Best Sports Team Ever

[Chef Jim]

Good lord. Next up, do some research on famous June 6ths in history.

 

Exactly. We didn't even get a D-Day post yesterday. I was going to start one and I forgot.

 

Really, the criterion was not set for the definition of "greatest team". Darin made a decent point about the UCONN girl's hoop team being one of the most dominant teams, but that may have been due to the competition they faced compared (which is, of course, not their fault). The UCLA men's team had a few great players, including a Hall of Fame star, as well as one of the highest rated coaches of any sport at any time. The Bulls had one of the greatest players of all time and an all time great coach, as well as another Hall of Fame player in Pippen.

 

The reason it seems to me the 27 Yankess were "the greatest team" was the fact they had it all. They had the single greatest player of all time in one of his two best seasons 9and one of the most celebrated seasons in the history of sport, the 60 homeruns). 6 Hall of Famers. They had one of the greatest managers of all time, one of the greatest stats seasons (if not the greatest) of all time, had one of the very best season records of all-time, had the two best players in all of baseball on the same team (as evidenced by Gehrig winning the MVP only because Ruth won it the year before and would have won it if qualified), won their league by 19 games and didn't lose a single playoff game. To me, by having the best players, an all time great coach, numerous Hall of Famers, a great stat season and a great regular season and not losing a single playoff game is hard to beat as the best team of all time.

 

And give one team that had a candy bar AND a disease named after their players.

[shrader]

Several others were in the NHL a bit longer than for just a cup of coffee. (Apologies to Jim Craig, who was only up there long enough for 1 and Mike Eruzione that never did get there. Though he broadcast Rags games for a long time.)

 

But based on his appearance, I bet Rizo went on to a very successful career in the mafia. I once watched him interview a college player during a game broadcast and he (Eruzione) had a giant black eye. They didn't even try to cover it up even though he was on tv. It was hilarious and really solidified that mafia look he has going in my mind.

[Just Jack]

Exactly. We didn't even get a D-Day post yesterday. I was going to start one and I forgot.

 

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/146620-soldiers-sailors-and-airmen/

[erynthered]

http://forums.twobil...ors-and-airmen/

 

 

Yup.

 

[HopsGuy]

When I read the title of this post, I first thought '27 Yankees. Then I remembered that African-Americans weren't playing in the majors leagues in those days, so they get an asterisk. Then I thought '86 Celtics, but that immediately led me to the '97 Bulls. I'm going to be biased towards teams in my lifetime, but it's hard to argue against a team that dominated like that Bulls team in an era when the game was truly global.

 

That gets me thinking about what soccer team would be the all-time best. Should it be a national team or limit it to club teams? I had dismissed the '92 Barcelona Dream Team because it was an assembled all-star team. Probably should do the same here, right?

 

It's a good discussion.

[DC Tom]

The 2003 South African cricket team.

[Jauronimo]

1978 Washington Generals

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

1978 Washington Generals

 

I thought they were due! The game was fixed! The Globetrotters used a ladder of Pete's sake! C'mon he's just spinning the ball in front of your face. Take it!!

[Jauronimo]

Depends on how you define "greatest." I don't recall that one player on the 1980 US team had any kind of career in the NHL.

Thats why the operative word is "team". That U.S. team was more than the sum of their parts. No player on the U.S. squad would have had a chance in hell of making the Soviet team in an open tryout. Yet collectively, they were better when it mattered.

 

I thought they were due! The game was fixed! The Globetrotters used a ladder of Pete's sake! C'mon he's just spinning the ball in front of your face. Take it!!

I'm still hurting from taking that bet. I had just gotten out of the hole after better that Robert Redford would strike out at the end of The Natural and a took a flyer on a plucky Generals team that looked ready to break the streak. They broke my heart.

Edited June 7, 2012 by Jauronimo

[Juror#8]

When I read the title of this post, I first thought '27 Yankees. Then I remembered that African-Americans weren't playing in the majors leagues in those days, so they get an asterisk. Then I thought '86 Celtics, but that immediately led me to the '97 Bulls. I'm going to be biased towards teams in my lifetime, but it's hard to argue against a team that dominated like that Bulls team in an era when the game was truly global.

 

That gets me thinking about what soccer team would be the all-time best. Should it be a national team or limit it to club teams? I had dismissed the '92 Barcelona Dream Team because it was an assembled all-star team. Probably should do the same here, right?

 

It's a good discussion.

