MLB - 2006 Season!

[Ned]

The most amazing thing about the Tigers this year is their pitching. They are leading the majors in era and OPS.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ned
Did the Yanks sweep the series as did the Sox?

Yes. So the CWS, if anything, are tied with Detroit (and who knows who else) in going wire to wire and then losing 1 game in the postseason.

[SlowwHand]

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Yes. So the CWS, if anything, are tied with Detroit (and who knows who else) in going wire to wire and then losing 1 game in the postseason.

Regardless, there are only an handful of such teams in Major League history. But, AFAIK, only the Sox and the '27 Yanks lead wire to wire and swept the Series.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ned
Regardless, there are only an handful of such teams in Major League history. But, AFAIK, only the Sox and the '27 Yanks lead wire to wire and swept the Series.

But they lost a game in the ALCS, so it doesn't work. If the playoffs were just the WS, maybe. But they aren't anymore.

And besides, it proves little. The White Sox of 2006 are not one of the greatest teams of all time. Just ain't going to work. Hell, I bet most baseball fans and writers would consider the 1998 Yankees to be far greater. They won 114 games after all! The White Sox didn't even get to a 100.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


But they lost a game in the ALCS, so it doesn't work. If the playoffs were just the WS, maybe. But they aren't anymore.

And besides, it proves little. The White Sox of 2006 are not one of the greatest teams of all time. Just ain't going to work. Hell, I bet most baseball fans and writers would consider the 1998 Yankees to be far greater. They won 114 games after all! The White Sox didn't even get to a 100.

The 1998 Yanks truly were a great team. But they only went 11-2 in the playoffs. The '99 team, which won only 98 games, went 11-1 in the playoffs, just like the White Sox.

As to last year's Sox, they got to 14+ over Cleveland, heading for 110+ wins, but then began playing 500 ball for two months. Why? Injuries, particularly to Podsednik. Once he was back and healthy, the Sox righted the ship, closed the season with a long winning streak, including a sweep at Cleveland, and dominated the playoffs.

Seattle of a few years ago also won a boatload of games but didn't make it to the Series. The 1954 Indians had a great record, but didn't win the series. Ditto the Cubs of 1906. Best record in history at 116-36. But they lost to the White Sox in the Series. Just having a great record in the regular season is not enough to be consider one of the all time great teams.

I think the more important factor is winning the Series and perhaps winning it several years in a row. That does place the 1998 Yanks up there, as they did repeat. Ditto the great Oakland club of the early 70's.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ned
The 1998 Yanks truly were a great team. But they only went 11-2 in the playoffs. The '99 team, which won only 98 games, went 11-1 in the playoffs, just like the White Sox.

So what if they went 11-2 in the playoffs? We don't judge teams by their playoff records, as long as they win 4 games in one series in the end.

You take a sample of baseball fans and/or writers, I guarentee you they say the '98 Yanks were better than the '05 WSox.

And those who are very familiar with baseball may even place teams that LOST the World Series among the best teams of all time (like the 1969 Baltimore Orioles)

As to last year's Sox, they got to 14+ over Cleveland, heading for 110+ wins, but then began playing 500 ball for two months. Why? Injuries, particularly to Podsednik. Once he was back and healthy, the Sox righted the ship, closed the season with a long winning streak, including a sweep at Cleveland, and dominated the playoffs.

Injuries happen.

Seattle of a few years ago also won a boatload of games but didn't make it to the Series. The 1954 Indians had a great record, but didn't win the series. Ditto the Cubs of 1906. Best record in history at 116-36. But they lost to the White Sox in the Series. Just having a great record in the regular season is not enough to be consider one of the all time great teams.

The 54 Indians and the 06 Cubs are some of the best teams of all time, even though they lost in the end. It is too early to tell about the great 2001 Seattle Mariners team, but they may be in the Top 50 as well.

We place way too much value on the outcome of a simple 7 game series at the end of the year rather than on the regular season as a whole.

