the 01 Mariners
or the
98 Yankees
Printable View
the 01 Mariners
or the
98 Yankees
I voted Yankees mainly because of their youth.
And I like the depth of their rotation and pen over the Mariners.
although having a 27 year old Suzuki would be awesome!
Granted I should say imagine you do not know the future's of any of the players, just base it on the players you have and the numbers they put up.
I voted the Yankees as well.
Because they have Derek Jeter.
In all seriousness, the team had more probability of repeating their performance.
Considering the Mariners sh*t the bed in the playoffs to a Yankees team with many of the same players, I'll go with New York.
Has to be the Yankees, they proved to be better.
The Yankees had a good mix of old and young and showed that they could repeat every year. The Mariners had a lot of veterans who happened to string together great seasons all at once, and not much youth.
Just picked the Mariners because I hate the Yankees
Not sure what this question means, like if I was playing OOTP or Mogul, if this is the case, I choose neither, I like the challenge in rebuilding a team and not starting off with a great roster.
I think it means in real life (IRL!)Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
Well then Seattle. To me this is a pick your poison cuz I dont care for either team much, but I loathe Seattle less.Quote:
Originally Posted by 200tang
I hate the Yankees, but I would still pick them. There are some very good core players between the ages of 24 and 29 at crucial positions that the Mariners can't come close to matching: Posada C, Knoblauch 2B, Jeter SS, Williams CF, Pettitte SP, Rivera RP, Mendoza RP. What do they say about championship teams and strength up the middle? Yeah, it's all there.
People forget how good Knoblauch was before he became Knoblock-head (one of the nastiest, cruelest back-page headlines ever) and it was this year that was the start of his demise as he went from being a spectacular defensive/offensive 2B to a slightly below average defender and an average hitter. He would have one more solid offensive season, during which his defense fell off the map and then his offense dropped off, he was moved to LF, off to KC and finally out of the league at age 33.
Shane Spencer and Homer Bush had unbelievable offensive output in extremely limited sample sizes and heck even Hideki "The Fat Pussy (as in full of pus, not what you were thinking) Toad" Irabu had a very good year. The master of the hidden ball trick Mike Lowell would emerge as the best of the young guys that didn't play much.
Carlos Guillen SS, David Bell 3B, Mike Cameron CF, Ichiro Suzuki RF, Freddy Garcia SP, Joel Pineiro SP (yes he was very good at a very young age and then blah!), Ryan Franklin RP, and Brian Fuentes RP are nice but not in the same class as the Yankees core. That this team was living in the shadows of Randy Johnson, Ken Griffey Jr. and Alex Rodriguez and still won 116 says a lot about how good they were. Also hanging around but not getting into many games was 2005 White Sox playoff hero Scott Podsednik. The Mariners probably have the edge in quantity, but definitely not in quality of young and in their prime players.
As much as it pains me to do it, I'll paraphrase John Sterling: "Comparison over! Yankees win! Theeeeeee Yankees win!"
don't forget about Chuck's two infamous post season plays
1. the lonnie smith fake out
2. the arguing the call at first while a guy scored.
@skudplyr: re: Utley: Greatest 2B of all-time?
Whoa there! Hold your horses! Cool your jets! Greatest 2B in the game today? Absolutely, but not all-time. Come back in about 10-15 years and we'll see.
You see, when you look at offense plus defense at 2B, you've got people like Rogers Hornsby, Eddie Collins, Nap Lajoie, Joe Morgan, Charlie Gehringer, Frankie Frisch, Lou Whitaker, Bobby Grich, Craig Biggio, and Robbie Alomar.
I think Utley will blow past positions 6 through 10. It's just a matter of getting playing time. Gehringer will be tough, but I think he can get by him too. I'll be surprised if he does more than break into the top 5, but that is some very select company to be in. I love his swing, his defense, in fact there's nothing not to love about Chase Utley, but let's let him play the games OK? ;)
and seeing how Utley is already 30. Gehringer got really good from the ages of 28-37....something that probably will not happen to Utley. He would have to defy the chances of slowing down to finish ahead of Gehringer. Chances are, he is at his peak, the question, is how long will he sustain this peak? If he plays like this until he is 37, sure, he passes Gehringer pretty easily. If he plays like this another two or three years, and then has a normal decline comparable to other historic second basemen, he would likely fall somewhere behind Girch and around Alomar and Biggio.Quote:
Originally Posted by actionjackson
No way he is catching Hornsby, Collins or Lajoe.
and there are still players like Jeff Kent and Ryne Sandberg that i think he compares more to.
in fact, after further review, i think i am going to say that Utley's career will rival Sandberg's when it's all said and done statistically both offensively and defensively.
best of all time? not a chance.
best of all time in a phillies fans eyes? possibly
Top 20 of all time thus far? Very likey
but hey, the good news......at least i saved some money on my car insurance.
