greatest teams of all time:

Rank	YEAR	City	Team	Lg	Total	Key Players
1	1998	New York	Yankees	AL	853	Jeter, Mariano, Posada, Pettitte
2	1937	New York	Yankees	AL	848	Gehrig, DiMaggio, Ruffing, Dickey
3	1995	Atlanta	Braves	NL	840	Smoltz, Glavine, Maddux, Chipper
4	1975	Cincinnati	Reds	NL	835	Morgan, Rose, Bench, Perez
5	1907	Chicago	Cubs	NL	822	Tinker, Evers, Chance, Mordecai
6	1941	New York	Yankees	AL	815	It’s just another God Damned Yankee Team
7	1953	New York	Yankees	AL	815	Mantle, Berra, Ford, Billy Martin
8	1930	Philadelphia	A's	AL	812	Foxx, Grove, Simmons, Cochrane
9	1970	Baltimore	Orioles	AL	810	Brooks and Frank, Boog, Pancakes
10	1944	St. Louis	Cardinals	NL	804	Musial, Marion, the Cooper Brothers
11	1932	New York	Yankees	AL	797	Ruth, Gehrig, Lazzeri, Gomez
12	2003	New York	Yankees	AL	794	Jeter, Mariano, Clemens, Mussina
13	1949	New York	Yankees	AL	792	Casey Stengel’s Magic Year; Rizzuto and Joe Page
14	1978	New York	Yankees	AL	792	Reggie, Munson, Guidry, Goose
15	1999	Atlanta	Braves	NL	790	Maddux, Glavine, Chipper, Andruw
16	1973	Oakland	A's	AL	786	The Moustache Gang
17	1986	New York	Mets	NL	783	Keith, Doc, Darryl, Gary Carter
18	1911	Philadelphia	A's	AL	772	Million Dollar Infield, Coombs, Plank
19	1927	New York	Yankees	AL	770	Ruth, Gehrig, Lazzeri, Combs
20	1961	New York	Yankees	AL	768	M & M boys, Ford, Arroyo, Elston
21	2009	New York	Yankees	AL	767	ARod, Moose, Jeter, Mariano
22	1953	Brooklyn	Dodgers	NL	766	The Boys of Summer
23	2004	Boston	Red Sox	AL	766	Manny, David, Pedro, Curt
24	1995	Cleveland	Indians	AL	760	Belle, Manny, Vizquel, Lofton
25	2004	St. Louis	Cardinals	NL	758	Albert, Edmonds, Rolen, Carpenter
26	1887	St. Louis	Cardinals	AA	745	Comiskey, Carothers, Latham, Silver King
27	1902	Pittsburgh	Pirates	NL	743	Honus, Ginger, Clarke, Chesbro
28	1954	Cleveland	Indians	AL	742	Wynn, Lemon, Rosen, Doby
29	2007	Boston	Red Sox	AL	742	Pedroia, Lowell, Beckett, David
30	1896	Baltimore	Orioles	NL	737	Wee Willie, Eee-Yah, Kelley and Wilbert

A brief Q & A with myself about this list:

Q. Setting aside the math, do you really believe that the 1998 Yankees should be recognized as the greatest team of all time?

A. Yes.

Q. The 2003 Marlins, who won the World Series, are not on the list; the 2003 Yankees, who lost the series, are. How can that be?

A. The top 11 teams all won the World Series, I think. Twenty-two of the top 30 won the World Series, and three of the other eight were teams from the era before the World Series started. Winning the World Series is terribly important—but the better team doesn’t always win the series, do they?

Q. The 1944 Cardinals are in the top 10, although they were playing a war-time schedule. Don’t you think this suggests that the war-time penalty should have been larger?

That could be, or it could be the opposite: the people discount the team too much because of the war. The team had Musial, Marty Marion, Walker Cooper, Harry Brecheen, Max Lanier and other stars. They were very successful over a period of years, winning the World Series in 1942, when most of the stars were still in the game, and 1946, when the war was over. I think that team needs to be represented on the list. You can represent them by 1942 or 1946 if you think that’s better.

