12 Jan 10
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.
12 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by utherpendragonDo you mean the most consistent team throughout the decade or the best individual teams?
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.
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.
12 Jan 10
Originally posted by sh76I 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
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.
13 Jan 10
2 edits
Originally posted by utherpendragonThe 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 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.
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.
13 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by utherpendragonThe 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 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
I'll take the 1970 O's as the "team of the 70s" but it's close between them and the '75 Reds.
13 Jan 10
Originally posted by sh76That was a great O's team, thats for sure. The 69" Amazing Mets handled them though.
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.
13 Jan 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonAnything can happen in a short series.
That was a great O's team, thats for sure. The 69" Amazing Mets handled them though.
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.
13 Jan 10
Originally posted by sh76I agree. I find it next to impossible to gamble on w/any accuracy.
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.
15 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Luck 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.
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.
- Joined
- 20 Oct 02
- Moves
- 599502
31 Jan 10
Originally posted by sh76Great team. Frank and Brooksie. Palmer, Cuellar, Dobson, and McNally. 4 20 game winners! Has that been done since?
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.
31 Jan 10
Originally posted by sh76"Luck" is normally considered the result of random chance. I don't think "luck" is a significant factor in baseball (or any sport).
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.
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.
01 Feb 10
Originally posted by no1marauderWhether a hard hit ground ball turns into a double play or a 2 RBI single can often turn on random chance.
"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.