Here is an interesting computerized ranking (that DOES take into account World Series performance), subject of a book a few years back:

http://members.aol.com/tomho13/top30.html#TOP30

Now that is only updated through 2000, but I don't know if the White Sox of last year would be on it. Remember it isn't just record that counts, but how much better you are than the rest of your league (which is why the 1995 Cleveland Indians are so high... they were 14 games ahead of ANYONE in the American League.. even though they lost in the end)

1. THE 30 BEST BASEBALL TEAMS OF ALL TIME

(updated 2-15-2001)

1 1927 New York Yankees 94.8
2 1939 New York Yankees 92.1
3 1998 New York Yankees 87
4 1906 Chicago Cubs 86.8
5 1944 St. Louis Cardinals 86
6 1902 Pittsburgh Pirates 85.6
7 1929 Philadelphia Athletics 84.1
8 1995 Cleveland Indians 82.8
9 1954 Cleveland Indians 82.5
10 1936 New York Yankees 82.4

11 1905 New York Giants 81.7
12 1969 Baltimore Orioles 81.4
13 1942 St. Louis Cardinals 80.6
13 1931 Philadelphia Athletics 80.6
15 1937 New York Yankees 80.2
16 1932 New York Yankees 80
16 1910 Philadelphia Athletics 80
16 1912 New York Giants 80
19 1909 Pittsburgh Pirates 78.8
20 1912 Boston Red Sox 78.7

21 1953 New York Yankees 78.6
22 1904 New York Giants 78
22 1942 New York Yankees 78
24 1943 St. Louis Cardinals 77.9
25 1948 Cleveland Indians 75.3
26 1919 Cincinnati Reds 74.3
27 1901 Pittsburgh Pirates 74.2
28 1938 New York Yankees 73.4
29 1911 Philadelphia Athletics 73.1
30 1970 Baltimore Orioles 72.2

Though you may indeed have a point with dynasties, but I'm talking about the best single season teams.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

2004 redsox are the best team of all time. not only did they break an 86 yr curse, the also had to face black, latino and asian players, which the first two teams on the list didnt have to.

ill bet those nembers dont take that into account.

[Imran Siddiqui]

the also had to face black, latino and asian players, which the first two teams on the list didnt have to.

And? So what, Tris Speaker of the Red Sox isn't that great because he didn't have to play against blacks (there weren't many Latinos or Asians playing the game back then because it hadn't really been introduced to those countries until later)?

And even if you discount any team that did not have to play against black, latino, or asian players (any team before 1990, really), then the 98 Yankees are better than the 04 RSox.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

source?

[Imran Siddiqui]

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/NYY/1998.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/BOS/2004.shtml

[Ned]

The thing about the teams on the list, in general, is that they all had great pitiching. The '98 Yanks, for example, had no MVP-type players sucking up the press reports. They instead hand above-average players at every position and the deepest pitching staff in the game.

The Oakland teams that won 3 straight titles had a similar makeup.

Ditto last year's White Sox.

Which is why I sometimes wonder about Steinbrenner these days. He seems to have lost his mind by focusing on guys like A-Rod while letting his quality pictures leave. Note how many pitchers in last year's Series were former Yank starters. Four. Now imagine what the Yankees would have been like last year had all four still pitched for the Yankees.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

I dont see a ERA +Min or OPS + Min which normalizes the data for lack of minorities in one and the prevelance of minorities in the other. can you point me the way?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I agree about last year's WS and pitching. They got some great performances and what (unfortunately) seems like a freak career year from Garland.

Most teams have to be balanced. The White Sox last year won even though their hitting wasn't that great (funny part is that the Astoes hitting was even worse!). I think the Sox were smart, realized they won't get these career years from their pitchers, so they went out and got Thome which will help their offense greatly.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
I dont see a ERA +Min or OPS + Min which normalizes the data for lack of minorities in one and the prevelance of minorities in the other. can you point me the way?

Yeah, because in 1998 there was a 'lack of minorities'. You are such a moron!