PDA

View Full Version : mlb network top 40 teams since 1961


forrestg
01-22-2011, 12:09 PM
Somehow, I thought that this would somehow be a legitimate accounting of the top 40 teams. I, of course, wondered where our 2005 whitesox would rank. I didn't haved to wait long. We were 39 on the countdown. Even though we swept we were put behind nearly everyone else. one thing they said we were lucky with homers from unlikely sources. Is their a bias?

It'sADunnBomb
01-22-2011, 12:15 PM
Not really any bias. There's not one White Sox fan who knew Podsednik or Blum were gonna hit game winners? No one. The 2005 Sox were no doubt good, but we also had a ton of luck in my opinion.

PKalltheway
01-22-2011, 12:19 PM
Meh. I'm not really worried about where the '05 Sox rank on some arbitrary list. I know how great they were. Besides, while they had a phenomenal season, I don't think they quite stack up to some of the other great teams of the last 50 years, like the '61 Yankees, '70 Orioles, '76 Reds, etc.

Bob Roarman
01-22-2011, 12:44 PM
You also may as well have been playing a different game going back 50 years. These "Best of" lists in every sport, whether it's column, a TV show, they are just time wasters. Something to stick in the time slot, something to meet a deadline, that's all.

TheVulture
01-22-2011, 03:28 PM
How many teams in the last 40 years have led the league wire to wire and proceeded to drub their playoff competition 11-1?

Who cares if you like the way the team was constructed, you can't argue with results.

PalehosePlanet
01-22-2011, 11:36 PM
I remember Peter Gammons saying that we were in the company of the '99 and '00 Yankees and the '89 A's as the best teams of the last 20 years.

This slight is beyond ridiculous.

HomeFish
01-23-2011, 10:47 AM
Random homers is a fair criticism of the 2005 White Sox. But the pitching staff deserves infinite credit.

SOXSINCE'70
01-27-2011, 11:42 AM
I didn't haved to wait long. We were 39 on the countdown.

And numbers 1-38 were the sCrUBS, Yankees, Braves or Red Sox.:rolleyes:

Hitmen77
01-27-2011, 12:15 PM
Somehow, I thought that this would somehow be a legitimate accounting of the top 40 teams. I, of course, wondered where our 2005 whitesox would rank. I didn't haved to wait long. We were 39 on the countdown. Even though we swept we were put behind nearly everyone else. one thing they said we were lucky with homers from unlikely sources. Is their a bias?

I don't know if 39th is reasonable or not, but I hate when people dismiss the Sox success by saying they were "lucky". Results are results - just because they didn't look as good to people "on paper" before the games were played doesn't diminish what they accomplished in 2005.

TomBradley72
01-27-2011, 12:25 PM
Random homers is a fair criticism of the 2005 White Sox. But the pitching staff deserves infinite credit.

History is filled with random/lesser known players who stepped up in the World Series- Howard Ehmke, Dusty Rhodes, Gene Tenace (at the time), Brian Doyle, etc.

That's exactly what makes a great team- the 24th or 25th guys on the roster making an impact.

The fact that Blum and Podsednik had key home runs in the 2005 World Series does not diminish the greatness of the team- it reinforces it.

Just like 99 wins does, going 11-1 in the post season does along with going wire to wire in first place.

Were they one of the greatest teams over a multiple year period? Absolutely not.

Were they one of the greatest teams in a single season? Absolutely yes.

WSox597
01-28-2011, 07:00 PM
I didn't see the list, but somebody please tell me that there are no Cubs teams on that list.

It can't be, in a logical world. No Cubs team in my life has ever come close to achieving what the 2005 Sox did. Period.

Yankees, Reds and Dodgers I can understand. The A's, Braves and Orioles I can understand. But not the Cubs.

cards press box
01-28-2011, 08:52 PM
39th is ridiculous. It really is. Consider this:

1. 2005 Sox broke the 1955 Dodgers' record for consecutive games with a lead to begin the season.

2. 2005 Sox go wire-to-wire in first place. Only 5 teams ('27 Yankees, '55 Dodgers, '84 Tigers, '90 Reds and '05 Sox) on this list.

3. 2005 Sox go wire-to-wire in first place and lead their league in wins. Only 4 teams ('27 Yankees, '55 Dodgers, '84 Tigers and '05 Sox) on this list.

4. 2005 Sox go wire-to-wire in first place, lead their league in wins and sweep the World Series. Only 2 teams ('27 Yankees and '05 Sox) on this list.

5. 2005 Sox end the season with a finishing kick of 16-1. The only team to top this is the great '70 Orioles team with 17-1.

6. Four White Sox starters pitch consecutive complete game wins in the post season. The '05 Sox are the first team to do that since the '27 Yankees. What's more, the '05 Sox are the first team to pitch four consecutive complete games in the postseason since the '57 Yankees.

39th? Who made that list and what were they smoking?

Brian26
01-28-2011, 10:02 PM
I remember Peter Gammons saying that we were in the company of the '99 and '00 Yankees and the '89 A's as the best teams of the last 20 years.

