Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
2020 Greatest of All Time Sports Draft-Zow wins, Judges still suck (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
Similar experience with a quarterhorse race horse we had. Cool thing is while they’re losing $$ they never stop eating. Or needing a rider. Or boarding. Vet bills. Never ends
(love horses, honestly, but the sport of kings is not a great idea for peasants. even worse than a hole in the water you pour money into.)
He had a hernia & turns out horse surgery is really expensive. Sold him after a few years.
otb_lifer
Footballguy
fantastic stuff ... we couldn't have asked for a more knowledgeable judge in any category
wikkidpissah
Footballguy
Greatest Horse (cont')
#10, 7 points - Frankel. There were easily a dozen more Euro horses i would have weighted higher. I will put him in the Top Ten, even though he's a miler, even though he didnt test the classic distances in a timely fashion (the same reason the American version of him, Dr Fager, wouldnt be in the top 10) because i simply cant say he's not the most talented racing thoroughbred i've ever seen. Dominant, not classic. It matters. Right there with Secretariat in pure locomotion, though.
#9, 8 points - Kelso. Top 5 in my personal ranking, but recognition of generational bias (within a year of Secretariat's Triple Crown, racing folk were falling back on Kellie as the greatest racehorse ever, that's how strong his dominance of racing between the 1948 & 1973 Triple Crown winners was) pushes him back a li'lbit. There can be no doubt, however, that he owns racing greatest achievement - winning the biggest bigboy race of the era, the Jockey Club Gold Cup (SA's Big 'Cap was still considered regional racing then), FIVE years in a row. Think five Breeders' Cups, tho that might be a slight overstatement considering the 10 furlongs and international field. But not much..
#8, 9 points - Spectacular Bid. Til his oops moment, i thought he was the 2nd best horse i'd ever seen. I didnt even tell @otb_lifer this when we discussed who would be taken when, cuz i wanted to see how it shaked out). Whether it was "safety pin", the boy, the trainer hisself (my guess), Bid's Belmont loss was quickly and decisively avenged and he raced Affirmed to a tice (he actually dropped five lengths off when astounded he couldnt pass him and repassed those who'd passed him) in the fall. Nonetheless it did happen, so this is as high as he can be.
#7. 10 points - War Admiral. My personal preference would be to put him ahead of his daddy because Uncle Dom said so (he had him even better than Citation in the aniscules of his era and i had him ahead of him in the Derby Day sim), but the match race loss to Seabiscuit knocks this Triple Crowner back.
#6, 11 points - Citation. The ol' punters when i was coming up felt about him the way i feel about Slew - that he could beat you at 6 furlongs, at 12 furlongs, all ####### day. His rep was sumn i tried to beat cuz he was the last Triple Crowner of my entire youth and i was sick of hearin'at. His 2nd to Big Red in the recent sim race settled that hash for me.
#5, 12 points - American Pharaoh. You do sumn i think can't be done, you got my attention. As a handicapper, i made some nice dough beating the like 9 guys who won the first 2 legs between Secretariat and he, but he was the first i did not try to beat. You outrun what training "allows" you to do to end a 42-year TC drought, you're impossibly great and the "comeback" from the burnout of the Trail to take the Breeders' Cup that fall was the cherry.
#4, 13 points - Affirmed. I was wondering if his racemate, Alydar would get taken and, so far, i've spared myself from figuring where i would have placed him on this list if somebody had. I dont think i could have kept the 2nd half of the greatest rivalry i've ever seen out of the top ten though, and Affirmed's ability to keep Bid on his hip the next season - thought he was smokemeat when the younger horse came up on him, but they coulda gone around again&again&again - backed that up. I picked him in the sim exacta because of that.
#3, 14 points - Seattle Slew. The missile - most brilliant race horse i've seen. Fast. Coulda been trained to any distance, but was undertrained or overtrained his entire career. Still, the first horse to go thru the Triple Crown undefeated. He's ahead of Affirmed in this because he str8up beat him - never saw his hip. Only Northern Dancer is a more profound breeding influence - and it's always a pleasure to see one of his type on the track.
#2, 15 points - Man 'o War. The Babe Ruth of the Sport of Kings. Established the pre-eminence of the most-attended sport in American history. Took on all comers, beat all but one, even when they made his jockey carry an opera singer in his teeth for handicaps. I know no one who saw him run, so that'll have to be good enough.
#1, 16 points - Secretariat. Most beautiful entity in creation. nufced
#10, 7 points - Frankel. There were easily a dozen more Euro horses i would have weighted higher. I will put him in the Top Ten, even though he's a miler, even though he didnt test the classic distances in a timely fashion (the same reason the American version of him, Dr Fager, wouldnt be in the top 10) because i simply cant say he's not the most talented racing thoroughbred i've ever seen. Dominant, not classic. It matters. Right there with Secretariat in pure locomotion, though.
