Guest Festa Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 Just thought I'd share. 1904- 93-60 .608 W%, 2nd Place, 13 GB 1905- 92-61 .601, 3rd Place 1906- 116-36 .763, 1st Place, 20 G ahead of NYG, Lost in WS 1907- 107-45 .704, 1st, 17 G ahead of PIT, Won WS, 1908- 99-55 .643, 1st, 1 G ahead of NYG, Won WS 1909- 104-49 .680, 2nd 1910- 104-50 .675, 1st, 13 G ahead of NYG, Won WS 1911- 92-62 .597, 2nd 1912- 91-59 .607, 3rd Win totals if they used 162 game format: 1904: 98 05: 97 06: 124 07: 114 08: 104 09: 110 10: 109 11: 97 12: 98 Simply amazing. Easily the most dominant (not the best) team of all time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarlinFan10 Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 Yup, and then I hear they wouldn't let a certain someone into the stadium... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Festa Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 Yup, and then I hear they wouldn't let a certain someone into the stadium... Well that incident didn't occur until 1945. I like pointing to the Merkle Boner and the 'stolen' 1908 NL pennant when it comes to what supernatural entity is holding back the Cubs. :mischief Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbob1313 Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 Jeez, in 1906 they had a 150 ERA+. Thats ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yankeefan21 Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 Simply amazing. Easily the most dominant (not the best) team of all time. I beg to differ. Exhibit A - 1932-1939 Yankees: 1932 107-47 .695 1st WS 1933 91-59 .607 2nd 1934 94-60 .610 2nd 1935 89-60 .597 2nd 1936 102-51 .667 1st WS 1937 102-52 .662 1st WS 1938 99-53 .651 1st WS 1939 106-45 .702 1st WS 5 WS in 8 years including 4 in a row and never finishing worse than 2nd is pretty darn dominating. Exhibit B - 1949-1964 Yankees: 1949 97-57 .630 1 WS 1950 98-56 .636 1 WS 1951 98-56 .636 1 WS 1952 95-59 .617 1 WS 1953 99-52 .656 1 WS 1954 103-52 .669 2 1955 96-58 .623 1 AL 1956 96-57 .630 1 WS 1957 98-56 .636 1 AL 1958 92-62 .597 1 WS 1959 79-75 .513 3 1960 97-57 .630 1 AL 1961* 109-53 .673 1 WS 1962 96-66 .593 1 WS 1963 104-57 .646 1 AL 1964 99-63 .611 1 AL 14 Pennants and 9 WS in 16 years? That will NEVER happen again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Festa Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 Jeez, in 1906 they had a 150 ERA+. Thats ridiculous. Ironically they lost the World Series due in large part because that very pitching staff couldn't hold a White Sox team nicknamed the "Hitless Wonders" in Games 5 and 6, being outscored 8-6 and 8-3. :lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Festa Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 Simply amazing. Easily the most dominant (not the best) team of all time. I beg to differ. Exhibit A - 1932-1939 Yankees: 1932 107-47 .695 1st WS 1933 91-59 .607 2nd 1934 94-60 .610 2nd 1935 89-60 .597 2nd 1936 102-51 .667 1st WS 1937 102-52 .662 1st WS 1938 99-53 .651 1st WS 1939 106-45 .702 1st WS5 WS in 8 years including 4 in a row and never finishing worse than 2nd is pretty darn dominating. Exhibit B - 1949-1964 Yankees: 1949 97-57 .630 1 WS 1950 98-56 .636 1 WS 1951 98-56 .636 1 WS 1952 95-59 .617 1 WS 1953 99-52 .656 1 WS 1954 103-52 .669 2 1955 96-58 .623 1 AL 1956 96-57 .630 1 WS 1957 98-56 .636 1 AL 1958 92-62 .597 1 WS 1959 79-75 .513 3 1960 97-57 .630 1 AL 1961* 109-53 .673 1 WS 1962 96-66 .593 1 WS 1963 104-57 .646 1 AL 1964 99-63 .611 1 AL 14 Pennants and 9 WS in 16 years? That will NEVER happen again.   Dammit can't believed I overlooked that 50s Yankees team. Adding to the Yankees argument though, the American League in the 50s besides New York and Cleveland and for a couple years Chicago was not very good. The Indians finished pretty close a few times, but besides that the Yankees would finish 8-10+ games of the third place team. What hurts the Cubs argument (besides the amount of titles) is their competition. Although they did end up being the best of the three, the Giants, Pirates and Cubs were locked up in a few tight races in the later part of the decade. Whereas the Yankees blew everyone away. But this brings up another subject. That Indians team from the 50s was pretty sick and is rarely in the discussion when it comes to 'great teams' of all-time, even though it should. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSwift25 Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 Simply amazing. Easily the most dominant (not the best) team of all time. I beg to differ. Exhibit A - 1932-1939 Yankees: 1932 107-47 .695 1st WS 1933 91-59 .607 2nd 1934 94-60 .610 2nd 1935 89-60 .597 2nd 1936 102-51 .667 1st WS 1937 102-52 .662 1st WS 1938 99-53 .651 1st WS 1939 106-45 .702 1st WS5 WS in 8 years including 4 in a row and never finishing worse than 2nd is pretty darn dominating. Exhibit B - 1949-1964 Yankees: 1949 97-57 .630 1 WS 1950 98-56 .636 1 WS 1951 98-56 .636 1 WS 1952 95-59 .617 1 WS 1953 99-52 .656 1 WS 1954 103-52 .669 2 1955 96-58 .623 1 AL 1956 96-57 .630 1 WS 1957 98-56 .636 1 AL 1958 92-62 .597 1 WS 1959 79-75 .513 3 1960 97-57 .630 1 AL 1961* 109-53 .673 1 WS 1962 96-66 .593 1 WS 1963 104-57 .646 1 AL 1964 99-63 .611 1 AL 14 Pennants and 9 WS in 16 years? That will NEVER happen again.   Dammit can't believed I overlooked that 50s Yankees team. Adding to the Yankees argument though, the American League in the 50s besides New York and Cleveland and for a couple years Chicago was not very good. The Indians finished pretty close a few times, but besides that the Yankees would finish 8-10+ games of the third place team. What hurts the Cubs argument (besides the amount of titles) is their competition. Although they did end up being the best of the three, the Giants, Pirates and Cubs were locked up in a few tight races in the later part of the decade. Whereas the Yankees blew everyone away. But this brings up another subject. That Indians team from the 50s was pretty sick and is rarely in the discussion when it comes to 'great teams' of all-time, even though it should. And it makes you really appreciate the oft overlooked Bob Feller. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyBowden Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 Can you guys believe next year will be their 100th anniversary since winning the WS in 1908?!?! That's just unreal to me. I mean, die hard Cubs fans have lived and died and have not seen their team win a WS. That's just sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HelmsE Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 Simply amazing. Easily the most dominant (not the best) team of all time. I beg to differ. Exhibit A - 1932-1939 Yankees: 1932 107-47 .695 1st WS 1933 91-59 .607 2nd 1934 94-60 .610 2nd 1935 89-60 .597 2nd 1936 102-51 .667 1st WS 1937 102-52 .662 1st WS 1938 99-53 .651 1st WS 1939 106-45 .702 1st WS5 WS in 8 years including 4 in a row and never finishing worse than 2nd is pretty darn dominating. Exhibit B - 1949-1964 Yankees: 1949 97-57 .630 1 WS 1950 98-56 .636 1 WS 1951 98-56 .636 1 WS 1952 95-59 .617 1 WS 1953 99-52 .656 1 WS 1954 103-52 .669 2 1955 96-58 .623 1 AL 1956 96-57 .630 1 WS 1957 98-56 .636 1 AL 1958 92-62 .597 1 WS 1959 79-75 .513 3 1960 97-57 .630 1 AL 1961* 109-53 .673 1 WS 1962 96-66 .593 1 WS 1963 104-57 .646 1 AL 1964 99-63 .611 1 AL 14 Pennants and 9 WS in 16 years? That will NEVER happen again.  Meh, it's the Yankees, who really f***ing cares anymore Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Festa Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 I do and a lot of other people do. The long history and intricacies of baseball history are what seperate it from all other American sports and makes the game what it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passion Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 I'm a Sox fan and the '61 Yankees are one of my favorite individual teams of all-time and had one of my top 5 favorite baseball players on it...Mickey Mantle.  I also am a big fan of the '55 Dodgers. Good thread, Festa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbob1313 Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 The 61 Yankees were actually an extremely weak team. Bill James goes over it in his 61 Baseball abstract. His main argument is that their pitching was not all that good, and that it benefitted from career years all over, they didn't have a good bench, and they relied too much on the home run, which meant if they played in the 1900's they wouldn't have been able to score much since that was a period that relied less on the home run for scoring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Festa Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 The 61 Yankees were actually an extremely weak team. Bill James goes over it in his 61 Baseball abstract. His main argument is that their pitching was not all that good, and that it benefitted from career years all over, they didn't have a good bench, and they relied too much on the home run, which meant if they played in the 1900's they wouldn't have been able to score much since that was a period that relied less on the home run for scoring. I'm not a fan of taking Player A or Team A and putting them in a totally different era. I like comparing Player A or Team A with the other players and teams of the time period.  