Q. You listed the 1930 Philadelphia A’s. The team that is usually listed is the 1929 A’s. Why is that?

A. They just came out ahead, 812 to 810. You could list either one there; it doesn’t matter. Both teams won the series.

Q. Are you disappointed that none of the 1970s Royals made the list?

A. Extremely.

Q. The 1973 A’s, with Catfish, Reggie, Bando and Vida Blue, rank only 16^th on the list although they won three straight World Series.

A. It was a great team, but anyone can look at that team and see that there are issues there. Even in 1973, the best year of the three on the charts, the team didn’t have a .300 hitter, didn’t have anybody who scored 100 runs. In the three championship seasons they had won-lost records that you’re lucky to get into the playoffs with—93 wins, 94 wins, 90 wins. They get a lot of credit for those three straight World Championships, but it doesn’t mean that we ignore everything else.

Q. You have said repeatedly that you don’t believe the 1961 Yankees are a great team, but here they are, 20^th on the list.

A. You don’t do research to back up what you already know. You do research to see things better.

Q. You have said many times that the greatest 19^th century team was the Boston team of the mid-1890s, and also that the Beaneaters were better than the more famous Baltimore Orioles of that era. Why didn’t that team make the list?

A. The St. Louis team ranks higher in six of the eight areas. One of the two exceptions is the time-line difference, which is trivial. I didn’t figure Teams-on-Paper scores for any 19^th century teams, essentially because I am unwilling to consider any 19^th century team as a serious contender for the greatest ever. If I had figured those, that might have reduced the margin between the two, but St. Louis is so far ahead that it’s unlikely that the Beaneaters could catch up by winning one category. You live and learn. You study and learn. I’ll look at the those teams again.

Q. Do you accept that the 2009 Yankees were actually better than either of the Red Sox teams that won?

A. Definitely not. For one thing, the measured difference is trivial, 767 to 766. The method’s not nearly good enough for that to be a meaningful difference. For another, not all of the markers are in yet. The 2009 Yankees had a very impressive roster, because Jeter and Mariano and Mussina and some other guys on that team had been around a long time before 2009. But by the time Beckett and Lester and Papelbon and Pedroia and Ellsbury have had full careers. . well, I don’t want to get ahead of myself. But this is 2011, and they’re all still playing very well.

OK, the third thing we should deal with here is the worst teams ever.

According to this method, the two worst teams of all time were two teams that I have said very specifically before could be the two worst teams of all time—the 1886 Kansas City Cowboys of the National League, and the 1884 Kansas City Unions of the Union Association. These two teams not only had horrific records, but did so in leagues of very low quality. The 1886 team actually didn’t finish last; they were two games out of last. But the Washington team for some reason out-scores them in our evaluation—and the Washington team is the fifth-worst team ever.

Rank	YEAR	City	Team	Lg	Total
10	1890	Brooklyn	Gladiators	AA	107
9	1884	Wilmington	Quicksteps	UA	106
8	1878	Milwaukee	Cream Citys	NL	104
7	1883	Philadelphia	Phillies	NL	101
6	1884	Indiana	Hoosiers	AA	97
5	1886	Washington	Statesmen	NL	96
4	1876	Cincinnati	Red Stockings	NL	90
3	1884	Washington	Nationals	AA	90
2	1884	Kansas City	Unions	UA	87
1	1886	Kansas City	Cowboys	NL	86

The worst team since 1890 was the 1941 Philadelphia Phillies. The next worst was the 1942 Phillies. They lost 220 games over the two seasons, going 43-111 and 42-109. Behind them, the worst team of the 20^th century was the 1962 Mets.

These are the worst teams by decades. Remember, this method prefers teams that sustain incompetence over a period of years, rather than teams that just have a really bad season.

1870s 1876 Cincinnati Red Stockings (National League)

1880s 1886 Kansas City Cowboys (National League)

1890s 1890 Brooklyn Gladiators (American Association)

1900s 1904 Washington Senators (American League)

1910s 1919 Philadelphia Athletics (American League)

1920s 1927 Boston Red Sox (American League)

1930s 1938 Philadelphia Phillies (National League)

1940s 1941 Philadelphia Phillies (National League)

1950s 1952 Pittsburgh Pirates (National League)

1960s 1962 Mets (National League)

1970s 1977 Toronto Blue Jays (American League)

1980s 1980 Seattle Mariners (American League)

1990s 1998 Tampa Bay Devil Rays (American League)

2000s 2002 Tampa Bay Devil Rays (American League)

Thanks for reading. I should be on Colbert tonight; see you all there.