#9, 8 points - Kelso. Top 5 in my personal ranking, but recognition of generational bias (within a year of Secretariat's Triple Crown, racing folk were falling back on Kellie as the greatest racehorse ever, that's how strong his dominance of racing between the 1948 & 1973 Triple Crown winners was) pushes him back a li'lbit. There can be no doubt, however, that he owns racing greatest achievement - winning the biggest bigboy race of the era, the Jockey Club Gold Cup (SA's Big 'Cap was still considered regional racing then), FIVE years in a row. Think five Breeders' Cups, tho that might be a slight overstatement considering the 10 furlongs and international field. But not much..
#8, 9 points - Spectacular Bid. Til his oops moment, i thought he was the 2nd best horse i'd ever seen. I didnt even tell @otb_lifer this when we discussed who would be taken when, cuz i wanted to see how it shaked out). Whether it was "safety pin", the boy, the trainer hisself (my guess), Bid's Belmont loss was quickly and decisively avenged and he raced Affirmed to a tice (he actually dropped five lengths off when astounded he couldnt pass him and repassed those who'd passed him) in the fall. Nonetheless it did happen, so this is as high as he can be.
#7. 10 points - War Admiral. My personal preference would be to put him ahead of his daddy because Uncle Dom said so (he had him even better than Citation in the aniscules of his era and i had him ahead of him in the Derby Day sim), but the match race loss to Seabiscuit knocks this Triple Crowner back.
#6, 11 points - Citation. The ol' punters when i was coming up felt about him the way i feel about Slew - that he could beat you at 6 furlongs, at 12 furlongs, all ####### day. His rep was sumn i tried to beat cuz he was the last Triple Crowner of my entire youth and i was sick of hearin'at. His 2nd to Big Red in the recent sim race settled that hash for me.
#5, 12 points - American Pharaoh. You do sumn i think can't be done, you got my attention. As a handicapper, i made some nice dough beating the like 9 guys who won the first 2 legs between Secretariat and he, but he was the first i did not try to beat. You outrun what training "allows" you to do to end a 42-year TC drought, you're impossibly great and the "comeback" from the burnout of the Trail to take the Breeders' Cup that fall was the cherry.
#4, 13 points - Affirmed. I was wondering if his racemate, Alydar would get taken and, so far, i've spared myself from figuring where i would have placed him on this list if somebody had. I dont think i could have kept the 2nd half of the greatest rivalry i've ever seen out of the top ten though, and Affirmed's ability to keep Bid on his hip the next season - thought he was smokemeat when the younger horse came up on him, but they coulda gone around again&again&again - backed that up. I picked him in the sim exacta because of that.
#3, 14 points - Seattle Slew. The missile - most brilliant race horse i've seen. Fast. Coulda been trained to any distance, but was undertrained or overtrained his entire career. Still, the first horse to go thru the Triple Crown undefeated. He's ahead of Affirmed in this because he str8up beat him - never saw his hip. Only Northern Dancer is a more profound breeding influence - and it's always a pleasure to see one of his type on the track.
#2, 15 points - Man 'o War. The Babe Ruth of the Sport of Kings. Established the pre-eminence of the most-attended sport in American history. Took on all comers, beat all but one, even when they made his jockey carry an opera singer in his teeth for handicaps. I know no one who saw him run, so that'll have to be good enough.
#1, 16 points - Secretariat. Most beautiful entity in creation. nufced
hagmania
Footballguy
I have emerged from hibernation! I'll get to my categories right away.
Sorry @Getzlaf15 about the sheet - I had taken hiatus from all Internet communities for the past couple of weeks. Hope everything got straightened out without too much trouble.
Sorry @Getzlaf15 about the sheet - I had taken hiatus from all Internet communities for the past couple of weeks. Hope everything got straightened out without too much trouble.
hagmania
Footballguy
Don't let its absence distract you from the fact the Warriors blew a 3-1 lead in the NBA Finals.
I do happen to be judging the moments!
Zegras11
Footballguy
No worries. Turned out great in the end. Thanks for setting up all those wicked tabs. Made it so much easier for all of us.
Zow
Footballguy
So I cannot promise my write-ups will be nearly that good or entertaining... fun read @wikkidpissah even though i know so little about horses!
