1927 Yankees vs. 1998 Yankees (WSJ)

1927 Yankees vs. 1998 Yankees (WSJ)

Post by Hank Gillet » Mon, 19 Oct 1998 04:00:00


Allen Barra and Rob Neyer had another interesting article in Friday's Wall
Street Journal. They compared the 1998 Yankess with other great teams of
the past, including the 1927 Yankees. Their conclusion: "We believe the
1998 Yankees have a claim to being the best major-league baseball team of
all time."

Another claim was that of the 1927 Yankees roster, exactly two could break
the 1998 starting lineup or pitching rotation: Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig.

--
Hank Gillette

 
 
 

1927 Yankees vs. 1998 Yankees (WSJ)

Post by Robs » Tue, 20 Oct 1998 04:00:00


Quote:

> Allen Barra and Rob Neyer had another interesting article in Friday's Wall
> Street Journal. They compared the 1998 Yankess with other great teams of
> the past, including the 1927 Yankees. Their conclusion: "We believe the
> 1998 Yankees have a claim to being the best major-league baseball team of
> all time."

> Another claim was that of the 1927 Yankees roster, exactly two could break
> the 1998 starting lineup or pitching rotation: Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig.

Without looking it up, I would most likely take Tony Lazzeri over Chuck
Knoblauch, as well. Certainly I would if the criteria were only a single
season (Lazzeri '27 v. Knob '98); career wise, it would be a closer call.

I'd also have a hard time believing Hoyt and Pennock couldn't make the cut.

Seth.

--
Seth Robson, bunnyhop (at) slip (dot) net.
www (dot) bunnyhop (dot) com.

 
 
 

1927 Yankees vs. 1998 Yankees (WSJ)

Post by Corby Gilmo » Tue, 20 Oct 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> Allen Barra and Rob Neyer had another interesting article in Friday's Wall
> Street Journal. They compared the 1998 Yankess with other great teams of
> the past, including the 1927 Yankees. Their conclusion: "We believe the
> 1998 Yankees have a claim to being the best major-league baseball team of
> all time."

> Another claim was that of the 1927 Yankees roster, exactly two could break
> the 1998 starting lineup or pitching rotation: Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig.

  Bob Meusel over Curtis/Spencer/Raines et al.
  Waite Hoyt and Herb Pennock both over Andy Pettitte easily.
  Wilcy Moore would be #2 behind Rivera in the bullpen.
  Joe Torre couldnt carry Huggin's jockstrap as a manager.

--
                                           Corby Gilmore

                                           " The Natural"

 
 
 

1927 Yankees vs. 1998 Yankees (WSJ)

Post by Heinlei » Tue, 20 Oct 1998 04:00:00

Quote:


> > Allen Barra and Rob Neyer had another interesting article in Friday's Wall
> > Street Journal. They compared the 1998 Yankess with other great teams of
> > the past, including the 1927 Yankees. Their conclusion: "We believe the
> > 1998 Yankees have a claim to being the best major-league baseball team of
> > all time."

> > Another claim was that of the 1927 Yankees roster, exactly two could break
> > the 1998 starting lineup or pitching rotation: Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig.

>   Bob Meusel over Curtis/Spencer/Raines et al.
>   Waite Hoyt and Herb Pennock both over Andy Pettitte easily.
>   Wilcy Moore would be #2 behind Rivera in the bullpen.
>   Joe Torre couldnt carry Huggin's jockstrap as a manager.

