In Response to a Post at The Platoon Advantage

Specifically, this post.

I love the blog (read every single post), and I love the idea. I just disagree about the results.

My personal bias would be to not pick dynasties on their last legs. I'd rather go with some one-and-dones. So I have to disagree about the ranking of the '06 Cards. As they pointed out, that was basically the same team as the '04 and '05 Cards, and no one would put either of those teams on the list, had they won. I actually think it's a pretty similar story for the 2000 Yankees. Obviously, that was a worse team than the 1998 and 1999 versions, but they were still a very, very solid team. I guess I'd go with:

8. 1960 Pittsburgh Pirates. How does this team not get mentioned on lists like this more often? I've NEVER heard anyone make the claim that this wasn't that good of a team, but I have a couple of theories as to why. First, Dick Groat had a nice year, and won himself an MVP. Second, the Mazeroski home run is (rightfully) famous, and how could a famous home run have come from a bad team? (#kidding) Third, they beat a ridiculously good Yankee team that outplayed them over the course of a seven-game series, and people love that sort of well-they-got-outplayed-but-they-won-anyway-because-they're-scrappy-and-have-heart-kind-of-like-a-whole-team-of-David-Ecksteins garbage. But they were a 4th-place team in 1959, a 6th-place team in 1961, with literally the exact same starting lineup, and two of the top four pitchers were in common all three of the years (plus Vern Law in '59 and '60, and Vinegar Bend Mizell in '60 and '61 - and no, I didn't make up that name). It was a not-great team that took advantage of an NL that was a bit weak. Just not a great team.
7. 1906 Chicago White Sox. Is it too mean to pick on the "Hitless Wonders?" I don't think so, because the pitching wasn't even that good. Not a bad team, but they had no staying power, and that was in the early days of the AL when the league was weak enough that pretty much any team should have been able to dominate for 5-6 years. Obviously, I could have picked on any of the teams from that era, but this one seemed like the obvious choice, so I went with it.
6. 2003 Florida Marlins. Not nearly the same as the 1997 Marlins, which were a dice-roll on talent. This was a game of roulette where before the season, the Marlins called out, "Let it ride on 00 Green!" and it somehow came up. Yeah, there were some great players, but they didn't even know what they had in Miguel Cabrera, and the pitching was just lights-out, even though those same players mostly flamed out within a couple years. Total luck of the draw, and the worst World Series winner I remember watching.
5. 1988 Los Angeles Dodgers. The good stuff first: Kirk Gibson was the MVP, Orel Hershiser won the Cy Young and had the 59 scoreless innings. The bad: no one else on the team had an rWAR above 2.9 (!!!!!!!!!), and Gibson didn't even make the All-Star team (though he's probably the best player to never be an All-Star). Had Pedro Guerrero not been inexplicably traded midseason (at least, I can't explain it, but I was not quite yet 2 years old at the time, so if someone knows the scoop, give it to me), they would have had one other championship-caliber hitter.
4. 1914 Boston Braves. Yup, Miracle teams are great stories. But do you know why it's a great story when a Miracle team wins, like these Miracle Braves? It's a Miracle because they're not that good of a team. When Johnny Evers and something named Joe Connolly (he of 4 Major League seasons, though they were pretty good ones) are your best hitters, there's a problem.
3. 1990 Cincinnati Reds. Seriously - how did you forget these guys? Larkin wasn't that good a hitter yet, O'Neill and Davis both had off-years, the pitching staff was somehow led by Jose Rijo, and it wasn't even his best season. Yikes.
2. 1987 Minnesota Twins. My wife was born the day they won game 7 (and she's from Minnesota, and a die-hard Twins fan). We think very fondly of this team, but man alive - they weren't really very good.
1. Quick - name ONE player on the 1944 St. Louis Browns. Did you get Vern Stephens, aka the only player on the team with an rWAR over 4.6, and only non-pitcher over 2.2? As you said, it's a little unfair to attack wartime baseball. But seriously, how do you not put these guys at the top? Sure, their winning percentage was .577, which is better than many teams, but two years earlier (before all the good players left) or one year later (when they came back) this team wouldn't have finished 7th, much less won the pennant. At least the 1945 Tigers, mentioned on the other list, had great pitching, and Rudy York, whom Bill (the poster at The Platoon Advantage) drastically underestimates as a player.

Fun exercise. I wanted to pick the 1985 Royals, but their pitching was just too, too good. Also, I really wanted to include the 1940 Reds, but at least they had Ernie Lombardi, Frank McCormick, and Bucky Walters, who each had a pretty good run in the late-'30s-early-40s era. Hope you've enjoyed this. What do you think?

baseball-reference.com was indispensable in the writing of this post.