PDA

View Full Version : Forbes.com: The 10 Best Teams That Didn't Win The World Series



OnBaseMachine
11-10-2010, 01:53 PM
I just saw this posted on the Sun Deck and thought it was interesting. The 1973 Reds are listed as the best team to not win the World Series. The 1970 Reds are fourth.

The complete list:

1. 1973 Reds (99-63)
2. 2005 Cardinals (100-62)
3. 2001 Mariners (116-46)
4. 1970 Reds (102-60)
5. 1973 Dodgers (95-66)
6. 1995 Indians (100-44)
7. 1990 A's (103-59)
8. 1968 Cardinals (97-65)
9. 1902 Pirates (103-36)
10. 1997 Braves (101-61)

http://www.forbes.com/2010/10/27/reds-cardinals-dodgers-business-baseball-best-world-series-losers_slide.html

Thoughts?

Roy Tucker
11-10-2010, 01:56 PM
I can vouch for the the '70 and '73 Reds. Particularly the 1973 club.

Not sure how the 1954 Indians were missed.

dfs
11-10-2010, 02:07 PM
Notice who came in #7?
Things really do even out.

westofyou
11-10-2010, 02:11 PM
1973 Dodgers??

How about the 1942 Yankees? (104 wins)

Or heck the 1921 Yankees (98 wins)

Yeah the Indians in 1954....

1973 Dodgers?

They couldn't even win their division.

RichRed
11-10-2010, 02:28 PM
How about the 1962 Giants? A record of 103-62 but lost to the Yankees.

Heck, the Reds won 98 games that year and came in 3rd place. Tough sledding before the wild card era.

cumberlandreds
11-10-2010, 02:35 PM
How the 73 Dodgers got on that list is a head scratcher. They blew an 11 game lead on July 1st and couldn't win their division.
You could put the 1971 Orioles on that list too. They had four 20 game winners but came up just short in a 7 game series to the Pirates.

macro
11-10-2010, 05:56 PM
The 1988 A's went 104-58 but lost to Kirk Gibson. What about them? And I agree with you guys about the 1973 Dodgers. Huh?

oneupper
11-10-2010, 08:16 PM
1969 Orioles were really good too.

RedsBaron
11-10-2010, 09:13 PM
The 1931 A's won 107 games, lead by Lefty Grove's 31-4 season, ably helped by fellow future Hall of Famers Jimmie Foxx, Mickey Cochrane and Al Simmons---but they lost the World Series.
The 1953 Dodgers won 105 games, the best season posted by the "Boys of Summer"---but they lost the World Series.
The article mentioned the 2001 Mariners, who went 116-46, but omitted the 1906 Cubs, who went 116-36---and lost the World Series.
The previously mentioned 1954 Indians, 1942 Yankees, and 1969 and 1971 Orioles could have also been listed in the Forbes article.

Johnny Footstool
11-10-2010, 11:15 PM
1994 Montreal Expos.

M2
11-11-2010, 10:20 AM
Great list RedsBaron, especially the Orioles teams. I suspect their excellence gets overlooked by many.

The 1988 Mets were really, really, really good too. They led the NL in scoring and pitching, won 100 games and had a +171 run differential.

remdog
11-11-2010, 03:28 PM
Yep, '54 Indians who won 111 games in a 154 game season and had to win their division---no wild card back then. These days, for a team to only lose 43 games they would have to win 119.

Rem

15fan
11-11-2010, 03:53 PM
97 Braves?

IMO, 96 was their biggest fail. They were up 2-0 in the WS with games 3, 4, and 5 in Atlanta and they lost the WS in 6.

All those years they had Maddux / Glavine / Smoltz each throwing 200+ innings with sub 3.00 ERAs. They had arguably the generation's best 3B / switch-hitter in Chipper Jones. Andruw Jones was on the scene, taking over for Marquis Grissom before him. Lopez was one of the bigger bats behind the plate, and they got production from guys like Fred McGriff and Andres Galarraga.

The 98 team was pretty stout, too. They had a +245 run differential, but lost to the Padres in the NLCS.