Zegras11
Footballguy
Zegras11
Footballguy
The moment Doug Rader took a #### on his Astros teammate BDay cake? He made a perfect bow you know.
joffer
Footballguy
the moment/game category got stretched and twisted in so many directions, the judging might as well be a monkey throwing feces at this point
hagmania
Footballguy
Sweet value. Gained two points with him being #8 off the board in the 38th round. I will take it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Zegras11
Footballguy
OK, with my new CAT's to judge, here's the new random order in which I will process them:
NHL Greatest Defensive Player
NFL Greatest Defensive Linemen
NFL Greatest Offensive Linemen
Greatest MLB OF
NCAA F Greatest Defensice Player
NHL Greatest Offensive Player
NHL Greatest Team
NCAA F Greatest Team
Greatest MLB MGR
Greatest MLB C
NFL Greatest Super Bowl
NHL Greatest Goalie
NHL Greatest Coach
NFL Greatest TE
NCAA F Greatest Offensive Player
NHL Greatest Defensive Player
NFL Greatest Defensive Linemen
NFL Greatest Offensive Linemen
Greatest MLB OF
NCAA F Greatest Defensice Player
NHL Greatest Offensive Player
NHL Greatest Team
NCAA F Greatest Team
Greatest MLB MGR
Greatest MLB C
NFL Greatest Super Bowl
NHL Greatest Goalie
NHL Greatest Coach
NFL Greatest TE
NCAA F Greatest Offensive Player
Doug B
Footballguy
hagmania
Footballguy
Zow
Footballguy
Yeah, I had that on my list. I agree with you that it should have been drafted. What kid hasn't imitated it in their backyards?
timschochet
Footballguy
I have no problem with where Seattle Slew ended up. I know zilch about horses but I checked a few lists and he seems to consistently be in the top 5 so it’s fine.
Did it really happen? Still a debate which is why I didn't choose it. I wasn't sure how the judge would rule on something that is not definitive in some eyes.
Babe Ruth's called shot was the home run hit by Babe Ruth of the New York Yankees in the fifth inning of Game 3 of the 1932 World Series, held on October 1, 1932, at Wrigley Field in Chicago. During the at-bat, Ruth made a pointing gesture, which existing film confirms, but the exact meaning of his gesture remains ambiguous.
There is no dispute over the general events of the moment. All the reports say that the Chicago Cubs' "bench jockeys" were riding Ruth mercilessly and that Ruth, rather than ignoring them, was "playing" with them through words and gestures.
The longtime debate is over the nature of one of Ruth's gestures. It is unclear if he pointed to the center field, to the pitcher (Charlie Root), or to the Cubs bench. Even the films of the at-bat (by amateur filmmaker Matt Miller Kandle, Sr.) that emerged during the 1990s have not allowed any definitive conclusions.
At the time, Ruth did not clarify the matter, initially stating that he was merely pointing towards the Cubs dugout to tell them he still had one more strike. At one point very early on, he said, "It's in the papers, isn't it?" In another interview, this one with respected Chicago sports reporter John Carmichael, Ruth said he did not point to any particular spot, but that he just wanted to give the ball a good ride. Soon, however, the media-savvy Ruth was going along with the story that he had called his shot, and his subsequent versions over the years became more dramatic. "In the years to come, Ruth publicly claimed that he did, indeed, point to where he planned to send the pitch."[8] One newsreel footage, Ruth voiced over the called shot scene with the remarks, "Well, I looked out at center field and I pointed. I said, 'I'm gonna hit the next pitched ball right past the flagpole!' Well, the good Lord must have been with me." In his 1948 autobiography, Ruth gave another enhanced version by stating he told his wife "I'll belt one where it hurts them the most" and that the idea of calling his own shot then came to him
Zow
Footballguy
Probably hasn't changed but, in my childhood was like others, there was a painting I remember seeing and either myself or some other kid calling his shot in about every wiffle ball game I've ever seen played.
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
This kind of thing happens in Civil War accounts often. When in doubt, always go with the earliest authoritative account. Before they’ve had a chance to get together at reunions and decide what really happened that day.
Doug B
Footballguy
That's the one I was going to bring up. I looked at it hard, read a bunch of articles and accounts. I come down on the side that it did not happen as commonly told.
It's definitely part of the game's lore.
I agree. Magic returning to play in the All Star game was a great moment and had world changing affects as well....
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Just to clarify my boxing voting process
I will give each fighter a score 0-4 in 6 categories. 0 meaning the fighter accomplished nothing for the category, 4 meaning they accomplished the most possible in the category.
The categories are:
1. Social Impact: did the boxer do anything to transcend boxing and put themselves into the greater social conversation
2. Boxing Impact: was the boxer a major draw and star of his time, is he the only person to accomplish a certain feat, was he the first for something, is he best ever at a certain trait
Non- Boxing example to illustrate the difference. Yao Ming would get a very high score for social impact. He was a phenomena that had the world talking, he bridged countries and cultures. However, there is nothing he did in the NBA that changed the way the game was played, he was never the best at any particular thing, he holds no cherished records so his influence on the sport of basketball was limited to just that he was a very popular player of his time.
3. Dominance: at their peak, how unbeatable were they? Did they sneak out a lot of close decisions or were they tearing through their competition?
4. Longevity: how long were they able to perform at a world class level?
After looking at it, I think these categories need to be scored 0-6 to reflect their importance.
5. Weight Class Flexibility: A fighter is more impressive when they are able move up in weight as their career goes on and continue their success- often having to fight naturally bigger men.
