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.

Yup, and then I hear they wouldn't let a certain someone into the stadium...

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

Jeez, in 1906 they had a 150 ERA+. Thats ridiculous.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Some of my other favorite teams: 1948 Cleveland Indians, 1963 Los Angeles Dodgers, 1967 Red Sox, and the 1970 Orioles (Weaver! Robinson! Palmer! Powell!).

It'd be kind of hard to beat the 1927 Yankees. Thats a ridiculous team.

Yeah I'd say Gehrig and Ruth with their 221 and 226 OPS+ respectively were 'tough' outs.

 

I guess. :mischief

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

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.

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.

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.

That Reds team was probably the best hitting club ever brought together...The Red Sox team was pretty awesome as well

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.

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.

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