PDA

View Full Version : '75 Reds greatest team of all time...



Wheelhouse
10-13-2006, 12:23 AM
...according to Forbes.com: http://www.forbes.com/home/sport/2006/06/30/baseball-team-valuations-cx_tvr_0705baseball.html

vaticanplum
10-13-2006, 12:27 AM
Did I read that correctly, the 1927 Yankees aren't even on the list?

Blimpie
10-13-2006, 12:36 AM
What about the 1976 BRM team?

Cedric
10-13-2006, 12:37 AM
Did I read that correctly, the 1927 Yankees aren't even on the list?

No team before racial integration was picked by that magazine.

Edit- Early in the mag it says something about not ranking racially integrated teams, but I did see some old teams on the list.

So I dunno.

Wheelhouse
10-13-2006, 01:52 AM
Did I read that correctly, the 1927 Yankees aren't even on the list?

Well, more surprising, the 1984 Tigers are #2!

RedsBaron
10-13-2006, 07:30 AM
Strange list. The article at one point indicates that no teams prior to the breaking of the color line in 1947 would be considered, yet then names the 1902 Pirates, the 1923 Yankees and the 1941 Yankees.
If pre-1947 teams are to be considered, then the 1927 Yankees, the 1929 A's and at least one team from the 1936-39 Yankees that won four straight World Series should be at the head of the pre-1947 list.
I can't see listing the 1995 Indians, who didn't win the World Series, and if non-World Series winners are to be considered, how about the 1906 Cubs, who went 116-36? Although that Cubs team lost the Series to the rival Chisox, they did win the Series in 1907 and 1908; after that the Cubs decided they had had enough of championships.
The 1966 Orioles are listed, but the 1969-71 Orioles are omitted.
As for post-1947 teams, in my opinion the only team to rival the 1975 (or 1976) Reds for the number one ranking would be the 1998 Yankees.

redsmetz
10-13-2006, 08:22 AM
Strange list. The article at one point indicates that no teams prior to the breaking of the color line in 1947 would be considered, yet then names the 1902 Pirates, the 1923 Yankees and the 1941 Yankees.
If pre-1947 teams are to be considered, then the 1927 Yankees, the 1929 A's and at least one team from the 1936-39 Yankees that won four straight World Series should be at the head of the pre-1947 list.
I can't see listing the 1995 Indians, who didn't win the World Series, and if non-World Series winners are to be considered, how about the 1906 Cubs, who went 116-36? Although that Cubs team lost the Series to the rival Chisox, they did win the Series in 1907 and 1908; after that the Cubs decided they had had enough of championships.
The 1966 Orioles are listed, but the 1969-71 Orioles are omitted.
As for post-1947 teams, in my opinion the only team to rival the 1975 (or 1976) Reds for the number one ranking would be the 1998 Yankees.

As despicable as the barring of black players was, the teams were what they were. Of course, I've only scanned the list, so it seems funny that they'd say they were excluding pre-1947 clubs and then include them.

Added note: I see, they were quoting a baseball historian's opinion that none prior to the breaking of the color line should be considered, not that they were using the criterion.

redsmetz
10-13-2006, 08:35 AM
What's interesting, looking at the worst teams, that none of the Reds teams from the period WOY is always talking about (early 30's???) made that list. That's heartening.

GAC
10-13-2006, 09:43 AM
it seems funny that they'd say they were excluding pre-1947 clubs and then include them.

Yep. I have heard of Mr Daniel Okrent, but don't know much about him. But saying you're not going to include teams prior to integration (which I think is preposterous to begin with), and then turn around and do so, kinda makes his list incomplete IMHO.

But I do agree with him that it is hard to compare teams from different eras. Maybe he should have just left it at that and not made a list at all then. ;)

redsmetz
10-13-2006, 10:23 AM
Yep. I have heard of Mr Daniel Okrent, but don't know much about him. But saying you're not going to include teams prior to integration (which I think is preposterous to begin with), and then turn around and do so, kinda makes his list incomplete IMHO.

But I do agree with him that it is hard to compare teams from different eras. Maybe he should have just left it at that and not made a list at all then. ;)

As I mentioned in my note, I think Okrent was just referred to in the article. The authors then went on to explain their methodology, which did include pre-1947 teams. The racial bar is a historical fact and teams can still be compared, but the truth is, not all of the best ballplayers were playing in the white major leagues prior to 1947. The intregration of the game is also why I think expansion was needed in 1961 and again in the late 60's, each of which added around 100 players to the pool (I think rosters were 24 then).

GAC
10-13-2006, 12:31 PM
The racial bar is a historical fact and teams can still be compared, but the truth is, not all of the best ballplayers were playing in the white major leagues prior to 1947.

Which is absolutely true; but I think when one tries to do a list like this they are doing a great disservice to those teams prior to 1947, by saying they can't be included because some of the best players, at that time (and there is some assumption going on there) were prevented from participating.