This slight is beyond ridiculous.

Yep. Gammons said that on the ESPN stage in Houston during the post-game wrap after Game Four. He also mentioned the Sox as one of only a handful of teams in history to lead wire-to-wire. He gave the Sox massive kudos that night, and, for that, I'll always respect him.

I saw the show last night, and #39 was a joke.

pythons007
01-29-2011, 11:42 AM
39th is ridiculous. It really is. Consider this:

1. 2005 Sox broke the 1955 Dodgers' record for consecutive games with a lead to begin the season.

2. 2005 Sox go wire-to-wire in first place. Only 5 teams ('27 Yankees, '55 Dodgers, '84 Tigers, '90 Reds and '05 Sox) on this list.

3. 2005 Sox go wire-to-wire in first place and lead their league in wins. Only 4 teams ('27 Yankees, '55 Dodgers, '84 Tigers and '05 Sox) on this list.

4. 2005 Sox go wire-to-wire in first place, lead their league in wins and sweep the World Series. Only 2 teams ('27 Yankees and '05 Sox) on this list.

5. 2005 Sox end the season with a finishing kick of 16-1. The only team to top this is the great '70 Orioles team with 17-1.

6. Four White Sox starters pitch consecutive complete game wins in the post season. The '05 Sox are the first team to do that since the '27 Yankees. What's more, the '05 Sox are the first team to pitch four consecutive complete games in the postseason since the '57 Yankees.

39th? Who made that list and what were they smoking?

This is exactly what I remember what that team achieved. If you're not a NYY, BOS, one of the mutiple NY teams before they moved, or the LAD you aren't worth nothing for crap. I didn't take a look at the article, but I'll bet the Boston team in 2004 was in the top 5.

WhiteSox5187
01-29-2011, 01:39 PM
This is exactly what I remember what that team achieved. If you're not a NYY, BOS, one of the mutiple NY teams before they moved, or the LAD you aren't worth nothing for crap. I didn't take a look at the article, but I'll bet the Boston team in 2004 was in the top 5.

They weren't in the top five, but they were higher than the '05 White Sox. I don't think the '05 necessarily belonged in the top ten or even top fifteen, but there were lots of teams that were mentioned that we were better than.

downstairs
01-30-2011, 03:31 PM
Yep. Gammons said that on the ESPN stage in Houston during the post-game wrap after Game Four. He also mentioned the Sox as one of only a handful of teams in history to lead wire-to-wire. He gave the Sox massive kudos that night, and, for that, I'll always respect him.

I saw the show last night, and #39 was a joke.

Gammons may *talk* Boston a bit much, but he's an overall smart and unbiased guy. The 2005 White Sox started off on an almost MLB record pace, and didn't really let up. The "collapse" everyone talked about was much more about Cleveland hitting a record pace mid-summer. And Gammons knew that.

Red Barchetta
01-30-2011, 03:50 PM
I don't know if 39th is reasonable or not, but I hate when people dismiss the Sox success by saying they were "lucky". Results are results - just because they didn't look as good to people "on paper" before the games were played doesn't diminish what they accomplished in 2005.

I agree. A few points people tend to forgot about the 2005 season...

(1) - Even though the SOX held off a hot Cleveland team, we ended the season on a tear and only lost one playoff game after sweeping Cleveland the final series of the regular season.

(2) - Cleveland only had to win one game out of the final regular season series to make the post-season as the Wild Card. The SOX basically gave them a golden opportunity to secure a post-season birth the final series by basically fielding a minor league team the day after they clinched the division in Detroit.

(3) - The only reason the defending World Series champion Boston Red Sox made the post season in 2005 was due to the above collapse of the Cleveland Indians the final weekend of the season.

(4) - The SOX won the World Series without one pitcher winning 20 games and without one hitting batting over .300! It was truly a team of grinders each contributing to the success of the team.

:bandance:

soxfanreggie
02-03-2011, 10:46 AM
I remember Peter Gammons saying that we were in the company of the '99 and '00 Yankees and the '89 A's as the best teams of the last 20 years.

This slight is beyond ridiculous.

It's all in who makes the list and what criteria they use. We won the 2005 World Championship, and let's win another. I could care less if they say we're the best team or the 100th best team of the last 100 years as long as we're hoisting that trophy!

cards press box
02-12-2011, 04:06 AM
Somehow, I thought that this would somehow be a legitimate accounting of the top 40 teams. I, of course, wondered where our 2005 whitesox would rank. I didn't haved to wait long. We were 39 on the countdown. Even though we swept we were put behind nearly everyone else. one thing they said we were lucky with homers from unlikely sources. Is their a bias?

I watched the MLB Network's Hot Stove show tonight and they ranked the 9 most dominant teams in the past 30 years and guess what? The 2005 White Sox made that list too, coming in 9th.

All of this raises a question: if the 2005 Sox are 39th on MLB's list of the 40 top teams since 1961, how are they also one of the 9 most dominant teams since 1980? The answer, I suppose, is that different people made these lists. I do wonder, however, whether some people from MLB network read this thread.