    Despite being a Yankee fan, I've always thought the '27 Yankees were
a tad overrated (now don't jump on me ... we're talking about the
difference between being the greatest team of all time and just a damn
good team).<
    Sure we have Ruth and Gehrig, two of the great players in the game,
both having exceptional years (although neither had his best year).<
    But the '27 Yankees were also pretty mediocre at two key defensive
positions -- shortstop and catcher.<
    I know Koening had the best year of his career in '27, leading the
league in chances. But it was a year out o line with the rest of his
career.<
    The catching was a mess with Huggins juggling Pat Collins, Nig
Grabowski and Bengough all season.<
    At third base, Joe Dugan was a fair player in his prime who had
started his downward slide in '27 (.269/.329/.362 -- in a big offensive
year?).<
    Add in that there was little bench help.<
    The pitching staff was deep and effective, especially since you have
Wilcy Moore and George Pipgras having career years. But Hoyt and Pennock
were legit aces and Shocker, Shawkey and Reuther were all veterans who
had been stars who provided good innings.<
    Now I'm not saying the '27 Yankees were bad ... but the best of all
time? I don't think so. I like the '36-'39 Yankees better -- they were
deeper and more balanced.<
    As for the matchup between '27 and '98, I can't resist:<
    1B -- Gehrig gives the '27 Yankees a big edge on the '98 Yankees<
    2B -- Lazzeri, who was third in the league in HRS, in the top 10 in
SA and RBIs and good enough to play 20 games at SS, gets the edge over
Knoblock.<
    SS -- Big edge for Jeter over Koening.<
    3B -- Dugan would be the choice for career value, but Brosis was
better in '98 than Dugan in '27.<
    C -- Slight edge to Posada/Giraldi over Collins/Grabowski/Benbough
(who was hurt much of the year)<
    RF -- I love Paul O'Neil, but this is Babe Ruth we're talking
about.<
    CF -- Earl Combs led the league in hits, but didn't rank in the top
5 in BA and, of course, had no power. Bernie Williams gets a big edge --
even as a defensive outfielder (Combs could go get them but had no
arm).<
    LF -- Long Bob Meusel is probably the most underrated player on the
'27 Yanks. He didn't have his best year in '27, but he was seventh in
the league in SA and drove in 103 runs. Plus, he had the best arm in
baseball. The Yanks get credit for versatility with
Raines/Spencer/Curtis/Ledee, but the edge has to go to Meusal.<
    Starting pitching: I guess it's natural that the '27 Yankees should
have the top 4 in AL winning percentage ... bhut how about the top 3 in
ERA? In '27 value, Pennock and Hoyt are comparable to Wells and Cone.
Shocker and Pipgras are probably better than El Duque and Pettitte.
Reuther has a better year than Irabu.<
    Slight edge to the '27 Yankees.<
    Relief pitching: We're comparing two different eras here, but Wilcy
Moore was clearly baseball's best reliever in '27 -- 19-7 with 13 saves
and an ERA championship. Rivera might be the AL's best. But he only
beats Moore in saves and that's because of the different way they were
used. The Yanks have more depth, but I have to call this one a push, due
to huge change in the use of the bullpen.<
    Bench: Big, big edge to the '98 Yanks.<
   So what have we got?<
   The '27 Yanks get a big edge at 1B and RF, and an edge at 2B, LF and
starting pitching.<
   The '98 Yanks get a big edge at SS and on the bench, and edges at 3B,
C and CF.<
   It looks pretty even to me.<
   As for Huggins vs. Torre, I don't know. Huggins has the great rep,
but I keep coming back to the fact that he batted Koening (.318 OPB)
second all year. Just imagine how many RBIs Ruth (164 anyway) would have
had with somebody who could get on base in front of him!<
 
 
 

1927 Yankees vs. 1998 Yankees (WSJ)

Post by John Alwa » Tue, 20 Oct 1998 04:00:00

Quote:


> > Allen Barra and Rob Neyer had another interesting article in Friday's Wall
> > Street Journal. They compared the 1998 Yankess with other great teams of
> > the past, including the 1927 Yankees. Their conclusion: "We believe the
> > 1998 Yankees have a claim to being the best major-league baseball team of
> > all time."
> > Another claim was that of the 1927 Yankees roster, exactly two could break
> > the 1998 starting lineup or pitching rotation: Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig.

        How many Cincinnati Reds from the Big Red Machine could break the
Yankees lineup?   This is a comparison that was made on one of the
networks a few weeks ago.

        ...John

 
 
 

1927 Yankees vs. 1998 Yankees (WSJ)

Post by Ted Fra » Tue, 20 Oct 1998 04:00:00


Quote:
>    How many Cincinnati Reds from the Big Red Machine could break the
>Yankees lineup?   This is a comparison that was made on one of the
>networks a few weeks ago.

