Dumb Trade.....(again)!!!!

[Hung_Well]

"I can understand how saying winning one world series

title is luck because the Angels had a lucky year.But

the ammount of time the Yanks won the title in that

spand was because they were the best team."

Winning a WS requires luck. Winning 3 short series in a row against the top teams in MLB requires a degree of luck. Doing this 3 years in a row (as the Yankees did) requires an extremely large degree of luck.

Baseball isn't the NBA where the best team will usually win a short series. Yes, the Yankees won 4 titles in a short span. But that almost never happens in baseball (even though the playoffs are much shorter). In hoops, it's happened many times over.

"It might not happen again....but it still doesn't change the fact

that the Yankees were the team of the 90's and not

the Braves."

I personally don't care who the team of the 90's is. However, I don't think a team qualifies if they weren't even good for the first half of the decade (Yankees).

"As I said in my other post(if you would read)the Braves

haven't really had to fight off a team since the Marlins

title year."

What do you call the Mets of the late 99/00? The Phillies/Expos of 2001-02? These teams were just as good as any team the Yankees had chasing them.

[Hung_Well]

"Lets see, the Yankees have won what 27 world series titles now?"

I'm not arguing that the vast majority of the Yankee teams weren't the best, because they were. But comparing baseball in the first half of the century to baseball today is like comparing the NBA to MLB. Two different animals. The playoffs did not even exist back then. And the Yankees were far and away the best team, much more so than any franchise has ever been in any sport in that era.

"They won 4 out of 6 years.......not even the mighty Lakers have won 4 out of the last 6 years."

No, but the Bulls won 6. Lakers have 3 of last 5. Pistons won 2 in a row in the late 80's. Spurs have 2 in the past 5 years. Celtics had 3(?) in the 80's. Lakers 3 in the 80's also. This is just the past two decades. In baseball, only 1 (!) team has even repeated during that span.

"in 1998 the Yankees won 114 games.......have the Braves ever come close to that? That same year the Braves won 106 games.......thats good but you should consider that they were 8 FULL GAMES BEHIND the Yankees that year. All told the Yankees won 126 games that year which I believe is the most ever."

There is no question that the Yankees were easily the best team that year. But what about the Mariners of 2000? They won 117 games. Yet they didn't win the WS.

"I still find it simply amazing that you want to say a 7 game series isnt a true test to which is the best team in baseball but you say it is in basketball.........there is no logic to support this."

Most contemporary experts agree with me. Bill James, perhaps the greatest baseball mind of our era, is a firm supporter of this theory. Sandy Alderson, current President of MLB, has believed this since his managing days. Earl Weaver, perhaps the greatest manager of all time, agrees with me.

"Plain and simple the best team will win a 7 game series probably 90% of the time in any sport."

In any sport? Wow, what a huge generalization. Chess and Tic Tac Toe are both games. Is one more dependant on luck than the other or are they equal in terms of skill required?

Furthermore, why do we see so many teams with multiple titles in such a short span in hoops, while this rarely ever happens in baseball?

[Guest]

The Phillies/Expos of 2001-02? These teams were just as good as any team the Yankees had chasing them."

Not really.Neither of those team were that good...plus

they are young and make so many mistakes.I laugh at

the thought of those being good teams.

"I personally don't care who the team of the 90's is. However, I don't think a team qualifies if they weren't even good for the first half of the decade (Yankees)."

Of course you wouldn't.Your probably a Braves fan so

you are likely biased.

"Baseball isn't the NBA where the best team will usually win a short series. Yes, the Yankees won 4 titles in a short span. But that almost never happens in baseball (even though the playoffs are much shorter). In hoops, it's happened many times over."

It doesn't matter if it almost never happens or not.It

did happen and the Yankees were just that good.Face

it...They were a hellva balanced team with pitchers that

actually didn't choke in the playoffs like Glavine and

Maddux seemed to do also often.

"Winning a WS requires luck. Winning 3 short series in a row against the top teams in MLB requires a degree of luck. Doing this 3 years in a row (as the Yankees did) requires an extremely large degree of luck. "

Your going to have to do better than this to discreadit the

Yankees run.When you win that many titles in that short

of times that means you are good.