6. Quality of competition: Not all eras and weight classes are equal and not all records should be weighted equally.
I will give each fighter a score 0-4 in 6 categories. 0 meaning the fighter accomplished nothing for the category, 4 meaning they accomplished the most possible in the category.
The categories are:
1. Social Impact: did the boxer do anything to transcend boxing and put themselves into the greater social conversation
2. Boxing Impact: was the boxer a major draw and star of his time, is he the only person to accomplish a certain feat, was he the first for something, is he best ever at a certain trait
Non- Boxing example to illustrate the difference. Yao Ming would get a very high score for social impact. He was a phenomena that had the world talking, he bridged countries and cultures. However, there is nothing he did in the NBA that changed the way the game was played, he was never the best at any particular thing, he holds no cherished records so his influence on the sport of basketball was limited to just that he was a very popular player of his time.
3. Dominance: at their peak, how unbeatable were they? Did they sneak out a lot of close decisions or were they tearing through their competition?
4. Longevity: how long were they able to perform at a world class level?
After looking at it, I think these categories need to be scored 0-6 to reflect their importance.
5. Weight Class Flexibility: A fighter is more impressive when they are able move up in weight as their career goes on and continue their success- often having to fight naturally bigger men.
6. Quality of competition: Not all eras and weight classes are equal and not all records should be weighted equally.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
Just PM me when you want me to break out soccer ratings.
I make no promises to be consistent or unbiased. Opinions are my own and I may be over-analyzing counting stats in one write-up and pointing to epic YouTube videos in the other. I recommend that everyone relax. It's an internet draft. It literally couldn't be less important. The one promise I will make is that every pick will get a full write-up and explanation of my thought process.
I make no promises to be consistent or unbiased. Opinions are my own and I may be over-analyzing counting stats in one write-up and pointing to epic YouTube videos in the other. I recommend that everyone relax. It's an internet draft. It literally couldn't be less important. The one promise I will make is that every pick will get a full write-up and explanation of my thought process.
Zegras11
Footballguy
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
Ok, we'll start with player ratings:
`No. 16 (1 pt.) -- David Beckham.
David Beckham wasn't going to blow by you on the dribble. He wasn't going to cut inside and take on four defenders and fire one into corner. Becks was going to pick you apart with that magic right foot, putting balls on a platter for the guys paid to score the goals and knock in the occasional free kick himself. Later in his career, he'd successfully re-deploy that skill set to become a very credible deep-lying playmaker. Beck's Premiere League numbers of 62 goals and 80 assists for Man United over 265 league appearances match up pretty well to the top "chance creators" who show up on the all-time assist chart. In league play, with Man Utd. he averaged about .53 goal involvements (goals + assists) per appearance. For context, Kevin De Bruyne has averaged about ,.63 goal involvements in his BPL career. The biggest strike against, Beckham, IMO, is that I think Thierry Henry is a direct contemporary with a far better case (although I wouldn't put him in my top 16 either). Henry played 9 less BPL games than Beckham. He had 6 fewer assists. But he had 113 more goals. Add in his World Cup and European Championship, and I just think his resume is better. Perhaps it's unfair to compare Beckham to a forward, but among right-sided creative midfielders from that era, I'd take Luis Figo over Becks as well.
It's a bit harder to quantify Beckham's Real Madrid run. It felt to me at the time that he was cast as the scapegoat for the Galactico's failure to perform as expected in a way that Zidane and Ronaldo weren't. What numbers I've seen suggest that Beckham scored fewer goals (probably a consequence of getting less direct free kick chances), but that his chance creation/assist numbers at least stayed the same. Beckham probably departed to MLS about two seasons too early. He led Madrid in assists in his last season.
Internationally, Beckham is best known for kicking Diego Simeone to send England out of the 98 World Cup and hitting a worldy of a free kick against Greece to send England back to the tournament in 2002. In 2006, another Beckham direct kick special beat Ecuador to advance to the quarterfinals, where England lost to Figo's Portugal on penalties. It's a decent international resume, but not one that will move him up this list.
`No. 16 (1 pt.) -- David Beckham.
Beckham is certainly among the 16 most famous footballers of all time. He's not among the 16 best. With that said, all the underwear modeling, the Posh Spiciness, the terribly named children has led soccer fans and analysts to call him overrated for so long, that he's probably underrated right now. Best isn't necessarily wrong. None of those things were a particular strength of Beckham (although, unlike Best, Beckham was very much a right-sided midfielder and not a forward, so I think his goal scoring numbers are fine in context). And Beckham can point out that maybe he didn't have as much time to develop those skills considering he spent a lot more time than Best polishing silverware.