Bill

COMMENTS (34 Comments, most recent shown first)

beckerich
Babe Ruth shows up after 4 other Yankeed teams and in 11th place? Could this be right?
12:22 AM Jun 30th

fremont
i have long believed that the 1962 dodgers and giants were the two greatest (single year, not multi year) teams in the national league since 1950 with the possible exception of some years or year of The Big Red Machine of the 1970s and the braves of the 1990s. the 1962 dodgers were a tremendous run producing team (even without big home run hitters), with top quality starting pitching(even with koufax, in the first year of his great run, missing about a third of the season) a top reliever with perronoski and best relief depth with roebuck & sherry. the giants had Mays in about his second best year, cepada in his best as a giant, f. alou his best year, and mccovey unable to be an every day player because he wasn't good enough (even though had he played full time he would likely have hit about 40 homers). their pitching was also top-notch, although, unlike the dodgers, it was largely because of career years , other than a young marichal. although on a multi-year basis i agree the Big Red Machine was better,(it did lack the quality pitching of the 1962 dodgers or giants, both of which in 1962 were big run producers as well). Also on a multi year basis the 1990s braves teams (whose overall starting pitching was possibly better than the 1962 dodgers and giants, although the 5-man vs 4-man rotations and fewer complete games coupled with a lesser relief staff than at least the 1962 dodgers and the giants were pretty good that year, but with lesser offense than either the dodgers or giants of 1962) were better.I am unconvinced that in any one year either of them was better than either the 1962 dodgers (who would have won easily, but for koufax's injury, and likely anyways, but for alston's gross mismanagement of game 3 of the playoffs-but both are part of the game) or the 1962 giants. mays, wills, tommy davis, and drysdale all had mvp level seasons. I reconize that with 108 wins the 1975 Reds and 1986 Mets both have strong arguments in their favor, as do the 1998 and 1993 Braves with 106 and 104 wins. excluding the playoffs the 1962 dodgers and giants, by comparison, won only 101. however the 4-man rotations and starters pitching complete games competing against later years 5-man rotations and 7 inning pitcher competition would certainly increase the 1962 dodger & giant wins. What are your thoughts. by the way you seem to have something against 1962. wills only stole bases because catchers couldn't throw, the best national league pennant race of the 1960s isn't the only one that required a playoff. as an aside, i was a big braves fan in the 1990s so i really liked those teams.

1:25 PM May 27th

grcomm
I'm mildly surprised not to see the 1899 Cleveland Spiders on your worst teams list. They compiled the worst W-L record of all time, 20-134, losing 40 of their last 41 games. Granted, they weren't that bad over a long period of time. (How could they be? The owners might have had them shot.) And their awfulness was the product of the corruption that was 'syndicate baseball,' but such a ghastly single season is surely an achievement of, uh, note.

2:29 AM May 9th

Kev
Isn't the greatest team the one which best dominates in its own "best year" against its peers? Prior years could apply to best team over x years, but has no relevance to best team (assuming best team means the 19xx or 20xx team--that is, best one-year team).

In my experience the 1962 Giants and 1963 Dodgers were the best teams of their era, and with the greatest talent.

Koufax, Drysdale, Podres, Stan Williams, Perranoski, T. Davis, W. Davis, Wills, Howard Gilliam Fairly and Roseboro.

O'Dell, Marichal, Sanford, Marichal, Pierce, Mays, Cepeda, F. Alou, McCovey, Perry.

Great names all, and at a time when the NL had HOFers coming out of the woodwork. The '62 Giants lost the 7th game of the WS when BABiP directed McCovey's smash into Richardson's gut in the 9th inning of a 1-run 7th game. Inches either way and Bobby would not have made the catch and the Giants would have won the Series. In 1963, LA swept the Yankees, Koufax won 2, and the Yankees scored a total of 4 runs in 4 games. These nightmares brought to you by a lifelong Yankee fan who was terrified by the '62 Giants and the '63 Dodgers, each superior to the Yankees.

This comment was written in haste, hence its disjointed nature.