All the Braves have is regular season sucess.division

titles are nice...but they aren't better than WS titles.

I'll take the Yankees championship sucess from the late

90's to early 00's over the Braves 12 years of division

titles.you don't play the game for a division title.Go

ask Barry Bonds which he would rather have?

While you guys have your biased opinion...the facts

don't work in your favor...WS titles or division titles

....hmmm....Which does a player want more?

It isn't like the Yankees sucess is short term either.They

are still doing well.

[Hung_Well]

"Not really.Neither of those team were that good...plus

they are young and make so many mistakes.I laugh at

the thought of those being good teams."

The Phillies won more games last year than the Red Sox did. The year before, the Mets won more than either the Red Sox or Blue Jays. So much for that argument.

"Of course you wouldn't.Your probably a Braves fan so

you are likely biased."

I'm not a Braves fan, and you dodged the issue of a team supposedly being the team of the decade when they didn't show up for the first half of it.

"It doesn't matter if it almost never happens or not.It

did happen and the Yankees were just that good.Face

it...They were a hellva balanced team with pitchers that

actually didn't choke in the playoffs like Glavine and

Maddux seemed to do also often."

You've been wrong so many times already, that this is nothing new--but, Glavine and Maddux are among the leaders all time in post season wins and ERA. Glavine pitched a 1 hitter to clinch the '95 WS.

"Your going to have to do better than this to discreadit the

Yankees run.When you win that many titles in that short

of times that means you are good."

Of course they were good. You don't get to the postseason without being good. You don't win a WS without being lucky.

"All the Braves have is regular season sucess.division

titles are nice...but they aren't better than WS titles.

I'll take the Yankees championship sucess from the late

90's to early 00's over the Braves 12 years of division

titles.you don't play the game for a division title."

That's special. What does this have to do with anything?

"It isn't like the Yankees sucess is short term either.They

are still doing well."

But haven't won a WS the past 2 years despite the additions of Giambi, and the emergence of Soriano. I bet next you'll tell me those players made them worse.

[Admin]

Lets take a look at how much better the Braves were in the regular season than the Yankees were and see if thats enough of a difference to make up for the Yankees 4 World Series Rings.

The Yankees winning percentages in the 90's

1990 - .414

1991 - .439

1992 - .469

1993 - .543

1994 - .615

1995 - .545

1996 - .568

1997 - .593

1998 - .704

1999 - .605

AVG. - .508

AVG Record based on winning percentage: 82 -80

Total games won based on winning percentage: 820

The Braves winning percentages in the 90's

1990 - .401

1991 - .580

1992 - .605

1993 - .642

1994 - .596

1995 - .625

1996 - .593

1997 - .623

1998 - .654

1999 - .636

AVG. - .595

AVG Record based on winning percentage: 96 -66

Total games won based on winning percentage: 960

So the Braves won 14 more games per year than the Yankees did, but the Yankees have the 4 World Series Rings and defeated the Braves in head to head competition. Which is more recognizable towards considering who the best team was? I know that championships get my vote over the regular season any day of the week. Just as an example, the Miami Dolphins are the winningest professional team in sports history according to winning percentage (for teams that have been around more than 20 years).....but I dont consider them the greatest team ever. However based on the theories presented in this thread by other posters they should be considered the best professional sports team in the world right.....or is football just luck too?

[Guest]

"It isn't like the Yankees sucess is short term either.They

are still doing well."

But haven't won a WS the past 2 years despite the additions of Giambi, and the emergence of Soriano. I bet next you'll tell me those players made them worse.

"

No...but their pitching has aged just like I said last year.

Clemens/Mussina are aging.

"The Phillies won more games last year than the Red Sox did. The year before, the Mets won more than either the Red Sox or Blue Jays. So much for that argument."

I don't really care about regular season games that much.

The Phillies were are sorry team last year.Look at their

roster.Wasn't their best pitcher Vincte Padiella?I rest

my case.

"'m not a Braves fan, and you dodged the issue of a team supposedly being the team of the decade when they didn't show up for the first half of it."

I didn't dodge any issue because those titles sure as [censored]

make up for about 3 years of being under .500.

"ou've been wrong so many times already, that this is nothing new--but, Glavine and Maddux are among the leaders all time in post season wins and ERA. Glavine pitched a 1 hitter to clinch the '95 WS."