RedsBaron
11-11-2010, 04:10 PM
The Braves under Bobby Cox had six different teams win at least 100 games without winning the World Series, with 104 wins in 1993, 101, 106 and 103 wins in 1997-99, and 101 and 101 wins in 2002-03. The one season the Braves did win the Series was in 1995 when they had 90 wins (that was a shortened season; their .625 winning percentage would have equated to 101 wins in a full season).
The New York Giants went 99-54, 103-48 and 101-51 in the NL during the 1911, 1912 and 1913 seasons, but lost the World Series each year.

Hap
11-11-2010, 05:54 PM
No one has yet mentioned the 1975 Boston Red Sox.

Johnny Footstool
11-11-2010, 06:20 PM
No one has yet mentioned the 1975 Boston Red Sox.

Because they won that World Series when Carlton Fisk hit that homer.

Didn't they?

MartyFan
11-11-2010, 06:28 PM
Because they won that World Series when Carlton Fisk hit that homer.

Didn't they?

:bowrofl:

I actually had a "kid" try to tell me that the Red Sox won the WS because of that HR...So many people think they did win it and then they go "oh yeah!"

RedsBaron
11-11-2010, 06:44 PM
Because they won that World Series when Carlton Fisk hit that homer.

Didn't they?

Yep, three games to four according to Carlton Fisk's tongue-in-cheek response.
At least Fisk could joke about it. I hated Yastremski's autobiography "Yaz" wherein he whined that umpires cost Boston the '75 Series which they would otherwise have won in five games.

Hap
11-11-2010, 08:07 PM
umpires cost Boston the '75 Series

I will agree, however, that the Armbrister non-interference call could have easily been ruled the other way. However, it did not cost them the game. Had it been called that way, EdArm would have been out and Cesar Geronimo would have returned to first. The Reds STILL had Rose, Griffey/Rettenmund, Morgan, Perez, Bench, and Foster coming up.

The umpires did not cause Denny Doyle's bad throw in Game 7, nor did the umpires cause Tony's home run to completely leave the park.

Having said all this........................................

I STILL opine that the 1975 Boston Red Sox (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1975.shtml) were a very, very good team that did not win the world series.

RedsBaron
11-11-2010, 08:36 PM
I STILL opine that the 1975 Boston Red Sox were a very, very good team that did not win the world series.

Yes they were. Yaz and Fisk are in the Hall of Fame, Tiant probably should be, and Lynn and Evans had near-HOF worthy careers---and Jim Rice was injured and missed the Series.

Tom Servo
11-11-2010, 08:47 PM
For recent teams living in New Jersey at the time I watched almost every Mets game in 2006 (didn't have Extra Innings) and they just had a tremendous offense and a shut down bullpen, coupled with solid vet starters like Glavine, El Duque, Pedro. I still don't know how they managed to lose the NLCS to the Cardinals.

M2
11-11-2010, 10:02 PM
The 1975 Red Sox played a bit lucky to make the playoffs in the first place. The pitching was decidedly below average, especially the bullpen. They got hot in October and almost won a World Series, which is what everyone remembers.

The '77 Dodgers, the '74 Dodgers and the '70 Twins (their #4 pitcher was the ace on the '75 Sox) were all better teams. In fact the '75 A's and Pirates were probably better teams.

It's amazing how the playoffs color our recollection of how good teams actually were. The '71 Giants were just as a good a team as the '75 Red Sox, but they've been largely forgotten.

PuffyPig
11-11-2010, 10:16 PM
The 1988 Mets were really, really, really good too. They led the NL in scoring and pitching, won 100 games and had a +171 run differential.



The 2001 Seattle Mariners won 116 games and lost just 46. They led the majors in runs scored (even more than Colorado) and the fewest runs allowed and had a run differential of +300.

M2
11-11-2010, 10:21 PM
The 2001 Seattle Mariners won 116 games and lost just 46. They led the majors in runs scored (even more than Colorado) and the fewest runs allowed and had a run differential of +300.

Agreed. Any team that leads its league in scoring and pitching did something awfully right. Though the Mariners already had been mentioned in the initial article.

PuffyPig
11-11-2010, 10:24 PM
Yes they were. Yaz and Fisk are in the Hall of Fame, Tiant probably should be, and Lynn and Evans had near-HOF worthy careers---and Jim Rice was injured and missed the Series.

The 1975 Reds Sox had a run differential of +87. Their pitching ERA was 10th of 14 teams.