1:22 AM May 8th

those
Also, to follow up on what jdw said, Simmons made it very clear in his book that the reason he doesn't have more recent teams on the list is because of the salary cap/luxury tax rules, which prevent teams of today from loading up on veterans and establishing a deep bench. What pushed the 86 Celtics was the acquisition of Walton and what pushed the 87 Lakers over the top was getting Mychal Thompson. It's clear neither of those deals could happen today.

Also, from the 1967-76, you had another league vying for talent (and, in the final few years, doing a pretty darn good job of getting exciting young talent (Doc, Gervin, David Thompson).

So when you walk through it, plus add the advantages in size and athleticism, it makes sense that the best teams would be concentrated in one era. I don't think that's the case with baseball, or at least it doesn't appear to be as obvious where the best teams would be.
10:02 AM May 7th

those
Cue Ventboys telling Paul if he doesn't like it he can leave in 5....4....3....2
12:24 AM May 7th

Paul
1) If I had a system that ranked the 1932 Yankees significantly ahead of the 1927 Yankees, I'd get started on a new system. I mean, if that really were the case, wouldn't *some* New York baseball fan of that generation have noticed?
2) I take these last two articles as a tacit admission that the Omars and Ozzies series has been abandoned. The most disappointing thing about this site since it started is how often that sort of thing has happened.
11:00 PM May 6th

Steven Goldleaf
I watched Stephen Colbert last night--didn't see Bill, unless he's actually a skinny woman who wrote a book on why we shouldn;t pick on fat people. Or maybe it was Stephen's brother Nate who I supposed to watch?
5:47 PM May 6th

jdw
On your question of whether anyone said we were honored to watch the #1 and #3 teams of all-time, there was plenty of buzz about the 1998 Yankees and people arguing whether they were the best of all-time. The Braves didn't get it because they won "only" one World Title.

Which in and of itself was always odd. The Big Red Machine only won 1 more. That was after they failed in 1970, didn't make the post season in 1971, failed in 1972, got upset by a horrible Mets team in the 1973 post season, didn't make the playoffs in 1974 (thanks to a forgotten excellent Dodgers team)... before finally winning in 1975 in a classic series where they were that close to failing again. Then the pounded people in 1976.

The Braves look very similar to that, except:

* they lasted a heck of a lot longer
* they got unlucky in their "classic close call" series (1991)

The Braves were a pretty great team. We pretty much all knew that at the time. People got tired of them winning forever, and the lack of post season success in the tail end allowed people to pile onto the narrative that built up over time: they couldn't win in the post season. When in fact they won a lot in the post season from 1991-99.

I was honored to watch them, and enjoyed the hell out of it.
5:21 PM May 6th

jdw
As far as a matched pair ranking #1 & #3, I don't think it would be out of the realm of possible. Bill Simmons top 10 NBA teams of all-time included:

01. 86 Celtics
03. 87 Lakers
04. 89 Pistons
08. 83 Sixers

The Lakers and Celtics were direct contempories, right down to the 87 Lakers beating the Celtics to win the Title. In 1988 and 1989, it was the Lakers and Pistons in the Final with the teams splitting the championships. The 1983 76ers swept the earlier version of the 80s Lakers, of which both the 1982 version was close to making his Top 10. The 1984 Celtics and 1985 Lakers would have been on the list but for their 1986 & 1987 versions, and those 1984 & 1985 beat each other for their titles.

In the NFL, the Walsh/Seifert 49ers and Jimmy Johnson Cowboys may just be among the Top 3, and they were largely at the same time. It's also possible that the 70s Steelers and Cowboys could be in the Top 3: the Steelers regular are candidates for the #1 spot, and the reason the Cowboys didn't win 4 Super Bowls and the Steelers did was:

Super Bowl X Pittsburgh Steelers 21–17 Dallas Cowboys
Super Bowl XIII Pittsburgh Steelers 35–31 Dallas Cowboys

The Staubach Cowboys and Bradshaw Steelers were in a total of 6 Super Bowls in 9 years. Average margin of victory when those teams didn't play each other was 15 points, and their teams won all four. The two times the teams matches up, it was a 4 point margin. It's *possible* that Bradshaw's Steelers are #1, and the only reason those Cowboys aren't #1 is being the Steerlers were just a hair better.