Really?Didn't Tom get shelled two or 3 times by the

Giants last year?

Basically your case of arguing with results is luck.The

Braves were just always unlucky in the playoffs.It just

never fell their way.

Opinion on luck doesn't discredit results.

[Hung_Well]

"No...but their pitching has aged just like I said last year.

Clemens/Mussina are aging."

So? Clemens won the Cy Young two years ago. Mussina came in second. No WS ring. What's the problem (keep picking, I'm sure you'll find something). Could it be that they were just as good, yet the breaks just didn't go their way?

"I don't really care about regular season games that much.

The Phillies were are sorry team last year.Look at their

roster.Wasn't their best pitcher Vincte Padiella?I rest

my case."

This is a pathetic display of argument. Something disproves a statement you make, so you write it off and say you don't care about it. Wow.

"Really?Didn't Tom get shelled two or 3 times by the

Giants last year?"

You use two starts by Glavine to prove that he is a post season choker? When all evidence flys in the face of this assertion (Among the best ever in postseason ERA and wins)? Again, wow. There is no getting through to you.

Is the sky green in your world?

"Basically your case of arguing with results is luck.The

Braves were just always unlucky in the playoffs.It just

never fell their way."

I never mentioned the Braves. I don't care about them.

"Opinion on luck doesn't discredit results."

Saying something happening by chance is not discrediting its result.

[Guest]

So? Clemens won the Cy Young two years ago. Mussina came in second. No WS ring. What's the problem (keep picking, I'm sure you'll find something). Could it be that they were just as good, yet the breaks just didn't go their way?

"

Do you ever read?I said LAST YEAR I said Clemens and

Mussina are aging.Meaning last season when I said the

yankees wouldn't win the WS last summer.

"his is a pathetic display of argument. Something disproves a statement you make, so you write it off and say you don't care about it. Wow."

I've said in other posts that the regular season doesn't

mean that much.[censored],the hawks always ahd good regular

seasons...They just choked in the playoffs like the Braves

always do.It isn't by luck.

No matter how much you argue...You don't win 4 out of

6 titles by luck.You can win 1 title by luck..and perhaps

two, but after 4 out of 6 it becomes alittle more than luck.

Not to mention the Yankees had Rivera those years.He

wasn't "luck".

[Playmaker0017]

Dolfan & Hots,

Look, the simple fact is that we differ on what a true evaluator of talent and greatness is. I work a LOT with statistics, and personally, when a sample size is inordinately small - I can't believe that it is an indicator of anything. You on the other hand, believe it is.

It deals with size... games played... the Braves dominate the wins. The only match-up between those two teams was close. Actually, most people think the Braves had them so far against the ropes that they fell asleep. Whatever the cause, the Yankees eaked it out. One seven game series.

Now, if the Braves were to have played the Yankees in 4 WS and the Yankees continually pounded them ... then I would agree. That is because the sample size was large enough to draw true conclusive evidence from. But this was not the case the first and only time.

I am not a Braves fan, actually ... I hate baseball. I swore it off when they went on strike years back. I follow now only to see how my friend is doing... and I have a soft spot for the Braves ... since I remember Dale Murphy era.

But, to me... I do not believe a title is an indicator of true greatness.

It is as Hung said: It requires luck.

The simple fact that major sports analysts AGREE with me tends to lend credit to Hung and my theory. Fans, who tend to disagree with me, lean towards ignorance... I mean, these are the same people that voted disabled people to the all-star game. What do they know?

Further, baseball .. being a game of statistics ... one would think its fans would lend credence to statistical norms.

Thank you Hung for being sensible.

Play.

[Playmaker0017]

Hots,

No, you win WS rings with a combination of skill and LUCK.

Hung has intimated that repeatedly.

It takes skill to get to that point... then it boils down to who is hot and who gets lucky.

As for Clemens and Mussina aging... so you mean, there is a HUGE difference in one year? People age quickly in your world.

Play.

[Guest]

And hey check this out Hung_Well

Tom Glavine is also worst in postseason history in

losses.....

12 wins in 15 losses...Is that postseason sucess to you?