David Beckham wasn't going to blow by you on the dribble. He wasn't going to cut inside and take on four defenders and fire one into corner. Becks was going to pick you apart with that magic right foot, putting balls on a platter for the guys paid to score the goals and knock in the occasional free kick himself. Later in his career, he'd successfully re-deploy that skill set to become a very credible deep-lying playmaker. Beck's Premiere League numbers of 62 goals and 80 assists for Man United over 265 league appearances match up pretty well to the top "chance creators" who show up on the all-time assist chart. In league play, with Man Utd. he averaged about .53 goal involvements (goals + assists) per appearance. For context, Kevin De Bruyne has averaged about ,.63 goal involvements in his BPL career. The biggest strike against, Beckham, IMO, is that I think Thierry Henry is a direct contemporary with a far better case (although I wouldn't put him in my top 16 either). Henry played 9 less BPL games than Beckham. He had 6 fewer assists. But he had 113 more goals. Add in his World Cup and European Championship, and I just think his resume is better. Perhaps it's unfair to compare Beckham to a forward, but among right-sided creative midfielders from that era, I'd take Luis Figo over Becks as well.
It's a bit harder to quantify Beckham's Real Madrid run. It felt to me at the time that he was cast as the scapegoat for the Galactico's failure to perform as expected in a way that Zidane and Ronaldo weren't. What numbers I've seen suggest that Beckham scored fewer goals (probably a consequence of getting less direct free kick chances), but that his chance creation/assist numbers at least stayed the same. Beckham probably departed to MLS about two seasons too early. He led Madrid in assists in his last season.
Internationally, Beckham is best known for kicking Diego Simeone to send England out of the 98 World Cup and hitting a worldy of a free kick against Greece to send England back to the tournament in 2002. In 2006, another Beckham direct kick special beat Ecuador to advance to the quarterfinals, where England lost to Figo's Portugal on penalties. It's a decent international resume, but not one that will move him up this list.
Zow
Footballguy
Greatest baseball team analysis and rankings
Criteria:
1. Domination against their peers (significant weight) – first and foremost, I’m gauging rankings at how significantly a team competed against the other teams in the league that season. Obviously record then comes into play, but also the quality of the opponents they beat in the playoffs (i.e. did they beat legitimately other really good teams in the process). In that sense, I’ll note that I’m kind of grateful that all teams selected won the WS (or the WS didn't exist). I genuinely wasn’t sure what to do with teams like the 116 win Mariners, Moneyball A’s, 1994 Expos, etc.
2. Number of quality players weighed against the depth of the team (significant weight) – I definitely am going to consider HOFs but I also want to put that into context of the entire makeup of the team. In other words, was this a well-rounded team that was consistent through the order, in the field, through the rotation, and in the bullpen.
3. Advanced statistics (significant weight) – my apologies to the purists, but I am consulting with the Bill James rankings and others to do this. It’s just too impossible to gauge these teams on the eye test and I’m not even going to get into trying to envision the teams actually playing against one another as the eras were drastically different.
4. Entertaining and inspirational teams (less weight) – Generally to be used as a tie-breaker, I am going to give slight consideration to just how memorable/fun/impactful the teams were.
Somewhat surprising omissions: 1937 Yankees, 1969 Mets, 2007 Red Sox, 2001 Mariners, 2018 Red Sox.
Note: my pick is the 1967 Cardinals. They’ll be in the bottom three.
Second note: Aside from myself, I did not consider at all the drafter or the round they were taken in.
Tier One (I hate the ####### Yankees):
1. 1998 Yankees – Yes, the 27, 39, and 61 teams have probably a bigger aura/legend status to them, but to – and to Bill James – there is no more rounded baseball team to ever play in a single season. Their lineup 1-9 featured no bad players (Brosius batted ninth). The starting rotation, pitching in the steroid era, was equally as solid and they were backed by maybe the greatest setup-closer combo to play. This is, notably, the winningest Yankee team of all-time and, frankly, I just can’t find a hole or a flaw other than they are the wrong New York team.
2. 1939 Yankees – Really close between them and the ’27 team, and my heart does go out to the drafter who took the 27 team first as I can’t fault the pick, the ’39 team edges them out stats-wise as they had the best run differential in baseball history (411!), a bit more at the back end of the order, with a notch-above pitching staff led by Lefty Grove and Red Ruffing.
3. 1927 Yankees – Murderers’ Row. Probably the best lineup ever. Ruth. Gehrig. Really these top three Yankee teams are all deserving of the top spot.
4. 1975 Reds – The only non-Yankee team to make the top tier of my rankings, while they didn’t get a thought for top spot, I didn’t feel right keeping them out of this tier. James has them 4th all-time (as well as most any other rankings I’ve looked at) and it’s hard to argue as their team stats were near the top of the league in most categories. They had three pitchers with at least 15 wins. Certainly, this was the marquee team of the “Big Red Machine.” Probably the second most rounded team in MLB history next to the ’98 Yankees.
Tier Two (teams I wish I could have seen even if it’s video footage):
5. 1929 Athletics – the Yankees teams were so good during the 20s and 30s yet this team finished 18 games ahead of them in the pennant (frankly the 1930 version may have been just as good as well). The middle of their order may be unrivaled. Lefty Grove led their pitching staff (he apparently led two of the top five teams ever) and was backed up by other pitchers with ERAs in the 3s.