I don't have any skin in the game for any of those teams, that I did enjoy watching the 49ers play more than the other three. Still, what I walked through isn't terribly unusual.

Thats the NBA and the NFL. Bill has #1 & #3 in MLB being close together. It's possible that some NHL expert would come on here and point out that the three best NHL teams of all-time were the three teams that combined to win 13 of 15 titles from 1976-1990.

Again, why would we be terribly surprised by any of this. Greatness often lines up. Lou and Foxx? Mantle and Mays, let alone that Duke was pretty fine as well.
4:59 PM May 6th

lvrotsos
How can the 1995 Braves,a team that didn't play a full season,be the third best team ever?They also didn't have the best record overall,outperformed their Pythogrean record,AND took 6 games to win the series.On top of all that,it was their only 1990's World Series.
4:31 PM May 6th

Hal10000
As a lifelong Braves fan I am, of course, delighted with your ranking of the team. I've always thought that had they won the '96 series, there would be no question in the public's mind that they were one of the all-time greats. How would they rank in your system if Tim Welke had gotten out of Jermaine Dye's way?
3:10 PM May 6th

glkanter
jdw - Would you expect any pair of great teams to rank #1 and #3 overall?
Did you, or anyone you know, ever suggest that we were privileged to watch the all time #1 & #3 teams in MLB history? It seems like we all talked endlessly about the Bird & Magic & Jordan & Russell & Chamberlain teams & Steelers & Cowboys & Raiders were all amongst the greatest teams in their sports. I'm not familiar with that conversation taking place regarding the Braves & Yankees.
Maybe they are #1 & #3. But it sure snuck up on us. We didn't even have a whiff of it until yesterday. Surprises like that get my attention. And beg for further inquiry and explanation.
2:22 PM May 6th

jdw
Paired greatness is very common. If we did a similar thing for the NBA, the Showtime Lakers and the Bird Celtics would both rank high on the list, quite possibly represented back back-to-back teams (1986 Celts and 1987 Lakers). The 1983 76ers would rank high up there as well, especially with the rule limiting the number of Russell Celtics teams could make the list.

In the NFL, the 49ers of the late 80s and Cowboys of the early 90s would likey make the list. In the 70s we'd see the Dolphins, Steelers and Cowboys all make the list. The rule limiting the appearances might allow the recent Colts to make the list in addition to their rival Pats whose cluster of Super Bowls wins would lock them in. 90s Packers and Broncos would be an interesting one as well, with perhaps both making it, as the timeline would no doubt help (timeline is probably even more extreme in the NFL than MLB).

Anyway, there really should be no surprise. I mean... Babe-Lou Yanks and Connie's last great A's teams overlapped in the same League, let alone in opposite ones like the Yanks and Braves of the 90s. I don't know how we could accept the possibility of the Yanks/A's reaching greatness in close quarters, but not the Yanks/Braves.
1:55 PM May 6th

glkanter
ps Anybody notice the 'era' that teams #1 & #3 are smack dab in the middle of?
11:35 AM May 6th

rgregory1956
Unlike Bill, I enjoy looking at and studying 19th century baseball. I won't bore you with the details here, but I started a thread in the Reader Posts about the 1875 Boston Red Stockings, if you have any interest.
11:16 AM May 6th

glkanter
I certainly can't argue with an explanation like that.
9:19 AM May 6th

chisox
I suppose it's a matter of defining what is meant by a "great team," but why exclude the one-hit-wonder teams from the analysis? Or, if not excluding them outright, conducting the exercise in a manner that has the ultimate effect of excluding them.

If an otherwise average or just above average team were to catch some serious lightning in a bottle and buzz through the regular season winning, say, 135 games, having an untouchable pitching staff and nightmare inducing offense, sweeping the playoffs and World Series, wouldn't we consider that one of the all time great, if not greatest teams?

It wouldn't matter to me if that was the only year they played that well, they'd still be one of the all time great teams.
9:17 AM May 6th

hotstatrat
It is often the case that greatness comes in pairs or clusters. One inspires or learns from the other. Look at the Red Sox and Yankees over the past decade. How about Lennon and McCartney - followed by Led Zeppelin, Yes, and Pink Floyd, etc. How about Monet, Renoir, Cezanne, Van Gogh, etc.?
9:16 AM May 6th

glkanter
As for the list, #1 & #3 only 4 (3?) years apart, and essentially year-for-year contemporaries? For some reason, that strikes me as unlikely over a history of 140 years. But, who am I to say? Maybe this supports that modern teams *are* better. Either way, imho it's quite an anomaly, and should be addressed, either to be recognized/celebrated/learned-from, or tempered.