Barring a quick collapse, Utley will sail past Sandberg.
think so? look at where sandberg was at age 30. Great year, similar body type. If he plays out his 30's like Sandberg did, i think we have a fair debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Kent's defense really betrayed him. After that top 10 according to WAR (because it's simple) you've got Jackie Robinson, Ryne Sandberg, Willie Randolph, Jeff Kent and Joe Gordon.
If utley can replicate his last five years over the next five years....you have a hall of fame second basemen....who is somewhere in the top 10....ahead of sanberg yes, but i don't know if he will be able to play to that level over the next five years. I think he will at best end somewhere behind Girch, ahead of alomar and Biggio.
but right now, to this point of age, i think he is more similar to Sanberg than he is to players like Alomar and Biggio. Which isn't exactly a negative thing.
ah, i forgot about Gordon and Randolph!
Good players. Where is Morgan in lifetime WAR?
Sandberg was effectively done at 32.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
Sandberg's best 6 years by OPS+ (his 7th best was a far drop off at 111):
146, 140, 140, 138, 134, 132
Utley's five full seasons so far:
146, 136, 135, 132, 125
In WARP3, Sandberg's career total was 69.1. Utley so far is at 39.9. Utley's kept a steady 8 win pace for the last 3 seasons. He'll pass Sandberg with just a couple more seasons at or near his established level.
But if he collaspes like Sanberg did in 93, they would really rival each other though. If he can sustain his production another 5 years, then yes....as i said....he would surpass him. But I don't think he can reach the top 5. I think he can reach Girch.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Whoops! Forgot Bid McPhee and Billy Herman between Jeff Kent and Joe Gordon. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by actionjackson
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
103.5, just below Lajoie's 104.1.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
glad we agree ;)
:p
Hey maybe he will play at this level for another 10 years and we can talk about him being a top 5!
He'll never be better than Jackie Robinson. He was the greatest player ever.
Kthx bye phillie fans.
Ok, I fail
This one is so easy it's hard to see why you even asked.
The '98 Yankees have to be in the discussion of the best team of all time. They are certainly the best of the current generation.
The greatest difference in the the two teams? The Bullpens. Seattle's pen was below average. The Yankee pen in '98 was superb.
The 2001 Mariners also have to be in that discussion...Quote:
Originally Posted by OldYankFan
The Yankees bullpen wasn't that much different than the Mariners one, honestly. Obviously Mariano Rivera makes the Yankees one better, but the Yankees had 3 primary guys - Rivera, Mendoza and Stanton. Rivera was obviously amazing. Mendoza was good and soaked up a ton of innings and also started. Stanton was not good. Graeme Lloyd did a superb job as a lefty specialist, but only threw 37 innings. Jeff Nelson, Darren Holmes and Mike Buddie were the other relievers to throw 40+ innings. Nelson and Holmes were fine but nothing special. Buddie was poor.
The Mariners primary relievers were Kazuhiro Sasaki, Arthur Rhodes, Jose Panigua, Ryan Franklin, Jeff Nelson and Norm Charlton. Only Jose Panigua was poor. Rhodes was awesome, Sasaki was strong. Nelson, Charlton and Franklin were fine.
Really, they shape up pretty much equal except for Rivera who obviously pushes the Yankees ahead. I can't see the Mariners bullpen as below average no matter how hard I try.
The reason this question is so easy is simply because the core of the 1998 Yankees were all mainly in their 20's. The Mariners were an older squad. So, obviously, the Yankees would be the pick if you were looking to 'start a franchise.' Hindsight, of course, confirms that.
And they call it...Yankee love.