Maddux is 11 wins and 13 losses

http://www.baseball-reference.com/postseas...eer_pitch.shtml

Rivera alltime ranks

1st in saves

9th in era(0.90)

1st in games played

Is that by luck??

Most games come down to close games.....And look at

those numbers.

The Yankees were just a more offensive balanced team

than the Braves and they had a better closer when push

comes to shove.

[Playmaker0017]

Hots,

"Most games come down to close games.....And look at

those numbers.

The Yankees were just a more offensive balanced team

than the Braves and they had a better closer when push

comes to shove. "

And there is your proof that the Yankees were a far superior team!

Simple as that.

Throw statistics out the windows, boys! Throw out everything a team did to get to this point! All that matters is 7 games!

What is that?

Play.

[Guest]

Those are Playoff numbers and not World Series numbers.

Those were his numbers in 50 something odd games.That's

a pretty good show that he pitches well in big games.

I'm giving you facts while all you say in return is....luck?

And you actually think you are correct just by saying that

it's luck.

[Hung_Well]

"Do you ever read?I said LAST YEAR I said Clemens and

Mussina are aging.Meaning last season when I said the

yankees wouldn't win the WS last summer."

So what's the excuse for two years ago (by the way, did Clemens and Mussina pitch any worse in the post season last year than they ever have?)

"I've said in other posts that the regular season doesn't

mean that much.[censored],the hawks always ahd good regular

seasons...They just choked in the playoffs like the Braves

always do.It isn't by luck."

Only a fool would compare the NBA and its playoffs to Major League Baseball. If they are comprable, why so many repeating NBA champions compared to hardly any in Baseball? And what does that tell you?

"No matter how much you argue...You don't win 4 out of

6 titles by luck.You can win 1 title by luck..and perhaps

two, but after 4 out of 6 it becomes alittle more than luck."

Yes, they won 4 out of 6 titles. But that hasn't happened in the past 50 years in baseball. And it won't happen in the next 50 years. It is a fluke occurance, but you would rather believe it is a skill that only certain teams have, and those teams only come along once every half-century.

Right.

"Tom Glavine is also worst in postseason history in

losses.....

12 wins in 15 losses...Is that postseason sucess to you?

Maddux is 11 wins and 13 losses"

Losses are a team accomplishment. The pitcher plays a part, but so does the offense (and bullpen, manager, bench, etc.). Glavine's responsibility is the amount of runs he gives up, not how many his team scores for him. In that regard, Glavine is among the best in postseason history.

"Rivera alltime ranks

1st in saves

9th in era(0.90)

1st in games played

Is that by luck??"

Whoever said individual performances were lucky? I'm talking of team accomplishments over a short series.

[Guest]

So what's the excuse for two years ago (by the way, did Clemens and Mussina pitch any worse in the post season last year than they ever have?) "

That was 1 [censored] year.

"

Yes, they won 4 out of 6 titles. But that hasn't happened in the past 50 years in baseball. And it won't happen in the next 50 years. It is a fluke occurance, but you would rather believe it is a skill that only certain teams have, and those teams only come along once every half-century. "

It doesn't matter how many times it has happend in the

past.The Yankees won more titles than the Braves...And

they beat them HEAD TO HEAD several times in the WS.

That makes them better...PERIOD.

If the Braves were better....they would have won atleast

one of the WS they met.But they didn't.

You can't change that fact...so you lose.

Going by your theory baseball should be destroyed because

the best team can never be proven because it's all luck.

Or is regular season the important thing.You know,the

season were you beatup on the brewers and Expos of

the league half the time?lol

All you have is a thoery.

[Hung_Well]

"It doesn't matter how many times it has happend in the

past.The Yankees won more titles than the Braves...And

they beat them HEAD TO HEAD several times in the WS.

That makes them better...PERIOD.

If the Braves were better....they would have won atleast

one of the WS they met.But they didn't.

You can't change that fact...so you lose."

You are way out there. Let me walk you through this one more time:

1) I am not a Braves fan

thus:

2) I don't care if the Yankees are better than the Braves. I didn't care in '96 when they played. I didn't care in '99 when they played again. I don't care now. Get it?

[Guest]

So what the heck are we fighting for since I'm not a

fan of either team?