 

Good point that I hadn't considered initially. The Bulls teams were dominating against the best competition in the U.S. and internationally. The early 90s began the explosion of international competition into the NBA (majority European players). The Bulls dominated against a wider range of competition.

 

I think it's also compelling that those Bulls limited the success of so many established Hall of Famers. The case for the UCLA Bruins, the Yankees, The 40s-era Browns, the Taurasi/Bird UConn Women's team, etc. is extremely compelling, but were they dominating Hall of Fame players during those player's career quintessence?

 

I'm surprised that there are so few votes for a college football team. Some of those 80s/90s Miami, Florida State, Florida, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas programs were overwhelmingly dominant and have treasure troves of talent.

 

And further, it appears to have changed several times during the thread. You could make a case for almost anyone mentioned based on how you want to look at it, but I'd certainly agree that the '27 Yanks cast the longest shadow from the time of their achievments till now, much of which you detailed above.

 

 

In terms of flat out domination, I'll go with the Darien, CT girls HS volleyball team. 459-12 over the past two decades w/ 15 straight state titles.

 

I think that the discussion has remained consistent and with consistent criteria. The first post lays out the question and some measuring sticks fairly plainly. I don't know where the geo-political angle came from.

[Juror#8]

The 1947-1949 Cleveland Browns went 29 straight games without a defeat, including two championships. Let's look at that: Starting in the 1947 season, they finished on a winning streak, including the championship. They go through the entire 1948 season without a defeat, including the championship game. They proceed to go into the 1949 season and continued without a defeat.

 

For ten straight years, they went to the championship game and won seven of them, including five straight championships.

 

O.K., that is impressive and I wasn't aware of that.

[apuszczalowski]

No love for the undefeated Dolphins team or the almost undefeated Pats team from a couple seasons ago?

[Juror#8]

I'm only going to mention teams I've actually followed/witnessed:

 

The mid-to-late-nineties Bulls were unreal. Already discussed quite a bit here so I'll leave it at that.

 

Since no one cares about or respects "the beautiful game," I fully expect some jokes at my expense after yall read this...

 

The 2001-2003 Real Madrid squad was insanely good. Even a casual fan will recognize most of the players - David Beckham, Ronaldo, Zinedine Zidane, Luis Figo, Roberto Carlos, Raul, and Iker Casillas, to name a few.

 

They won 2 Spanish league championships during that time, and also won the UEFA Champion's League - a competition including all the top teams in Europe. They also won the Spanish Super Cup in 2003 which is impressive, but not quite as big of a deal.

 

There isn't really a parallel in US based sports- The closest I can come up with is imagine an NFL team that has the best record in the league, wins the Super Bowl, then imagine there's like 6 or 7 more NFLs and then they win the Super-Super Bowl through a playoff type system consisting of the best 32 teams out of those multiple NFLs.

 

Then consider that the pool of talent completely dwarfs that of the NFL, so the level of competition is markedly higher. It is rare to see teams win domestic leagues back to back, much less assemble the "dynasties" we've seen over the years in the major sports leagues here.

 

Not saying Real Madrid is necessarily better than any of the teams mentioned already, just wanted to offer a different perspective. Flame away!

 

How so? With so many leagues in soccer, doesn't the talent pool necessarily become diluted? I may be analogizing this wrong, but isn't that like saying that an NFL team won the Superbowl, and then played teams in the CFL, USFL, NFL Europe, D-League, etc. and won on those levels as well?

 

Also, what was their record during their best season(s)?

[apuszczalowski]

I don't think its possible to ever get a true answer on this question. Its hard enough to come up with who was the best team in an individual sport league. Its nearly impossbile to then try and find which one was the best ever out of all the sports leagues. How can you compare the accomplishments of a hockey team to a baseball, or football team? You are always going to have someone throwing in a reason why a team either does or doesn't deserve to be there. Can you compare the game of baseball today to the game in the early part of the 1900's? Can you compare hockey from the original 6 era where goalies stood up the entire game facing shots that barely left the ice to todays butterfly goalies who face 90+ mph shots at the top corner of the net? Can Football with leather helmets and almost no padding compare to todays game with the armour they wear and bone crushing hits they put out?

[Chef Jim]

http://forums.twobil...ors-and-airmen/

 

Well that's a dumb thread title for a D-Day thread.

[bbb]

When I read the title of this post, I first thought '27 Yankees. Then I remembered that African-Americans weren't playing in the majors leagues in those days, so they get an asterisk. Then I thought '86 Celtics, but that immediately led me to the '97 Bulls. I'm going to be biased towards teams in my lifetime, but it's hard to argue against a team that dominated like that Bulls team in an era when the game was truly global.

