Best MLB Teams of alltime

[byco42]

You mean teams that have the best records don't always win? But if you win a WS you were the best. IMO.

I can't sign that with the post-season inviting 45 teams. I exaggerate.

 

[Mitchrapp]

I can't sign that with the post-season inviting 45 teams. I exaggerate.

Huh? It's far exaggeration. With some of the teams you mentioned there was only 2-4 teams, that's total for both leagues.

 

[tbone413]

I just don't thing a manager can make a team into a juggernaut. GM gets the players, or drafts them and players perform. Plus you have a pitching coach and hitting coach. How much can a manager help? They don't make anyone better. Lineup and coaching decisions during a game is pretty much all they got.

I agree a good GM trumps a good Manager, but I also think there is more to being a manager than just 'X's and O's'. Guys like Maddon and Leyland in 2006 can totally change a clubhouse culture and take a team to the next level.

The Cubs have had Theo Epstein as GM since 2011. His first 4 years they showed very little improvement (granted, he had a lot of work to do as the team was old and bad). In comes Maddon and the team suddenly wins 20 more games than the previous year, and is on pace to exceed that this season.

Honestly its kind of like the Tigers to a degree...Dombrowski joined the Tigers in 2002, and his first 4 years they struggled badly (because just like the Cubs, the Tigers were awful, even worse off). Leyland is hired in 2006 and the Tigers improve by 24 games and make the WS. Obviously that team wasnt able to consistently win games, but they had a solid run under Leyland. Bring in Ausmus and the team is now average to slightly below average. Sure lots of the 'core' guys are older now, but the overall talent level on this team is I think better than the 2006 team, which won 95 games. So I do think Managers can make a direct impact on a team.

This is just my thoughts though - im sure others disagree, which is cool with me.

 

[Mitchrapp]

I agree a good GM trumps a good Manager, but I also think there is more to being a manager than just 'X's and O's'. Guys like Maddon and Leyland in 2006 can totally change a clubhouse culture and take a team to the next level.

The Cubs have had Theo Epstein as GM since 2011. His first 4 years they showed very little improvement (granted, he had a lot of work to do as the team was old and bad). In comes Maddon and the team suddenly wins 20 more games than the previous year, and is on pace to exceed that this season.

Honestly its kind of like the Tigers to a degree...Dombrowski joined the Tigers in 2002, and his first 4 years they struggled badly (because just like the Cubs, the Tigers were awful, even worse off). Leyland is hired in 2006 and the Tigers improve by 24 games and make the WS. Obviously that team wasnt able to consistently win games, but they had a solid run under Leyland. Bring in Ausmus and the team is now average to slightly below average. Sure lots of the 'core' guys are older now, but the overall talent level on this team is I think better than the 2006 team, which won 95 games. So I do think Managers can make a direct impact on a team.

This is just my thoughts though - im sure others disagree, which is cool with me.

It probably has to do with the fact they were awful. It takes a few years and hope to trade right and draft right. As far having the right manager, I agree it can help. But to take them from bad to Juggernaut I don't see it..

:cheers:

 

[tbone413]

As for this list...which is what this thread was for - I am not really a fan of it...especially because I feel like they have undervalued the 84 Tigers team big time. That irks me hahaha

No 30: 1995 Cleveland Indians (101-44 - Lost in WS) 840 Runs, 607 Runs Allowed (+233)
No 33: 2009 NY Yankees (103-59 - Won WS) 915 Runs, 753 Runs Allowed (+162)
No 39: 2001 Oakland As (102-60 - Lost in ALDS) 884 Runs, 645 Runs Allowed (+239)
No 57: 2002 Oakland As (103-59 - Lost in ALDS) 800 Runs, 654 Runs Allowed (+146)
No 64: 2004 Boston Red Sox (98-64 - Won WS) 949 Runs, 768 Runs Allowed (+181)
No 66: 2007 Boston Red Sox (96-66 - Won WS) 867 Runs, 657 Runs Allowed (+210)
No 76: 2011 Philadelphia Phillies (102-60 - Lost in NLDS) 713 Runs, 529 Runs Allowed (+184)
No 77: 2004 Cardinals (105-57 - Lost (Swept) in WS) 855 Runs, 659 Runs Allowed (+196)
No 80: 1984 Detroit Tigers (104-58 - Won WS) 829 Runs, 643 Runs Allowed (+186)

Some of these teams the case can be made they were 'better' than the 84 Tigers, but 40-50 spots above them? I dont think so. Then there are the teams who didnt even make it out of the Divisional Series and are still considered better than the Tigers? Ya...not buying that Shit

 

[Rebbiv]

I agree a good GM trumps a good Manager, but I also think there is more to being a manager than just 'X's and O's'. Guys like Maddon and Leyland in 2006 can totally change a clubhouse culture and take a team to the next level.

The Cubs have had Theo Epstein as GM since 2011. His first 4 years they showed very little improvement (granted, he had a lot of work to do as the team was old and bad). In comes Maddon and the team suddenly wins 20 more games than the previous year, and is on pace to exceed that this season.

Honestly its kind of like the Tigers to a degree...Dombrowski joined the Tigers in 2002, and his first 4 years they struggled badly (because just like the Cubs, the Tigers were awful, even worse off). Leyland is hired in 2006 and the Tigers improve by 24 games and make the WS. Obviously that team wasnt able to consistently win games, but they had a solid run under Leyland. Bring in Ausmus and the team is now average to slightly below average. Sure lots of the 'core' guys are older now, but the overall talent level on this team is I think better than the 2006 team, which won 95 games. So I do think Managers can make a direct impact on a team.

This is just my thoughts though - im sure others disagree, which is cool with me.

Actually, Jed Hoyer has been the Cubs GM since late 2011. Prior to that, Hoyer was the Padres GM between 2010-2011.

IMHO, talent wins. Period. A manager puts those players in the best possible position to win, that is all. A team won't win too many more games just because of who the manager is. They can lose more games, but only when the players "mutiny" on the manager or don't put forth max effort. On average, the difference between an average manager and a great manager might be 1-2 wins, given the same talent.