By Alex Cohen-Smith
Over the past few months the Yankees have clearly pushed themselves ahead of the rest of baseball. Yes, you can make an argument for a few other teams (Cardinals, Dodgers, Phillies, Angels), but with a record of 27-9 since the All-Star Break, and having won 16 of their last 20 games, it’s tough to look the other way.
But is this team great? We throw this word around often when describing teams who are succeeding during a period of time. Is a team that wins a championship always great? Or are they just lucky enough to be hot at the right time? If the Devil Rays last season, or the Rockies the season before that, had won their championships, would we consider them great? Were last year’s Phillies great? Not when you look at teams like the Reds, A’s, Dodgers and Yankees of their championship heydays.
So I decided to put this to the test. And since I lent my time machine to my younger sister, I went to Whatifsports.com so I could simulate a few games for myself. First I simulated a fair 5 game series between last year’s Phills and the Big Red Machine of 1975, the lineup that contained Joe Morgan, Pete Rose and Johnny Bench, just to name a few.
Three games later and it was over. No matter what way you look at it 9-5, 9-4, 8-7, is still a clean sweep. So I chose to move on from the Phillies and give 2007 Red Sox a chance against the 1927 “Murder’s Row” Yankees team. In a best-of-five series it went down to the wire, but the Yankees came out on top 6-5, 7-17, 16-3, 7-9, 9-2 behind seven home runs from Babe Ruth and five from Lou Gehrig.
I stopped there, not wanting to see any more of these modern “great” teams get dismantled before my eyes. Luckily the site didn’t have the option of plugging in 2009 teams yet, so I didn’t have to see what would happen to this year’s Yankees. However the results of the 2007 Red Sox and 2008 Phillies does beg the question: Is there a real great team in baseball right now? Feel free to comment and tell me what you think
steinersports
Eric: Autograph Handler
Bald Vinny
costelloswingsforthefences
Colby Brin
Wow, great article! I’ve been thinking about this question for quite awhile. It’s hard to quantify what a great team is, especially when they fail to win the world series. Were the 2001 Seattle Mariners a great team? With the exceptions of names like Ichiro (Rookie) and Edgar Martinez, the team lacked major star talent. However, with a major league record 116 wins, it’s hard to deny their “great” status. Based on sample size alone, it seems far more impressive and “great” to set the regular season win record, than to win an annual World Series. What are your thoughts?
That is a great point Martin. It’s difficult to judge a team like Seattle. Was what they did in 2001 great? Of course it was, that can not be denied. That being said, it is my opinion that still were not a great team. While that had 4 guys that hit over .300 the other five starters hit under .270 (this is with the lineup listed by Baseball-Reference.com that has Al Martin listed ahead in the depth chart of Stan Javier and Mark McLemore). The power on the team wasn’t great either besides the steroid riddled Bret Boone no one broke thirty homers. As for the pitching…..the pitching was…..let’s go with lucky. The five starters (Garcia, Sele, Moyer, Abbott and Halama) all arguably had the best season of their respective careers during 2001. Their bullpen was great, even if you look at the guys who barely got any time (Ryan Franklin and Brian Fuentes) they’re now both two of the more dominant closers in the game. Had they gone on to win the series that year….I might be giving you a different side of the argument.
Hello Alex-
I really enjoyed your article. You are one of the best sports bloggers I have come across in my day. As a 75 year old Professor of the Arts I really enjoyed your tone and message presented here.
Well done, chap.
I think at the heart of the issue, which you allude to, is the fact that baseball’s playoff format allows for a team to get hot and win it all. Whereas, in the regular season, ephemeral streaks of glory won’t equate to greatness as the duration of a season will bring a team’s flaws to light. The problem is the playoffs don’t reward what it takes to be successful in the regular season. The regular season is a marathon with few off days, while the playoffs is a sprint with more frequent off days. As such, a team two games over .500 can sneak in and if they have two great pitchers, pitch them enough times to win the whole thing, or if their bats heat up they can ride them to victory. With the system of a regular season and playoffs which are nonaligned, judging who is great and who isn’t (greatness being subjective in its own right)is further clouded. Unfortunately, I don’t think we’ll find any answers in a game simulator.
Alex,
I think you make plenty of valid points about the best teams not always being great. What that means to me is, for the first time in about 30 years, baseball has reached parity amongst the upper echelons of the league. Even though parity may not produce record breaking stats or historic seasons, it clearly makes the league better as a whole. For example, look at the NFL, the salary cap has made it so that a team can rise from last to first in just a season or two, something that is nearly impossible to do in baseball. This keeps the fan base energized and makes the season more exciting because you never know what team will be this season’s Arizona Cardinals. Ultimately, I think the question you posed about great teams versus good championship teams is a legitimate one, but the tougher question that every league must answer is whether it is better
to have a singular great team or have great competition between many very good teams.
Dlatt