Year Tm Lg W-L% Finish Playoffs
2006 New York Yankees AL East 0.599 1st of 5 Lost LDS (3-1)
2005 New York Yankees AL East 0.586 1st of 5 Lost LDS (3-2)
2004 New York Yankees AL East 0.623 1st of 5 Lost ALCS (4-3)
2003 New York Yankees AL East 0.623 1st of 5 Lost WS (4-2)
2002 New York Yankees AL East 0.640 1st of 5 Lost LDS (3-1)
2001 New York Yankees AL East 0.594 1st of 5 Lost WS (4-3)
2000 New York Yankees AL East 0.540 1st of 5 Won WS (4-1)
1999 New York Yankees AL East 0.605 1st of 5 Won WS (4-0)
1998 New York Yankees AL East 0.704 1st of 5 Won WS (4-0) --------#1
1997 New York Yankees AL East 0.593 2nd of 5 Lost LDS (3-2)
1996 New York Yankees AL East 0.568 1st of 5 Won WS (4-2)
1995 New York Yankees AL East 0.549 2nd of 5 Lost LDS (3-2)
1994 New York Yankees AL East 0.619 1st of 5
1993 New York Yankees AL East 0.543 2nd of 7
1992 New York Yankees AL East 0.469 4th of 7
1991 New York Yankees AL East 0.438 5th of 7

Year Tm Lg W-L% Finish Playoffs
2006 Atlanta Braves NL East 0.488 3rd of 5
2005 Atlanta Braves NL East 0.556 1st of 5 Lost LDS (3-1)
2004 Atlanta Braves NL East 0.593 1st of 5 Lost LDS (3-2)
2003 Atlanta Braves NL East 0.623 1st of 5 Lost LDS (3-2)
2002 Atlanta Braves NL East 0.631 1st of 5 Lost LDS (3-2)
2001 Atlanta Braves NL East 0.543 1st of 5 Lost NLCS (4-1)
2000 Atlanta Braves NL East 0.586 1st of 5 Lost LDS (3-0)
1999 Atlanta Braves NL East 0.636 1st of 5 Lost WS (4-0)
1998 Atlanta Braves NL East 0.654 1st of 5 Lost NLCS (4-2)
1997 Atlanta Braves NL East 0.623 1st of 5 Lost NLCS (4-2)
1996 Atlanta Braves NL East 0.593 1st of 5 Lost WS (4-2)
1995 Atlanta Braves NL East 0.625 1st of 5 Won WS (4-2) -----------#3
1994 Atlanta Braves NL East 0.596 2nd of 5
1993 Atlanta Braves NL West 0.642 1st of 7 Lost NLCS (4-2)
1992 Atlanta Braves NL West 0.605 1st of 6 Lost WS (4-2)
1991 Atlanta Braves NL West 0.580 1st of 6 Lost WS (4-3)

4:59 AM May 6th

glkanter
Go ahead, ventboys, attack the messenger. It can be a useful strategy, of sorts.
4:34 AM May 6th

ventboys
We deal with this kind of crap over at Reader Posts all the time, Bill. Feel our pain.
2:58 AM May 6th

glkanter
I restarted a more subdued discussion on the Reader's Post page based on the Hey Bill questions of April 28 and 29, 2011.
11:43 PM May 5th

glkanter
In addition to the following "Hey Bills" from March and April 2010 (only the last question is mine) there was a ton of heated discussion on the Reader's Posts pages. To put it nicely, I'm the only one involved in any of those discussions who is *not* surprised by the results of Bill's analysis here.