6. 1907 Cubs – steal of the draft in this category. I’m kicking myself for not considering them sooner. Bill James has them fifth overall and that makes some sense when you consider the TEAM had a team ERA of 1.73. While the offense wasn’t amazing (although it did have 3 HOFs) the team won over 100 games and swept the World Series. Really crazy to me that they fell so far in this draft.
7. 1932 Yankees – Essentially an older version of the ’27 team with the addition of Gomez (again!), this team wasn’t quite as good but still won 107 games and swept the WS.
8. 1902 Pirates – Another late steal and probably the best offensive team of the dead ball era. They have the second highest winning percentage in league history.
Tier Three (Rolling Stones era and why I love baseball)
9. 1970 Orioles – Featuring the Robinson HOFs and Palmer (and two other 20 game winners), this 108 team win breezed through the regular season and the playoffs. James has them ninth overall and I couldn’t find a list where they weren’t top ten. So, I can’t buck that trend.
10. 1986 Mets – I was three years old. I had a tee ball set and started to recognize this sport where it was fun to hit stuff. There was this team on the TV that had colors I liked. They won. And three year old me was, apparently, hooked and have been a Mets fan ever since despite growing up near Philly (cheering for the local rival just made it even more fun). I’m forever grateful for this team and the guys like Doc, Daryl, Hojo, Sid, and Darling gave me many good and some bad memories as a kid. While I mostly remember the 88 and 90 teams, the 96 team was obviously the best. They led the league in all offensive categories, won 108 games, and had a staff led by a young Doc Gooden that was consistent through the bullpen. They also beat a very formidable Red Sox team with “a little roller up along first… behind the bag! It gets through Buckner! Here comes Knight and the Mets win it.”
11. 1976 Reds – Essentially a minor notch down from the ’75 team (team ERA climbed a bit).
Tier Three (slightly overrated historically):
12. 1961 Yankees – Bill James has them a mere 20th and defends the ranking adamantly. Known for the home run chase and the big seasons by the big named guys, this team really doesn’t shake out for being good all the way through. I recognize this is a frustrating comment given that they won 109 games and won the WS 4-1.
13. 1984 Tigers – Similarly, a more analytical review of the 1984 Tigers suggests they are a bit overrated. James doesn’t even have them in his top 30. They didn’t have a single HOF until Trammell and Morris were inducted in 2017 and 2018 respectively. Lovable and good team for sure (“Sweet Louuuuu”), but not top ten historically.
Tier four (the rest):
14. 1967 Cardinals – Won 101 games and defeated a very good Red Sox team in the WS. Brock, Cepeda, and Gibson had incredible individual efforts (with Cepeda winning MVP and Gibson WS MVP). Also, a historically notable outfield of Brock, Flood, and Maris.
15. 1968 Tigers – Last 30 game winner in Denny McClain and they won 103 games. They pitched and hit home runs. Good team.
16. 1972 A’s – Considered them for tier three since they are, in my humble opinion, historically overrated. I actually docked the pick even lower as, statistically, the 1973 team was probably better – although neither won close to 100 games – as the 72 team needed all seven games to win the WS. Found some online rankings where they weren’t even listed. With apologies to the Moustache Gang and the drafter,* I thought they were the worst of the teams taken.
*sorry wikkid :(
Criteria:
1. Domination against their peers (significant weight) – first and foremost, I’m gauging rankings at how significantly a team competed against the other teams in the league that season. Obviously record then comes into play, but also the quality of the opponents they beat in the playoffs (i.e. did they beat legitimately other really good teams in the process). In that sense, I’ll note that I’m kind of grateful that all teams selected won the WS (or the WS didn't exist). I genuinely wasn’t sure what to do with teams like the 116 win Mariners, Moneyball A’s, 1994 Expos, etc.
2. Number of quality players weighed against the depth of the team (significant weight) – I definitely am going to consider HOFs but I also want to put that into context of the entire makeup of the team. In other words, was this a well-rounded team that was consistent through the order, in the field, through the rotation, and in the bullpen.
3. Advanced statistics (significant weight) – my apologies to the purists, but I am consulting with the Bill James rankings and others to do this. It’s just too impossible to gauge these teams on the eye test and I’m not even going to get into trying to envision the teams actually playing against one another as the eras were drastically different.
4. Entertaining and inspirational teams (less weight) – Generally to be used as a tie-breaker, I am going to give slight consideration to just how memorable/fun/impactful the teams were.
Somewhat surprising omissions: 1937 Yankees, 1969 Mets, 2007 Red Sox, 2001 Mariners, 2018 Red Sox.
Note: my pick is the 1967 Cardinals. They’ll be in the bottom three.
Second note: Aside from myself, I did not consider at all the drafter or the round they were taken in.