 

That gets me thinking about what soccer team would be the all-time best. Should it be a national team or limit it to club teams? I had dismissed the '92 Barcelona Dream Team because it was an assembled all-star team. Probably should do the same here, right?

 

No, you should dismiss them because they are soccer teams.

[uncle flap]

How so? With so many leagues in soccer, doesn't the talent pool necessarily become diluted? I may be analogizing this wrong, but isn't that like saying that an NFL team won the Superbowl, and then played teams in the CFL, USFL, NFL Europe, D-League, etc. and won on those levels as well?

 

My thinking here is that nearly 100% of NFL players are developed in the US. The US population is just over 300 million. Then, out of all the best athletes, many are developed to play basketball and baseball among other sports. Despite the NFL being the most popular sport in the US, other sports are also very popular.

 

Contrast that to the billions of people outside of the US where soccer is far and away the most popular sport. Therefore, I would believe a higher percentage of the best athletes would aspire to be soccer players. So, a higher percentage of a much higher population of top level talent is competing for professional level jobs.

 

Of course it follows that there are far more soccer teams throughout the world. However, the best of the best are concentrated in Europe- meaning the best players in the entire world play in the top "NFLs" of Europe. So, IMO, there are at least five domestic leagues on par with the NFL. England, Spain, Italy, Germany and France. Then you throw in the top teams from a number of other domestic leagues that can compete with the best teams of the big leagues, despite the rest of the teams in the lesser leagues not being as strong. For example, Dynamo Moscow or Ajax (from Holland). Their leagues aren't as strong as say, Italy's but their top team(s) can hang with Italy's big boys.

 

So, no, I wouldn't consider the Spanish league as the NFL and the German league as the CFL, for example. Some leagues are stronger than others, but I'd say the top few teams in each are interchangeable, and the next tier are certainly as good as the above-average teams in the NFL, comparatively. For argument's sake, I'd say there are about 60 playoff caliber teams (throughout Europe) any given year vs. about 16-18 in the NFL (I know 12 teams make the playoffs, but one could argue other teams are relatively just as good and don't make it for whatever reason). The Champion's League is a competition between the best teams out of all of those leagues - 32 qualify. That would be like the NFL consisting of like 12 All-Pro teams, and like 20 division winners.

 

Of course, none of this creates a perfect analogy- it's more of a thought exercise than anything. Ultimately, it's apples and oranges.

 

Also, what was their record during their best season(s)?

 

24-8-6, and 22-12-4 in league play. Not that impressive as stand alone stats. But then they went 12-1-1 in the Champion's League in 2001-02. The main reason I brought up Madrid was to offer a different perspective. I lived in Spain during that time and saw this team full of some of the world's best players, and being near Madrid, became a huge fan - at least at the time. Compared to the NFL and the NHL, I hardly follow soccer, but I do stay up on the more popular/successful clubs.

 

For the dominance argument, Arsenal (out of London) was undefeated for their 2003-04 season - a span of 49 matches. Many consider the English Premier League the most competitive from top to bottom among the big 5 domestic leagues I mentioned above. The last time someone went undefeated in the EPL was 1889. Year in and year out, there are usually 4 teams that have all-world rosters, plus a number of teams not far off talent-wise.

 

There have been a number of other teams that I've seen that are up there with the Real Madrid team I mentioned. Barcelona, Manchester United, and AC Milan, just to name a few, have all put together runs that are equally as impressive in the last two decades. Like I said above, I mentioned Madrid to bring up soccer bc no one else has, and that I followed that team pretty closely at the time.

 

Any other soccer fans out there? I know historically, and even in modern times, there have been better teams, but none that I followed as closely. Anyone care to chime in on what you think is the best soccer team of all time?

[Like A Mofo]

Some of the greatest teams IMO that seem to get overlooked more then they should:

 

NFL:

 

1984 San Francisco 49ers: 15-1 2nd in the NFL in scoring (475) and 1st in total points allowed (227)...a true balanced team that lost 1 game by 3 points to Pittsburgh.

 

MLB:

 

1939 New York Yankees: Wait, not the 1927 version? Just because Babe Ruth hit 60 HR's does not mean they are the best team: Run differential? 1927: Scored 975 runs, Allowed 599 runs 1939: Scored 967 runs, Allowed 556 runs...1939 team had 8 guys with 10+ HR's and 7 80+ RBI players....the 1927 version? 3 10+ HR hitters and 4 80+ RBI guys...the 1927 team was more top heavy...the 1939 team was deeper and as good if not better

NHL:

 

1981-1982 New York Islanders: Al Arbor's best team: Goals For: 385 (2nd of 21), Goals Against: 250 (2nd of 21) Mike Bossy and Bryan Trottier both scored 50+...2 other 35+ goal scorers...Billy Smith, underrated defense. Swept the Conference Finals and the Stanley Cup over Quebec and Vancouver.