[Each new question (there are 4) is indicated by '***']

***Actually, you wrote (in the New Historical Abstract) that the '27 Yankees were the best team in history, but the '98 version muddied the argument, or something like that. So I guess the question is, do you still think that the '27 Yankees were the best team ever?
Asked by: Anonymous
Answered: March 30, 2010

Well. .. I don't literally think that the 1927 Yankees could take the field against the 2010 Red Sox and win half their games. I think the '27 Yankees were the most dominant team in their own era.

http://www.billjamesonline.net/DisplayAnswers.aspx?display=20103

***"I don't literally think that the 1927 Yankees could take the field against the 2010 Red Sox and win half their games." If not 1927, at what point would you start to feel confident that a dominant team from the past would be able to display some dominance against teams of the present? A champ from the 50s? 60s? 70s? 80s? I'm facsinated by these questions of what you once called "the incline of history." Any speculation is appreciated (I promise not to take it too seriously).
Asked by: Chris DeRosa
Answered: April 2, 2010

Well.. . .working for the Red Sox since 2002, I can see that the game is better now than it was when I first came on board. In that time frame I have seen probably a hundred different innovations take root in the game and flourish. We don't really TALK about these things directly, and we don't normally talk about the consequences of these changes, or the consequence of the change being a better game on the field, but. .. .that's what it is. Professional Advance scouting has gotten far more sophisticated in the last ten years. The efforts to develop players in Venezuela and other Latin American sources have gotten far, far stronger than they were a few years ago. The scouting of players in Asia and Australia has advanced. These things are not done at the expense of player development in the US; they are done IN ADDITION to player development in the US. Some of the equipment is better. The training of players at the college level is better. The medical support is better. The coaching staffs are more professional, and the training staffs are better. The off-season training support programs are better. The General Managers are smarter. People know things that they didn't used to know.. . . .I'm talking about in the last 7 1/2 years.

You hear it said every spring that "everybody is better this year", and from the outside looking in, you don't understand why people are saying that. From my standpoint. ..it's not ALWAYS true, of course; some of the people who work hard to get better suffer injuries and players don't develop, and they go backward. But sports are a structure in which everybody works like bloody hell all of the time to get better, and the consequence of this is that teams DO get better; they get better not merely one to another, but they get better compared to where they were last year. The Red Sox are a lot better team now than we were in 2003, but you don't necessarily see all of the improvement because the teams we battle against are better, too.

***Hey Bill, your boss said the other day that a '1927 Yankees- 2004 Red Sox would be a good match up' How would you see this game going down? Since 1927 have pitchers or hitters improved more?
Asked by: Anonymous
Answered: April 18, 2010

Which boss?

My honest opinion is that the slope of history is steep enough that it would be difficult for any team from before 1960 to compete with modern teams. Hitting and pitching, by the nature of the game, MUST improve at almost an equal rate over time.

***Hey Bill, I'm not sure I agree about ballplayers being so much better than years ago. Fastballs are still rarely above 100 mph. I figure a player's skill level is the combination of 2 curves, his physical ability curve plus his baseball skills curve. One is ascending while the other descending. Steroids had an impact because they kept the physical ability curve from descending until a later time frame than normal. So, the overall curve was ascending into later years, and guys with accumulated baseball skills were healthy enough to get 550 at bats every season. So, comparing an old time player to a contemporary player, which curve differentiates them? Would an old time guy figure it out quickly, and become competitive again? Are younger, both pretty healthy, players perhaps more similar than older players?
Asked by: GKanter
Answered: April 18, 2010

It's an irrelevant analysis. You're analyzing the question of how the game in 2004 compares to the game in 1927 on the basis of elements that are appropriate to a comparison of one player to another, but have nothing at all to do with 2004 versus 1927. It's like analyzing the causes of the English Civil War (1642) in terms of states rights, slavery and secession.

http://www.billjamesonline.net/DisplayAnswers.aspx?display=20104
11:28 PM May 5th

bjames
Whether the 2004 Red Sox would beat the 1927 Yankees would depend, in my view on whether the game was played in 1927 or in 2004. If the 1927 Yankees had to travel to 2004 and play a team or teams with 12, 13 hard-throwing pitchers, wall-to-wall power in the lineups, night baseball, rosters expanded by the inclusion of players from all over the world. . .in my view they would have an extremely difficult time being competitive. On the other hand, if the 2004 Red Sox had to travel to 1927 and deal with pitchers being expected to complete their starts, one- or two-man bullpens, pitchers throwing a much deeper mix of pitches, 25, 35 double headers a season, train travel, potholes in the outfield, gloves being left in the field between innings, dugouts that exposed players to fans, inferior equipment and umpires who wouldn't allow them to step out between pitches, they would, in my view, find this a bewildering experience.