Tier One (I hate the ####### Yankees):
1. 1998 Yankees – Yes, the 27, 39, and 61 teams have probably a bigger aura/legend status to them, but to – and to Bill James – there is no more rounded baseball team to ever play in a single season. Their lineup 1-9 featured no bad players (Brosius batted ninth). The starting rotation, pitching in the steroid era, was equally as solid and they were backed by maybe the greatest setup-closer combo to play. This is, notably, the winningest Yankee team of all-time and, frankly, I just can’t find a hole or a flaw other than they are the wrong New York team.
2. 1939 Yankees – Really close between them and the ’27 team, and my heart does go out to the drafter who took the 27 team first as I can’t fault the pick, the ’39 team edges them out stats-wise as they had the best run differential in baseball history (411!), a bit more at the back end of the order, with a notch-above pitching staff led by Lefty Grove and Red Ruffing.
3. 1927 Yankees – Murderers’ Row. Probably the best lineup ever. Ruth. Gehrig. Really these top three Yankee teams are all deserving of the top spot.
4. 1975 Reds – The only non-Yankee team to make the top tier of my rankings, while they didn’t get a thought for top spot, I didn’t feel right keeping them out of this tier. James has them 4th all-time (as well as most any other rankings I’ve looked at) and it’s hard to argue as their team stats were near the top of the league in most categories. They had three pitchers with at least 15 wins. Certainly, this was the marquee team of the “Big Red Machine.” Probably the second most rounded team in MLB history next to the ’98 Yankees.
Tier Two (teams I wish I could have seen even if it’s video footage):
5. 1929 Athletics – the Yankees teams were so good during the 20s and 30s yet this team finished 18 games ahead of them in the pennant (frankly the 1930 version may have been just as good as well). The middle of their order may be unrivaled. Lefty Grove led their pitching staff (he apparently led two of the top five teams ever) and was backed up by other pitchers with ERAs in the 3s.
6. 1907 Cubs – steal of the draft in this category. I’m kicking myself for not considering them sooner. Bill James has them fifth overall and that makes some sense when you consider the TEAM had a team ERA of 1.73. While the offense wasn’t amazing (although it did have 3 HOFs) the team won over 100 games and swept the World Series. Really crazy to me that they fell so far in this draft.
7. 1932 Yankees – Essentially an older version of the ’27 team with the addition of Gomez (again!), this team wasn’t quite as good but still won 107 games and swept the WS.
8. 1902 Pirates – Another late steal and probably the best offensive team of the dead ball era. They have the second highest winning percentage in league history.
Tier Three (Rolling Stones era and why I love baseball)
9. 1970 Orioles – Featuring the Robinson HOFs and Palmer (and two other 20 game winners), this 108 team win breezed through the regular season and the playoffs. James has them ninth overall and I couldn’t find a list where they weren’t top ten. So, I can’t buck that trend.
10. 1986 Mets – I was three years old. I had a tee ball set and started to recognize this sport where it was fun to hit stuff. There was this team on the TV that had colors I liked. They won. And three year old me was, apparently, hooked and have been a Mets fan ever since despite growing up near Philly (cheering for the local rival just made it even more fun). I’m forever grateful for this team and the guys like Doc, Daryl, Hojo, Sid, and Darling gave me many good and some bad memories as a kid. While I mostly remember the 88 and 90 teams, the 96 team was obviously the best. They led the league in all offensive categories, won 108 games, and had a staff led by a young Doc Gooden that was consistent through the bullpen. They also beat a very formidable Red Sox team with “a little roller up along first… behind the bag! It gets through Buckner! Here comes Knight and the Mets win it.”
11. 1976 Reds – Essentially a minor notch down from the ’75 team (team ERA climbed a bit).
Tier Three (slightly overrated historically):
12. 1961 Yankees – Bill James has them a mere 20th and defends the ranking adamantly. Known for the home run chase and the big seasons by the big named guys, this team really doesn’t shake out for being good all the way through. I recognize this is a frustrating comment given that they won 109 games and won the WS 4-1.
13. 1984 Tigers – Similarly, a more analytical review of the 1984 Tigers suggests they are a bit overrated. James doesn’t even have them in his top 30. They didn’t have a single HOF until Trammell and Morris were inducted in 2017 and 2018 respectively. Lovable and good team for sure (“Sweet Louuuuu”), but not top ten historically.
Tier four (the rest):
14. 1967 Cardinals – Won 101 games and defeated a very good Red Sox team in the WS. Brock, Cepeda, and Gibson had incredible individual efforts (with Cepeda winning MVP and Gibson WS MVP). Also, a historically notable outfield of Brock, Flood, and Maris.
15. 1968 Tigers – Last 30 game winner in Denny McClain and they won 103 games. They pitched and hit home runs. Good team.