Bench, Morgan, Rose, Foster, Concepcion, a good chunk of the pitchers.
Perez wouldn't beat out Gehrig, of course, but he'd be better than anyone
on the bench, as would Griffey.
--
'The choice between "clean mint" and "fresh mint" is really the choice
 between "stale mint" and "dirty mint"' -- Robert Rossney
 
 
 

1927 Yankees vs. 1998 Yankees (WSJ)

Post by PHSpiege » Tue, 20 Oct 1998 04:00:00

Quote:


>>        How many Cincinnati Reds from the Big Red Machine could break the
>>Yankees lineup? This is a comparison that was made on one of the
>>networks a few weeks ago.
>Bench, Morgan, Rose, Foster, Concepcion, a good chunk of the pitchers.
>Perez wouldn't beat out Gehrig, of course, but he'd be better than anyone
>on the bench, as would Griffey.

Wait, are we talking '75 Reds vs. '27 Yankees or vs. '98 Yankees? I thought the
post was asking how many Red Machiners could make the current Yankee team. If
that's the case, Concepcion doesn't make it. Bench over Posada/Girardi; Morgan
over Knoblauch; and Rose over Brosius are pretty much no-brainers.

I'd take Foster over Paul O'Neill, too (Foster did play RF, right?). Bernie
Williams gets CF. LF is probably a tossup. The toughest call is probably
Martinez vs. Perez. If we're talking late 60s or early 70s, Perez clearly gets
the nod, but the 1975 version is probably in the same ballpark as the 1998
Martinez, once you account for a lower offensive era.

Don Gullett had a great 1975, so he's probably make the starting rotatation
over Petitte and Irabu. Gary Nolan probably would, too.


 
 
 

1927 Yankees vs. 1998 Yankees (WSJ)

Post by RStLo » Tue, 20 Oct 1998 04:00:00

I think Foster was in LF and Ken Griffey was in right.  So clearly we take our
LF from the '75 Reds.  CF is Williams.  Rose at third over Brosius.  Jeter over
Concepcion.  Morgan over Knoblauch -- this is Morgan at his absolute peak.  The
choices in right and at first base are a little tougher.
Obviously you take Bench at catcher.
I'd probably go with Rivera over any of the Reds' relievers.  The Reds'
rotation had some strong pitchers in it, Gullett and Nolan, but the depth in
the Yankees' rotation is impressive.
 
 
 

1927 Yankees vs. 1998 Yankees (WSJ)

Post by Text » Fri, 23 Oct 1998 04:00:00

I think I generally agree with McCarver that the starting eight of the 75 Reds
was more imporessive, but that the 98 Yanks pitching staff was totally
superior, top to bottom.

The thing that has tweaked me re the 27 Yankees is the reference to them as
"***ers Row." Didn't this term not come out until the '30s teams? Despite
the 27 team's great season, I would be more interested in a position by
position comparison with 37 or 38. And in terms of a team vs a collection of
stars with the first couple of Stengel teams.

Here's what I think re Huggins batting Koenig etc. I only think it was the 80s
when managers started better using the No. 2 position int he order. 1984 was
the season in which two No. 2 hitters won MVP.

Even the crustiest of foges would have to admit that a modern team benefits
from the wisdom of all those seasons in comparing with the earlier team. The 98
Yanks couldn't help but play smarter than the 27 Yanks, couldn't help but
distribute talent better over the course of the season (even with Don Zimmer in
the dugout) and would thus take 'em in four.

Switch the teams in time and give Torre the smarts of having no McMillan
encyclopedia and knowledge of only 26 previous AL seasons, and he certainly
wouldn't know how to assemble a pitching staff (Look at the work he and Gibby
did in Atlanta...) and it is possible that two or three positions would simply
have not come together. Huggins might have made better use of his lineup re
things like Koenig and would have known a lot more about assembling a pitching
staff. (Weiss could have pilfered talent of course from Wayne Huizenga, the
Harold Frazee of the modern era.)