What I put in for the "slope" of history is merely an assumption. The real slope could be more than this; it could be less. I may have an opinion about what it is, but I wouldn't say that I have any proof.
9:33 PM May 5th

hotstatrat
Suggested refinement: count the season's W-L record category twice and eliminate the 5 year pythagoran W-L ranking. This would make the list as much about having the best record in the year in question as having a great run differential and being in the middle of a run of great teams combined - which seems much more reasaonable than having those secondary matters count three times more than the main purpose of a ball club in any particular year.

To be even more accurate, you should probably count your history slope of improvement, at least, twice (or make it twice as steep), but that would have the consequence of leaving out all the old teams that are fun to see sprinkled throughout the list.

As a minor quibble or rather observation, Williams and Cone were greater components of the '98 era Yankees than Posada and Pettitte, if you were going for the actual best players of that time. It seems you were likely basing the names you chose on their "how good are they based on their age and total career" formula, which is just as valid, I suppose. Bernie Williams consistently helped the late 90s Yankees as much as anyone on that team - about equal with Jeter, anyway - an omission of the most humble yet interesting Yankee. Posada didn't become the primary catcher until '98 and only averaged 111.5 games in '98 and '99. David Cone was the ace of the staff during those years - even during Clemens' first year in '99. I'd even put David Wells ahead of Pettite for his two years there in '97 and '98.
4:44 PM May 5th

glkanter
Thank you for the response. It was not my intention to imply either of the items you mentioned. Sorry if I was not clear.
2:34 PM May 5th

cderosa
@GLKanter. I don't think Factor 8's weights imply anything so conclusive. I think Bill is trying to come at the concept of "greatness" from as many angles as possible, and "who you beat" is one of those angles, and the system gives some credit for playing a tougher set of opponents. As for a team-to-team cross-era match up, I think it is kind of like: A US Army division from 2004 should be able to beat a US Army division from 1944, but that doesn't make occupying Mosul a "greater" achievement than helping win the Battle of the Bulge.
1:44 PM May 5th

Robinsong
I love the method, particularly its post-season adjustment. The rankings of the 27 Yankees and 53 Dodgers are especially surprising, driven by the 5 year performance. One suggestion: give lesser weight to the +2, -2 years. Currently, the main year gets a weight of 1.2, while +1, +2, -1, and -2 all get weights of .2. One alternative would be to count the main year 3 times and the +1 and -1 each twice, with +2 and -2 once in GT2 and GT4. This would give weights of .1, .2, 1.3, ,2, and .1 for the 5 years. The 27 Yankees, who had an old pitching staff and Ruth's illness in 25 would do better with the alternative weights, though not enough to overtake the best teams. Anyway, thanks for the analysis, especially since I loved the 90s teams on your list!
1:44 PM May 5th

champ
Great work as usual, Bill! Thorough and thought-provoking!

Just as an aside, not sure but didn't Mussina retire after winning 20 games in 2008?
1:18 PM May 5th

Trailbzr
I wonder how good were the 1997 Orioles, who kept that year's Yankee team off the list.
1:00 PM May 5th

chuck
Thank you, Bill. Great reading. I was hoping for (and requesting, I guess) to see the greatest team for each franchise. You've got 12 listed already, by your second list. Would love to see the other 18.
Going out to look for the crime book today.
12:40 PM May 5th

glkanter
If I understand the rankings, and especially evaluation factor #8, any statement regarding modern teams automatically being superior to olde tyme teams is not supported by the conclusions reached in this analysis.

So a statement like, "Being a contemporary team, the 2004 (2007?) Red Sox would have no trouble defeating the 1927 Yankees' is not valid.

Do I have that right?
11:57 AM May 5th

instersting
2002 Devil Rays worse than the 2003 Tigers? I'd love to see the scores on that. Though I guess many of those Tigers would actually go on to be part of the 2006 AL champs, there was some sustained incompetence from 2001-2003.
11:55 AM May 5th

The Greatest Team in Baseball History Part II

COMMENTS (34 Comments, most recent shown first)

Leave a comment

Report inappropriate comment


Type of Abuse:
Comments: