1. Hy-Brasil
    Joined
    24 Feb '09
    Moves
    175970
    12 Jan '10 17:02
    I know I am dating myself but looking back I love this era of baseball.
    Who was the best team to play in the 1970's ?
    1. Yankees
    2.Dodgers
    3. A's
    4.Reds
    5. others?
    I am partial to the big Red machine myself although the A's were great in the earlier 70's.
    That was one hell of a squad the Reds had put together.Rose,Bench,Morgan,Foster,Conception to name a few.
  2. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    12 Jan '10 18:221 edit
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    I know I am dating myself but looking back I love this era of baseball.
    Who was the best team to play in the 1970's ?
    1. Yankees
    2.Dodgers
    3. A's
    4.Reds
    5. others?
    I am partial to the big Red machine myself although the A's were great in the earlier 70's.
    That was one hell of a squad the Reds had put together.Rose,Bench,Morgan,Foster,Conception to name a few.
    Do you mean the most consistent team throughout the decade or the best individual teams?

    If the latter, I'd say:

    1) Robinsons/Powell/Palmer Orioles (1970/71)
    2) Big Red Machine (1975/76 Reds)
    3) Hunter/Jackson/Blue A's (1972-74)
    4) Bronx Zoo Yankees (76-78)
    5) Late 70s Dodgers

    Why the O's ahead of the Big Red Machine? Better records and better run differentials. Much better starting pitching. The Reds had the famous lineup; but Robinson/Robinson/Powell/Grich etc. was nothing to sneeze at either.

    Most consistent performers throughout the decade?

    Gee, I don't know. Orioles, maybe. Great early and consistently good throughout.
  3. Hy-Brasil
    Joined
    24 Feb '09
    Moves
    175970
    12 Jan '10 23:37
    Originally posted by sh76
    Do you mean the most consistent team throughout the decade or the best individual teams?

    If the latter, I'd say:

    1) Robinsons/Powell/Palmer Orioles (1970/71)
    2) Big Red Machine (1975/76 Reds)
    3) Hunter/Jackson/Blue A's (1972-74)
    4) Bronx Zoo Yankees (76-78)
    5) Late 70s Dodgers

    Why the O's ahead of the Big Red Machine? Better records and better run ...[text shortened]... decade?

    Gee, I don't know. Orioles, maybe. Great early and consistently good throughout.
    I was just going for the best team so to speak. Lets say you match any two up , best 4 out of 7 who would come out on top at the end.Their was some damm good teams back then you got to admit
  4. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    13 Jan '10 02:262 edits
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    I know I am dating myself but looking back I love this era of baseball.
    Who was the best team to play in the 1970's ?
    1. Yankees
    2.Dodgers
    3. A's
    4.Reds
    5. others?
    I am partial to the big Red machine myself although the A's were great in the earlier 70's.
    That was one hell of a squad the Reds had put together.Rose,Bench,Morgan,Foster,Conception to name a few.
    The Big Red Machine dominated the 70's. At the same time, however, if you were to go back and assess the shear talent that was on that team and compare it to other teams during that decade, you would almost have to come to the conclusion that they under achieved. They should have won far more world series than they did.

    I guess the sadest aspect of that era for me is realizing that it can never be again. Now baseball is dominated the big market teams. Small market teams like the Reds will never see the light of day again.
  5. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    13 Jan '10 04:581 edit
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    I was just going for the best team so to speak. Lets say you match any two up , best 4 out of 7 who would come out on top at the end.Their was some damm good teams back then you got to admit
    The 1969-71 O's were comparable to the Big Red Machine; maybe slightly better. The A's won 3 titles, but in all other aspects were inferior to those 2 teams.

    I'll take the 1970 O's as the "team of the 70s" but it's close between them and the '75 Reds.
  6. Hy-Brasil
    Joined
    24 Feb '09
    Moves
    175970
    13 Jan '10 12:57
    Originally posted by sh76
    The 1969-71 O's were comparable to the Big Red Machine; maybe slightly better. The A's won 3 titles, but in all other aspects were inferior to those 2 teams.

    I'll take the 1970 O's as the "team of the 70s" but it's close between them and the '75 Reds.
    That was a great O's team, thats for sure. The 69" Amazing Mets handled them though.
  7. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    13 Jan '10 14:45
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    That was a great O's team, thats for sure. The 69" Amazing Mets handled them though.
    Anything can happen in a short series.

    Most baseballs fans don't really like to admit this, but there's so much luck involved in baseball that the results of a single game or even a single series are insufficient to determine the strength of a team. Unlike the other sports (NFL, NHL, etc.), where the greatness of a team can be measured in large part by post-season success, in baseball, regular season performance is a far greater indicator of how good a team is.
  8. Hy-Brasil
    Joined
    24 Feb '09
    Moves
    175970
    13 Jan '10 15:07
    Originally posted by sh76
    Anything can happen in a short series.

    Most baseballs fans don't really like to admit this, but there's so much luck involved in baseball that the results of a single game or even a single series are insufficient to determine the strength of a team. Unlike the other sports (NFL, NHL, etc.), where the greatness of a team can be measured in large part by post ...[text shortened]... ess, in baseball, regular season performance is a far greater indicator of how good a team is.
    I agree. I find it next to impossible to gamble on w/any accuracy.
  9. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    15 Jan '10 01:381 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    Anything can happen in a short series.

    Most baseballs fans don't really like to admit this, but there's so much luck involved in baseball that the results of a single game or even a single series are insufficient to determine the strength of a team. Unlike the other sports (NFL, NHL, etc.), where the greatness of a team can be measured in large part by post ...[text shortened]... ess, in baseball, regular season performance is a far greater indicator of how good a team is.
    Luck in baseball? Maybe in short series, but if you look at wins/loses and payroll over the long haul of the season you will soon see that one can buy a winning season in large part. Of course, a winning season may not bring a playoff birth, but by in large teams are able to buy their way into the playoffs these days.
  10. Joined
    20 Oct '02
    Moves
    546475
    31 Jan '10 07:31
    Originally posted by sh76
    The 1969-71 O's were comparable to the Big Red Machine; maybe slightly better. The A's won 3 titles, but in all other aspects were inferior to those 2 teams.

    I'll take the 1970 O's as the "team of the 70s" but it's close between them and the '75 Reds.
    Great team. Frank and Brooksie. Palmer, Cuellar, Dobson, and McNally. 4 20 game winners! Has that been done since?
  11. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    31 Jan '10 14:28
    Originally posted by Bobla45
    Great team. Frank and Brooksie. Palmer, Cuellar, Dobson, and McNally. 4 20 game winners! Has that been done since?
    Nope; never has and unless the game changes dramatically, never will.

    Getting one 20 game winner is enough of a feat these days.
  12. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39593
    31 Jan '10 16:03
    Originally posted by sh76
    Anything can happen in a short series.

    Most baseballs fans don't really like to admit this, but there's so much luck involved in baseball that the results of a single game or even a single series are insufficient to determine the strength of a team. Unlike the other sports (NFL, NHL, etc.), where the greatness of a team can be measured in large part by post ...[text shortened]... ess, in baseball, regular season performance is a far greater indicator of how good a team is.
    "Luck" is normally considered the result of random chance. I don't think "luck" is a significant factor in baseball (or any sport).

    Individual statistical fluctuations are certainly a large factor, however. Obviously these are more likely to be evened out over a 162 game season than in a best of 7.
  13. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    01 Feb '10 19:00
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    "Luck" is normally considered the result of random chance. I don't think "luck" is a significant factor in baseball (or any sport).

    Individual statistical fluctuations are certainly a large factor, however. Obviously these are more likely to be evened out over a 162 game season than in a best of 7.
    Whether a hard hit ground ball turns into a double play or a 2 RBI single can often turn on random chance.
Back to Top