[BuffOrange]

1927 Yankees. It's not even close. They were 110-44 and won the pennant by 19 games. They won the World Series in four straight. They had 6 Hall of Fame players in their prime, and a Hall of Fame Manager. Babe Ruth had 60 home runs and was the best player of all time. Lou Gehrig was one of the best ever and hit 47. They had four players with over 100 RBIs including Gehrig with 175 and Ruth with 164. Gehrig was the league MVP only because they didn't allow Ruth (or anyone) to win it two years in a row and he won in 1926. They had pitchers with 22, 19, 19, 18 and 13 wins on their starting rotation.

 

The 1947-1949 Cleveland Browns went 29 straight games without a defeat, including two championships. Let's look at that: Starting in the 1947 season, they finished on a winning streak, including the championship. They go through the entire 1948 season without a defeat, including the championship game. They proceed to go into the 1949 season and continued without a defeat.

 

For ten straight years, they went to the championship game and won seven of them, including five straight championships.

 

These are both compelling arguments.

 

I apologize if I was unclear...I'm not trying to make the question deeper than a discussion of what is the best sports team ever, given their impact on their sporting contemporaries/generation. In the first post I provided some criteria with which to judge different teams across sporting genres.

 

The question really isn't to solicit a discussion on geo-political implications or around which team galvanized the country more. Rather, I'm interested in who you feel is the best sports team based on how they dominated their contemporaires, the competition, the score, stats, margins, etc.

 

That is why the 95-96 Bulls ring so loudly. They (and to a large extent, simply Michael Jordan) denied multiple hall of famers championships (Patrick Ewing, Charles Barkley, Clyde Drexler, Gary Payton, Karl Malone, John Stockton, Reggie Miller, etc.).

 

They dominated statistically. They won at a near 90% clip while playing 82 games. They went on tears of three weeks, four weeks, five weeks, six weeks, etc. without losing on multiple occassions during that season.

 

The 1927 Yankees won 71% of their games. The Bulls won 88% during the regular season and went 15-3 in the playoffs with two of those losses coming in the championship game.

 

Is there really a team that, in their respective sport, dominated in that fashion?

 

Good point that I hadn't considered initially. The Bulls teams were dominating against the best competition in the U.S. and internationally. The early 90s began the explosion of international competition into the NBA (majority European players). The Bulls dominated against a wider range of competition.

 

I think it's also compelling that those Bulls limited the success of so many established Hall of Famers. The case for the UCLA Bruins, the Yankees, The 40s-era Browns, the Taurasi/Bird UConn Women's team, etc. is extremely compelling, but were they dominating Hall of Fame players during those player's career quintessence?

 

You probably have some nostalgia from having grown up in the NBC era w/ the cool theme music and all (I do too). But Hall of Fame players lose in the NBA playoffs every year. In the two years Jordan took off the title was won by a historically mediocre (by championship standards) Rockets team with one great player. The East Finals in '94 - while compelling tv due to Reggie Miller & Spike Lee - was played between teams whose 2nd best players were Ric Smitz and Charles Oakley (the Jordan-less Bulls were actually hosed by the refs vs NY in the 2nd round). Not sure I'd say that era was as full of great teams as you'd suggest.

Also, there is inherently way more luck/variance in baseball than in basketball so it's sort of ridiculous to compare winning %'s.

 

 

I'm surprised that there are so few votes for a college football team. Some of those 80s/90s Miami, Florida State, Florida, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas programs were overwhelmingly dominant and have treasure troves of talent.

 

Whaat? Being a football factory over an extended time period doesn't mean you belong in this discussion. Flordia & FSU never even had an undefeated season in those years. Texas was a non-factor in those years. Maybe there's an argument for the 70's Oklahoma/Nebraska teams...

 

But based on his appearance, I bet Rizo went on to a very successful career in the mafia. I once watched him interview a college player during a game broadcast and he (Eruzione) had a giant black eye. They didn't even try to cover it up even though he was on tv. It was hilarious and really solidified that mafia look he has going in my mind.

 

I know this much - the guy never met a camera he didn't like. Holy attention whore.