16. 1972 A’s – Considered them for tier three since they are, in my humble opinion, historically overrated. I actually docked the pick even lower as, statistically, the 1973 team was probably better – although neither won close to 100 games – as the 72 team needed all seven games to win the WS. Found some online rankings where they weren’t even listed. With apologies to the Moustache Gang and the drafter,* I thought they were the worst of the teams taken.
*sorry wikkid :(
Last edited by a moderator:
For your sake I hope you only have one category if you are going to put this much analysis into the 16th ranked of the category.
Great stuff and I look forward to the rest of the roll out since I am not strongly versed in this category.
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
No. 15 (2 pts) -- Roberto Baggio
Here's the case for Il Divin Codino. 1. He was possibly the best player in the World for a few years in the early to mid 90s. 2. He carried Italy through the knock out rounds at USA 94. 3. He passes the sick skills on YouTube test. 4. Despite injuries, he had an appropriately long tail to his career, allowing him to amass more than 200 Serie A goals.
Here's the rebuttal. 1. No, he wasn't. 2. He was dog crap in the group stage and **** the bed when the chips were down in the penalty shootout in the final. 3. Juvy practically drove him to Milan at the height of his peak because they preferred Del Piero. 4. He amassed many of those goals playing for Bologna and then Brescia.
One thing I did in preparing to rank people was to divide players into rough chronological groups of contemporaries. Baggio basically lands in an era beginning around the 82 World Cup and ending maybe just after the 94 World Cup. So basically, his drafted contemporaries are Platini, Maradona, and half a Maldini. As with Beckham, I found myself thinking of contemporaries from that era who I just think would have been better picks. Marco Van Basten (three time Ballon D'Or winner). Romario (Golden Ball and Golden Boot winner of the World Cup and shining God of the toe poke). I didn't seriously do a comparison, but my gut tells me I'd probably prefer Lothar Matthaus and Franco Baresi as well.
Baggio averaged about .4 goals per appearance in his career. He never led Serie A in goals, and while Serie A was certainly a defensive league, the top scorers were routinely hitting the low to mid 20s in the early nineties. Not the teens that led the league in the 80s. I understand that he was the quintessential Italian "9 and a half" and that he was certainly a creative player. Reliable assist data really doesn't exist for Serie A in that time period, but I can find reference to him leading the league in assists once, with 11. But I just don't see much evidence that he created enough goals to counteract what is, for this list, a pretty anemic strike rate for an attacking player who didn't really contribute in other areas.
Baggio suffered greatly from knee injuries (or course so did Van Basten, whose career was ended by injuries much earlier than Baggio's). Baggio may have been one of the 16 most talented players. However, he didn't achieve enough (2 league titles in years where he didn't hit double -digit league goals and no Champions League silverware) to place high on this list.
Here's the case for Il Divin Codino. 1. He was possibly the best player in the World for a few years in the early to mid 90s. 2. He carried Italy through the knock out rounds at USA 94. 3. He passes the sick skills on YouTube test. 4. Despite injuries, he had an appropriately long tail to his career, allowing him to amass more than 200 Serie A goals.
Here's the rebuttal. 1. No, he wasn't. 2. He was dog crap in the group stage and **** the bed when the chips were down in the penalty shootout in the final. 3. Juvy practically drove him to Milan at the height of his peak because they preferred Del Piero. 4. He amassed many of those goals playing for Bologna and then Brescia.
One thing I did in preparing to rank people was to divide players into rough chronological groups of contemporaries. Baggio basically lands in an era beginning around the 82 World Cup and ending maybe just after the 94 World Cup. So basically, his drafted contemporaries are Platini, Maradona, and half a Maldini. As with Beckham, I found myself thinking of contemporaries from that era who I just think would have been better picks. Marco Van Basten (three time Ballon D'Or winner). Romario (Golden Ball and Golden Boot winner of the World Cup and shining God of the toe poke). I didn't seriously do a comparison, but my gut tells me I'd probably prefer Lothar Matthaus and Franco Baresi as well.
Baggio averaged about .4 goals per appearance in his career. He never led Serie A in goals, and while Serie A was certainly a defensive league, the top scorers were routinely hitting the low to mid 20s in the early nineties. Not the teens that led the league in the 80s. I understand that he was the quintessential Italian "9 and a half" and that he was certainly a creative player. Reliable assist data really doesn't exist for Serie A in that time period, but I can find reference to him leading the league in assists once, with 11. But I just don't see much evidence that he created enough goals to counteract what is, for this list, a pretty anemic strike rate for an attacking player who didn't really contribute in other areas.
Baggio suffered greatly from knee injuries (or course so did Van Basten, whose career was ended by injuries much earlier than Baggio's). Baggio may have been one of the 16 most talented players. However, he didn't achieve enough (2 league titles in years where he didn't hit double -digit league goals and no Champions League silverware) to place high on this list.
Zow
Footballguy
Zow
Footballguy
To defend myself I believe I took the 1967 Cardinals after them as the last pick in the category....
Huge difference in value though.