It's basically something we will never know.

If they are going to use segregation as a factor, then there are also other factors that could be utilized too... dead ball vs live ball, athlete conditioning, advent of the relief pitcher, park factors, etc.

Johnny Footstool
10-13-2006, 12:55 PM
I love rankings. I'd love for someone to get really "meta" and rank the rankings.

This list, for example, would be ranked very low when compared to Rob Neyer's rankings in Baseball Dynasties or even the rankings done by ESPN.

M2
10-13-2006, 01:07 PM
Strange list. The article at one point indicates that no teams prior to the breaking of the color line in 1947 would be considered, yet then names the 1902 Pirates, the 1923 Yankees and the 1941 Yankees.
If pre-1947 teams are to be considered, then the 1927 Yankees, the 1929 A's and at least one team from the 1936-39 Yankees that won four straight World Series should be at the head of the pre-1947 list.
I can't see listing the 1995 Indians, who didn't win the World Series, and if non-World Series winners are to be considered, how about the 1906 Cubs, who went 116-36? Although that Cubs team lost the Series to the rival Chisox, they did win the Series in 1907 and 1908; after that the Cubs decided they had had enough of championships.
The 1966 Orioles are listed, but the 1969-71 Orioles are omitted.
As for post-1947 teams, in my opinion the only team to rival the 1975 (or 1976) Reds for the number one ranking would be the 1998 Yankees.

Excellent points. I'm with you on the '98 Yankees being the '75 Reds' main post-integration challenger. Though, as you noted, the '69-'71 Orioles were awesome. I'd also put the '86 Mets ahead of the '84 Tigers, which were a bit of a one-season wonder.

Chip R
10-13-2006, 05:53 PM
If the 75 Reds were #1 and the 84 Tigers #2, I guess that would make Sparky the best manager of all time.

Mutaman
10-14-2006, 06:15 PM
If i remember correctly, when Bill James gave his opinion of the greatest teams a few years ago, he listed the 84 Tigers as best. They went wire to wire and then cruised through the playoffs.
I always thought the 76 Reds were better than the 75 Reds. I think they ranked first in every National League offensive category including stolen bases. They are still the only team to go undefeated in the post season since the playoff system was instituted. While the Yankee team they beat was one year away from Reggie and Guidry, the Phillies were really tough and the Reds destroyed them.

I would not rank the 86 Mets that high. They barely beat the Sox, and a lot of Mets fans think that if they hadn't pulled out the game six marathon against the Astros, they never would have beaten Mike Scott in game 7. Scott was unhittable that year.

Mutaman
10-14-2006, 06:21 PM
One team that nobody ever gives credit to are the A's teams of 72-74. 3 championships in a row is not exactly chopped liver. We all know how good the 72 Reds were, and I always felt the 73 Mets were really underated (Seaver, Koosman, Matlack, McGraw). Yet the As beat them both.

RedsBaron
10-15-2006, 08:42 AM
If i remember correctly, when Bill James gave his opinion of the greatest teams a few years ago, he listed the 84 Tigers as best. They went wire to wire and then cruised through the playoffs.


I'm not aware of Bill James ever naming the 1984 Tigers as the greatest team ever. In his "The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract" published in 2001, in an article entitled "The Greatest Team What Ever Was", page 131, James wrote that he had intended to write a book with the title of his article, but had decided not to because "(a) You can't write a book saying that the 1927 Yankees were the greatest team ever, because it's already been said too many times, and (b) You can't write a book saying that the 1927 Yankees weren't the greatest team ever, because they were."
James said that his proposed book was going to pick the eight greatest AL teams and the eight greatest NL teams, make up a 154 schedule for the teams and then "play" them through an imaginary season. "When the 1961 Yankees played the 1911 Philadelphia A's, for example, they would not only travel to Philadelphia, but also to 1911, when Frank Baker led the American League in home runs with eleven. They would have to find a way to win the game without hitting home runs; they would have to run and claw and move baserunners the way that teams did at that time. Conversely, when the 1911 A's traveled to 1961 to play the '61 Yankees, they'd have to get used to the fact that the games were longer and slower and everybody in the lineup could hit a home run, so their starting pitchers couldn't coast along waiting for the tight spots, so they couldn't get a hundred complete games."
James did add that the 1998 Yankees may well have been better than the 1927 Yankees.

Mutaman
10-15-2006, 01:12 PM
I'm sure I saw this article about 10 years ago in one of James' annual abstracts but until I find it, I'll conceed I might be wrong.

M2
10-15-2006, 02:04 PM
I'm sure I saw this article about 10 years ago in one of James' annual abstracts but until I find it, I'll conceed I might be wrong.