 
 
 

1927 Yankees vs. 1998 Yankees (WSJ)

Post by Heinlei » Fri, 23 Oct 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> I think I generally agree with McCarver that the starting eight of the 75 Reds
> was more imporessive, but that the 98 Yanks pitching staff was totally
> superior, top to bottom.

> The thing that has tweaked me re the 27 Yankees is the reference to them as
> "***ers Row." Didn't this term not come out until the '30s teams?

    Actually, the term ***er's Row was first used by a New York
newspaper to describe the 1919 Yankees -- the year before Ruth arrived.<
    They were impressed by the ***ous lineup of Del Pratt, Wally
Pipp, Frank Baker, Duffy Lewis, Ping Bodie, Muddy Reul and Roger
Peckinpaugh.<
    The term stuck through the '20s and is now generally attacked to the
'27 Yankees of Ruth, Gehrig, Lazzeri, Combs, Meusel, etc.<
    You may be thinking of the term Bronx Bombers ... I'm not exactly
sure when it was first used, but it has usually been attached to the
Yankee teams of the late '30s ... which would mean that Gehrig and
Lazzeri were the only guys to play on both the tradition ***er's Row
team of '27 and the original Bronx Bombers.

Despite

Quote:
> the 27 team's great season, I would be more interested in a position by
> position comparison with 37 or 38.

   I posted here earlier about this -- IMO, the '36 Yankee team was the
deepest and most balanced. If we're just comparing the best Yankee
teams, I'd rank them off the top of my head like this:<

1B _ Gehrig '27, Gehrig '36, Martinez '98, Skowron '61<
2B _ Lazzeri '36, Lazzeri '27, Richardson '61, Knoblauchead, '98<
SS _ Jeter '98, Kubek '61, Crosetti '36, Koening '27<
3B _ Rolfe '36, Brosius '98, Boyer '61, Dugan '27<
C  _***ey '36, Howard '61, Posada '98, Collins and company '27<
RF _ Ruth '27, Maris '61, Selkirk '36, O'Neill '98 (boy, is this a
loaded position!!!)<
CF _ Mantle '61, DiMaggio '36, Williams '98, Combs '27 (so is this one!)
LF _ Meusel '27, Berra '61, Raines-Spencer-Ledee '98, Powell-Hoag '36<
Starting pitching _ about equal<
Relieving _ Tough to compare because of the change in the use of
relievers, but the '98 Yankees, the '61 Yankees and the '27 Yankees all
had the best reliever in the AL ... the '36 merely had good relief.<
Bench _ the '98 Yankees, the '36 Yankees, the '61 Yankees, the '27
Yankees.<

So, giving 4 pts for first, etc. ... I get:
'27 Yankees: 19 for position players<
'36 Yankees: 23 for position players<
'61 Yankees: 21 for position players<
'98 Yankees: 18 for position players<
<
  But give the '98 Yankees credit for their bench and suddenly they're
up there just behind the '36 Yankees ... even before we factor in
pitching. I really don't have time to break it down ... I think all four
teams had similar pitching, again based on the way the game was played
in their eras  
   I don't think Stengel's teams of the early '50s were all that
overpowering ... they just won.<

 
 
 

1927 Yankees vs. 1998 Yankees (WSJ)

Post by Nawrock » Fri, 23 Oct 1998 04:00:00

: Here's what I think re Huggins batting Koenig etc. I only think it was the
80s
: when managers started better using the No. 2 position int he order. 1984 was
: the season in which two No. 2 hitters won MVP.

Willie Hernandez batted second for the Tigers? Boy, that Sparky Anderson was a
crafty devil.

Tom Nawrocki

 
 
 

1927 Yankees vs. 1998 Yankees (WSJ)

Post by Ivan Weis » Fri, 23 Oct 1998 04:00:00


Quote:
> I think I generally agree with McCarver that the starting eight of the 75 Reds
> was more imporessive, but that the 98 Yanks pitching staff was totally
> superior, top to bottom.