Look OYF, if I want that kind of analysis, I'll find a way to get YES network up here. Brutal. The margin between the two teams is actually razor thin, and if you were capable of removing your Yankee navy blue shades you'd be able to see that.
...However, the question was not "Which team was better?". The question was "Which team would you rather start a franchise with?" and that makes the gap widen in favour of the Yankees, due to as HGM mentioned their extremely solid and young players at the core, or up the middle, positions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
They shape up equal except for Rivera is kind of like saying "Other than that how was the play Mrs. Lincoln."Quote:
Originally Posted by actionjackson
And a Razor thin Margin? Well, if you disreguard the post season sure. The 98 Yanks, of course, won a World Championship and the 2001 Mariners lost in the League Championship Series to... oh yeah... the New York Yankees in 5 games.
A better margin is what happened in the succeeding years to each team. The Yanks won World Series in 99, 2000, and lost the Series in seven games in 2001. The most dominate streak in recent history.
The Mariners...2002 3rd place in their division, 10 games back, 2003 2nd place 3 GB, 2004 last place below .500.
I'll grant you the teams don't stay the same, but many of the Mariners players had career years in 01, their best player in 01, I'd say Brett Boone. Look were his career went in compared to the best player on the '98 Yanks, now that's a tougher call, Williams, Jeter or T. Martinez., None of the three had a flame out career like Boone.
I'm not going to pick this apart, but glossing over Mendoza as a guy who soaked up innings? He was 10 and 2 that year. Those were not all "Vulture" wins.
114 wins, the 54 Indians, the 98 Yankeess, the 01 Marniers. Just one came home with a trophy, thats why the 98 Yanks are in the discussion for best team ever and the Mariners and Indians are usually not.
And please don't confuse me with some bandwagon Yankee Fan. I became a fan in the late sixties when they stunk, bad. I guess I put a lot more emphasis on post season performance than others do.
5 games = everything.
You said the Mariners pen was below average. I was pointing out that they weren't. They both had solid pens. The Yankees had Rivera which made their pen better. That's all.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldYankFan
This is all just other ways of stating the correct answer is that the 1998 Yankees would be the better choice to start a franchise with.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldYanksFan
Usually the Mariners and Indians ARE in the discussion...at least every discussion I've ever seen .Quote:
Originally Posted by OldYanksFan
They may be in the Top 10, but Best? If we stop at 162 games, or (154) the 54 Indians have the best record ever. If we don't stop there. But why would anyone stop there? Those teams all didn't stop. So if we keep going too they have no way to top the 98 Yanks. 125 wins. No other team has done that.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Ok. The discussion of what the best team based on overall talent is is a bit more in-depth than just looking at the wins. I'll concede that the 1998 Yankees were the most successful team of all time, sure. Best, though? I don't know. Maybe. When it gets down to the best teams ever, it's so close that it can easily go either way.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldYankFan
Look at it this way - who was the most successful team in 2006? The Cardinals. They won the World Series. Were they the best team that year? Absolutely not. Apply this to an all-time discussion. The Yankees in 1998 were the most successful team ever. Were they the best team ever? Possibly.
I didn't say they were the best. Let us consider the Cubs of 1906 and 1907, the 39 Yankees, the 27 Yankees, the 32 Yankees, the Cincinati Reds 75. the 29 Athletics, the 1910 Giants, the 1902 Pirates, the 1970 Orioles. A great Regular season and a great post season together gets a team into the discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
There are a lot of teams in the discussion, which is why I think it's really an unanswerable question. I don't think that the 1954 Indians losing 4 games in October means they can't be included. They were a fantastic team. Losing 4 games doesn't make them worse than some other team from a completely different year. That would be pretty poor, lazy evaluation.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldYankFan
For a not lazy analysis :
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/arti...ams_ever.shtml
good job. I like the last line best.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldYankFan
Good job proving his point though.Quote:
Is there a truly conclusive answer for the question of best baseball team ever? No. It depends on what one considers important to a great team. Everyone's answer is different.
Edit : After actually reading through the article, I dislike the analysis a lot. I personally feel the post-season should be taken completely out of it, but the way they weigh it is just weird. Also, I dislike the way he does run scoring. Using ERA as a way to determine defense doesn't work.