Their pyth record was 89-71, third in the east.

They were lucky to make the playoffs.

Ron Madden
11-12-2010, 04:08 AM
The 2001 Seattle Mariners won 116 games and lost just 46. They led the majors in runs scored (even more than Colorado) and the fewest runs allowed and had a run differential of +300.

That's one heck of a season by anyone's standards.

RedsBaron
11-12-2010, 08:04 AM
I will agree, however, that the Armbrister non-interference call could have easily been ruled the other way. However, it did not cost them the game. Had it been called that way, EdArm would have been out and Cesar Geronimo would have returned to first. The Reds STILL had Rose, Griffey/Rettenmund, Morgan, Perez, Bench, and Foster coming up.
The umpires did not cause Denny Doyle's bad throw in Game 7, nor did the umpires cause Tony's home run to completely leave the park.


IIRC, in "Yaz" Carl Yastremzski did not merely argue that, but for the Armbrister incident, the Red Sox would have won game three. He also whined that Dave Concepcion should have been called out at second base in the ninth inning of game two. He argued that the Red Sox should have won the Series in five games, ignoring the fact that game five was the most one-sided game of the Series, a Reds 6-2 win (yes, Boston won game one 6-0 but that game was scoreless until the bottom of the 7th whereas the Reds were in control in game five).
I can recall seeing Yaz and Johnny Bench on a TV show, perhaps "Today", in 1989 after their inductions into the Hall of Fame that year. Bench became visibly irriatated when Yaz began crying again that the umpires cost Boston the '75 Series. I lost a lot of respect for Yastremzski as a result of that episode.
REgardless of whether or not Armbrister should have been called out ( I tink not but I am biased), Fisk should have simply tagged Armbrister out, and Fisk had no one but himself to blame for his wild throw past second base, and, as Hap pointed out, the Reds could have still easily won that game.

blumj
11-12-2010, 09:06 AM
The 1975 Reds Sox had a run differential of +87. Their pitching ERA was 10th of 14 teams.

Their pyth record was 89-71, third in the east.

They were lucky to make the playoffs.

They're definitely not the best Red Sox team ever to not win a WS, that's either '46 or one of the teams from this past decade.

15fan
11-12-2010, 03:24 PM
That's one heck of a season by anyone's standards.

Bret Boone sure played out of his mind in 2001 at age 32, no?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/boonebr01.shtml

It's like there was something magical in the water that year...

Johnny Footstool
11-12-2010, 04:05 PM
Bret Boone sure played out of his mind in 2001 at age 32, no?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/boonebr01.shtml

It's like there was something magical in the water that year...

Yeah. Too bad they couldn't bottle it up and sell it.

Ron Madden
11-12-2010, 05:07 PM
Bret Boone sure played out of his mind in 2001 at age 32, no?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/boonebr01.shtml

It's like there was something magical in the water that year...

Bret Boone's magic probably had more to do with a needle than with the water. ;)

Griffey012
11-12-2010, 07:15 PM
1994 Montreal Expos.

:thumbup: This one...that team was absolutely stacked with talent, and was playing up to its talent level at the time of the strike

klw
11-12-2010, 08:47 PM
How the 73 Dodgers got on that list is a head scratcher. They blew an 11 game lead on July 1st and couldn't win their division.
You could put the 1971 Orioles on that list too. They had four 20 game winners but came up just short in a 7 game series to the Pirates.

If we are throwing 70's teams that didn't win the division on the list, I would throw the '77 Reds on there, ahead of '73 or '70, for the team they were after adding Seaver.

PuffyPig
11-12-2010, 11:10 PM
Yeah. Too bad they couldn't bottle it up and sell it.

Actually they can bottle it up nad they do sell it.....

Johnny Footstool
11-13-2010, 01:11 AM
Actually they can bottle it up nad they do sell it.....

It seems like such an item would be sought after by many major leaguers.

Tony Cloninger
11-13-2010, 10:31 AM
If we are throwing 70's teams that didn't win the division on the list, I would throw the '77 Reds on there, ahead of '73 or '70, for the team they were after adding Seaver.

That is all they had though.....Norman was bad in the 2nd half and everyone else was too young and inconsistent (Moskau and Soto, Hume was terrible)

That team did not even hit as well as they did in 75-76.....terrible bench production.