It's never fair to both sides. Since JJ mentioned it, other than the Dodgers teams from the early to mid 50s, I'm a big fan of the 1890s Baltimore Orioles (no relation to the current O's) and the Boston Beaneaters (now the Braves). :mischief Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passion Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 Some of my other favorite teams: 1948 Cleveland Indians, 1963 Los Angeles Dodgers, 1967 Red Sox, and the 1970 Orioles (Weaver! Robinson! Palmer! Powell!). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbob1313 Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 It'd be kind of hard to beat the 1927 Yankees. Thats a ridiculous team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passion Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 Yeah I'd say Gehrig and Ruth with their 221 and 226 OPS+ respectively were 'tough' outs. I guess. :mischief Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Festa Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 Yeah I'd say Gehrig and Ruth with their 221 and 226 OPS+ respectively were 'tough' outs. I guess. :mischief :o  13th and 17th greatest OPS+ performances of all-time......in one year....back to back.... :o  Link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Festa Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 It'd be kind of hard to beat the 1927 Yankees. Thats a ridiculous team. Nope. I think when it comes to discussing greatest teams of all-time the '27 Yanks are without a doubt #1. Now #2 on...that's a good discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passion Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 I've always considered the 1975 Reds to be a team that could challenge the '27 Yanks. The '98 Yankees are probably the most balanced team ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbob1313 Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 I've always considered the 1975 Reds to be a team that could challenge the '27 Yanks. The '98 Yankees are probably the most balanced team ever. Thats the year Joe Morgan had like a 190 OPS+ right? Didn't they have a team OPS+ of 135? But if I remember correctly their pitching wasn't all that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Altamonte Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 That Reds team was probably the best hitting club ever brought together...The Red Sox team was pretty awesome as well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yankeefan21 Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 I'm a big fan of the 1890s Baltimore Orioles (no relation to the current O's)... When that organization was folding in 1903, two business men [Frank Farrell and Bill Devery] purchased it and moved them to Manhattan. The team was renamed the Highlanders, but the name wouldn't stick. 10 years later, they would call themselves the NY Yankees. Among many other firsts, this upstart team was the first to wear pinstripes, the first to wear numbers on their jersies, and the first to officially retire a number. Regarding the Boston Red Sox, this is how crazy this rivalry is; almost 82,000 fans attended a double header between the Bosox and Yankees on May 30, 1938. Think about that for a second. We were in the middle of a Depression and a major war was brewing in Europe yet 82,000 fans scraped together some pennies because the rivalry was THAT important. Incredible. Count me among the fans of the 75 Reds as well. That was a crazy talented team. I don't like how they are diluting the HOF with 75 Reds, but they were solid for quite some time. I also think you have to give the Braves some credit for their amazing run from 1991-2005. They are easily overlooked because of their postseason performance [or lack thereof] but maintaining that level of consistency for that long a period of time is a truly amazing accomplishment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Festa Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 Actually the National League Orioles are in no way related to the American League Orioles that moved to New York and became the Yankees. The NL contracted 4 teams (Louisville, Baltimore, Cleveland, Washington) after the 1899 season, due in large part to syndicate baseball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heckeroo Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 Actually the National League Orioles are in no way related to the American League Orioles that moved to New York and became the Yankees. The NL contracted 4 teams (Louisville, Baltimore, Cleveland, Washington) after the 1899 season, due in large part to syndicate baseball. 1899 cleveland spiders now that's a team for ya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.