> The thing that has tweaked me re the 27 Yankees is the reference to them as
> "***ers Row." Didn't this term not come out until the '30s teams? Despite
> the 27 team's great season, I would be more interested in a position by
> position comparison with 37 or 38. And in terms of a team vs a collection of
> stars with the first couple of Stengel teams.

The term was first used to describe the AL champion 1921 Yankees: Wally
Pipp, Roger Peckinpaugh, Home Run Baker, Aaron Ward, and, of course, Babe
Ruth.

Ivan Weiss                BORE: n., A person who talks when you
Vashon WA                 wish him to listen.
                          -- Ambrose Bierce: "The Devil's Dictionary"          

 
 
 

1927 Yankees vs. 1998 Yankees (WSJ)

Post by Text » Sat, 24 Oct 1998 04:00:00

Shows you what I get for thinking without, you know, thinking. I was "thinking"
of Mattingly in 84.
 
 
 

1927 Yankees vs. 1998 Yankees (WSJ)

Post by Not a Pretty Gir » Sun, 25 Oct 1998 04:00:00



:>>       How many Cincinnati Reds from the Big Red Machine could break the
:>>Yankees lineup? This is a comparison that was made on one of the
:>>networks a few weeks ago.

: Wait, are we talking '75 Reds vs. '27 Yankees or vs. '98 Yankees? I
: thought the post was asking how many Red Machiners could make the
: current Yankee team. If
: that's the case, Concepcion doesn't make it. Bench over
: Posada/Girardi; Morgan over Knoblauch; and Rose over Brosius are
pretty much no-brainers.

        Is Rose over Brosius really a no-brainer?  Rose was probably
better offensively, though Brosius was pretty good this year.
However, Rose's glove was pretty lousy while Brosius is a legit
stathead Gold Glove candidate at worst.  I'd take Brosius.

Rethinkingly,
Hyoun

--
      \_____________  "...if you allow yourself to feel    \_a___________
     \_____________  the way you really feel, maybe you   \___m__s______
    \_____________  won't be afraid of that feeling      \_____a_______
   \_____________  anymore."                            \____i__t_____
  \www.mosey.com                 tori amos             \_________e___
 \_____________                                       \_____________

 
 
 

1927 Yankees vs. 1998 Yankees (WSJ)

Post by PHSpiege » Tue, 27 Oct 1998 04:00:00


Quote:

>>Rose over Brosius are pretty much no-brainers.
>Is Rose over Brosius really a no-brainer?  Rose was probably
>better offensively, though Brosius was pretty good this year.
>However, Rose's glove was pretty lousy while Brosius is a legit
>stathead Gold Glove candidate at worst.  I'd take Brosius.

I was waiting for someone to comment on this, since after originally posting
it, I began to think that I might just have a tough time justifying it. The
most interesting thing to realize is that despite the image of the 1975 Reds
being Rose's peak, he was actually already 34 by then and clearly in decline.
His best year was 1969. Here are his OPS following that:

1969: .940
1970: .885
1971: .794
1972: .799
1973: .838
1974: .773
1975: .838

His OPS never really got much better after that. Here's a direct comparison,
without adjusting for era:

Rose 1975: 317/406/432
Brosius 1998: 300/371/472

Those lines are pretty darn close. Take into account the era difference, and
Rose has a leg up, but I'm not proficient enough with era adjustments to say by
just how much. For what it's worth, Rose's PRO+ in 1975 was 130; Total
Baseball's web site doesn't have PRO+ calculated for 1998 yet.

By most accounts, Rose was a butcher at 3B. Total Baseball puts him at -36
Fielding Runs in 1975, the worst of his career. I really dislike FRs, but this
looks like one of those cases where reputation and FR are in sync. Brosius had
a ZR this year of .874, compared to a league average of .802. As Nelson said, a
pretty legitimate stathead case for a Gold Glove.

Is Brosius's glove enough to overcome a pretty substantial offensive lead by
Rose? Tough to say, but it's clearly not as much of a no-brainer as I orginally
suggested. I'd still take Rose, but clearly a convincing argument can be made
on behalf of Brosius.