The Tigers ascended from and descended to obscurity so quickly I find it hard to believe James would still rank that team all that highly. Also, 1984 was a weak year for baseball. There were a number of formerly good teams that began to take a serious slide that season, the Orioles, Brewers, White Sox, Phillies, Pirates, Expos and Braves all hit a downhill slope. The Blue Jays were still a year off (George Bell, Jesse Barfield, Jimmy Key and Tom Henke were just getting their first serious tastes of the majors in 1984). The Red Sox were two years off. The Yankees got caught in a transition year (Rickey didn't arrive until 1985 and the Gator had the only bad year of his career). The Royals were still putting together their young pitching staff as were the Angels. The Dodgers and Cardinals spent 1984 in retooling mode. The Reds wouldn't arrive until 1985. Mike Scott had yet to discover the emory board in 1984, Glenn Davis hadn't yet arrived and Dickie Thon got beaned for the Astros.

The two NL division winners, the Cubs and Padres, from that season were also one-hit wonders, which I think underscores the state of MLB in 1984. The Tigers just happened to have a well-rounded, experienced ballclub that was able to thrive on a game in transition. Certainly they were the team of the moment and Sparky knew what to do when opportunity presented itself, but I have a real hard time according greatness to that particular team. They had a great season, but I don't think they were a great team.

RedsBaron
10-16-2006, 08:00 AM
Rob Neyer and Eddie Epstein wrote a book entitled "Baseball Dynasties" that was published in 2000. They primarily based their ranking of teams upon what they called a "Standard Deviation" score, which was a measure of a team's performance relative to its league, using runs scored and runs allowed totals and how many SDs from the avearge those totals were.
Neyer and Epstein considered the same 15 teams, althought they ranked them in different orders. Neyer's top 15 were as follows:
15. 1953 New York Yankees
14. 1955 Brooklyn Dodgers
13. 1912 New York Giants
12. 1974 Oakland A's
11. 1911 Philadelphia A's
10. 1961 New York Yankees
9. 1942 St. Louis Cardinals
8. 1986 New York Mets
7. 1929 Philadelphia A's
6. 1927 New York Yankees
5. 1906 Chicago Cubs
4. 1975 CINCINNATI REDS
3. 1998 New York Yankees
2. 1970 Baltimore Orioles
1. 1939 New York Yankees

Epstein's top 15 were as follows:
15. 1912 New York Giants
14. 1955 Brooklyn Dodgers
13. 1911 Philadelphia A's
12. 1929 Phialdelphia A's
11. 1942 St. Louis Cardinals
10. 1986 New York Mets
9. 1953 New York Yankees
8. 1961 New York Yankees
7. 1974 Oakland A's
6. 1975 CINCINNATI REDS
5. 1906 Chicago Cubs
4. 1998 New York Yankees
3. 1970 Baltimore Orioles
2. 1927 New York Yankees
1. 1939 New York Yankees

mth123
10-16-2006, 08:20 AM
Rob Neyer and Eddie Epstein wrote a book entitled "Baseball Dynasties" that was published in 2000. They primarily based their ranking of teams upon what they called a "Standard Deviation" score, which was a measure of a team's performance relative to its league, using runs scored and runs allowed totals and how many SDs from the avearge those totals were.
Neyer and Epstein considered the same 15 teams, althought they ranked them in different orders. Neyer's top 15 were as follows:
15. 1953 New York Yankees
14. 1955 Brooklyn Dodgers
13. 1912 New York Giants
12. 1974 Oakland A's
11. 1911 Philadelphia A's
10. 1961 New York Yankees
9. 1942 St. Louis Cardinals
8. 1986 New York Mets
7. 1929 Philadelphia A's
6. 1927 New York Yankees
5. 1906 Chicago Cubs
4. 1975 CINCINNATI REDS
3. 1998 New York Yankees
2. 1970 Baltimore Orioles
1. 1939 New York Yankees

Epstein's top 15 were as follows:
15. 1912 New York Giants
14. 1955 Brooklyn Dodgers
13. 1911 Philadelphia A's
12. 1929 Phialdelphia A's
11. 1942 St. Louis Cardinals
10. 1986 New York Mets
9. 1953 New York Yankees
8. 1961 New York Yankees
7. 1974 Oakland A's
6. 1975 CINCINNATI REDS
5. 1906 Chicago Cubs
4. 1998 New York Yankees
3. 1970 Baltimore Orioles
2. 1927 New York Yankees
1. 1939 New York Yankees

I find it interesting that both of these guys rank the 98 Yankees ahead of the 75 Reds. I was fairly preoccupied in 1998 and didn't pay much attention. Since this is a Reds board, and it seems like the lion's share of us are from the BRM generation, the answer to this may be skewed, but can anybody post a quick comparison of the two teams? Not only from a book (but thats ok too), but I'm interested in hearing from people who were actually watching. Maybe team stats and a comparison of the position players and pitchers. I know that is asking some one to do some work, but I have always thought the BRM has been unparalleled in my lifetime. I can understand the 06 Cubs or the Ruth up through Mantle Yankees, not sure any more modern team is better than the BRM.