Discuss.

 

Here's my list:

 

1927 NY Yankees

1998 NY Yankees

1939 NY Yankees

1906 Chicago Cubs

1929 Philadelphia A's

1975 Cincinnati

1993 Marlins

1993 Marlins

647555[/snapback]

 

 

I disagree. I vote for the 1998 Marlins.

What no 2003 or 1997 Marlins?!??!?!? Just kidding. Of those teams in order IMO: 27 Yanks, 75 Reds, 39 Yanks, 29 A's, 06 Cubbies and finally the 98 Yanks. Of course there are better teams than the ones listed.

I cant ever consider a pre '20s team greta because of the lack of quality.

Lack of quality? There were like 16 teams back then without the watered down talent of todays teams. Every guy deserved to be there and several others who deserved never made it.

1962 Mets. :plain

Well, the 2003 Detroit Tigers would be at the bottom of that list.

'82 Expos

 

:whistle

2001 Mariners, 1998 Yankees, 1954 Indians, 1906 Cubs

1993 Padres

:plain

Lack of quality? There were like 16 teams back then without the watered down talent of todays teams. Every guy deserved to be there and several others who deserved never made it.

647607[/snapback]

 

 

No black or Latin players back then, though. Now it's a global sport, and we have the best from all over the World. The talent level now is easily better.

Lack of quality? There were like 16 teams back then without the watered down talent of todays teams. Every guy deserved to be there and several others who deserved never made it.

647607[/snapback]

 

 

No black or Latin players back then, though. Now it's a global sport, and we have the best from all over the World. The talent level now is easily better.

647762[/snapback]

It was also a completely different sport back then. Everyone was smaller and there were pitches such as the spitball that were legal early on that aren't today.

Lack of quality? There were like 16 teams back then without the watered down talent of todays teams. Every guy deserved to be there and several others who deserved never made it.

647607[/snapback]

 

 

No black or Latin players back then, though. Now it's a global sport, and we have the best from all over the World. The talent level now is easily better.

647762[/snapback]

It was also a completely different sport back then. Everyone was smaller and there were pitches such as the spitball that were legal early on that aren't today.

647765[/snapback]

I don't necessarily agree that it was a different sport back then, but there have been changes to the game in general. It has progressed. It just always hacks me off when people write off the accomplishments of the games greats as if those players couldn't play in todays game.

Just because I feel like it lets throw in Les Expos 1994.

Lack of quality? There were like 16 teams back then without the watered down talent of todays teams. Every guy deserved to be there and several others who deserved never made it.

647607[/snapback]

 

 

No black or Latin players back then, though. Now it's a global sport, and we have the best from all over the World. The talent level now is easily better.

647762[/snapback]

It was also a completely different sport back then. Everyone was smaller and there were pitches such as the spitball that were legal early on that aren't today.

647765[/snapback]

I don't necessarily agree that it was a different sport back then, but there have been changes to the game in general. It has progressed. It just always hacks me off when people write off the accomplishments of the games greats as if those players couldn't play in todays game.

647773[/snapback]

 

Not that they couldn't play, but I don't think there's any argument that any pre 50's player would be as dominant in the game today. The biggest evolution has been the quality of pitching, and the velocity of the average pitcher.

 

For me, this generation starts with mid 50's. And if I were forced to take a team, I'd take either the '58 Yankees, the '74 A's, the '98 Yankees (although this was a case of the team being greater than the sum of its parts), and I think you have to put the '01 Mariners in there as an honorable mention (it's not their fault that the front office didn't get them that one left-handed power bat they needed).

 

This is a really hard topic to debate because some teams built around pitching simply didn't put up the offensive numbers to attract attention, while teams built around offense struggled through the post-season, but their triumphs were more dramatic.

27 yankees.....

Just because I feel like it lets throw in Les Expos 1994.

647869[/snapback]

Agreed :mischief

Just because I feel like it lets throw in Les Expos 1994.

647869[/snapback]

they had such an awesome 5-headed bullpen... John Wetteland-Tim Scott-Mel Rojas-Jeff Shaw-Gil Heredia

 

:thumbup

Discuss.

 

Here's my list:

 

1927 NY Yankees

1998 NY Yankees

1939 NY Yankees

1906 Chicago Cubs

1929 Philadelphia A's

1975 Cincinnati

647549[/snapback]

 

Great list. Ditto.

94 Expos

 

That team was ridiculous: Vlad, Alou, Floyd, Grissom (when he was good), Pedro, the list goes on.

94 Expos

 

That team was ridiculous: Vlad, Alou, Floyd, Grissom (when he was good), Pedro, the list goes on.

648435[/snapback]

 

...Reuter, Walker....

2002 Angels!!!!

94 Expos

 

That team was ridiculous: Vlad, Alou, Floyd, Grissom (when he was good), Pedro, the list goes on.

648435[/snapback]

Vlad Guerrero ? He wasnt on that team

 

That team was very good though, too bad the sport had its head up their collective asses and went on strike.

94 Expos

 

That team was ridiculous: Vlad, Alou, Floyd, Grissom (when he was good), Pedro, the list goes on.

648435[/snapback]

 

...Reuter, Walker....

648480[/snapback]

Reuter was the worst pitcher on the staff