Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on Mar 30, 2019 20:50:40 GMT -5
First, some background, broad strokes style.
Basically, a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, there were a lot of baseball leagues. It wasn't like today where there's the PBL, the minor leagues and a couple random independent leagues. I'm talking about dozens and dozens of leagues, formal and informal all over the country. The largest of these leagues was the National League. Challengers to this league came and went but eventually one stuck. The National League had just downsized from twelve teams to eight and one man saw an opportunity. Bancroft (Ban) Johnson got a bunch of owners together and founded the American League to compete. Part of this competition was founded in having teams in the same cities so a lot of cities (Philadelphia, New York, Chicago, Boston and St. Louis had a team in each leagues by the end of the decade). Another part was to put AL teams in cities that the NL had abandoned (Baltimore and Washington).
He also took advantage of some of the flaws in the NL's operation. First, the NL had a maximum salary in place, keeping individual players from making more than a certain amount ($2,400, about $75k today). Ban Johnson announced that players who played in his American League didn't have to worry about that cap. A number of stars jumped from the NL to the AL, including Nap Lajoie, Elmer Flick and Cy Young. The NL game was also known for 'rowdyism', violence in the field, intimidation of umpires or just generally dirty play that you wouldn't want to take your family to go see. Johnson cleaned up the AL, enforcing fines and suspensions on players/managers that stepped out of line, and sold American League baseball as good clean family fun.
This all worked. By 1902 the AL was outdrawing the NL by 500,000 fans a year, and in the cities with a team in each league the AL team consistently drew more fans. The National League, realizing that it was losing the battle, sued for peace. They agreed to a sort of loose merger, where the two leagues respected each others' contracts and agreed to send their champions to a World Series to determine the winner. And, from that point forward, we had (more or less) the same MLB that existed for the next 107 years.
Next, a tour through the teams of the day!
Baltimore Orioles / New York Highlanders: 0.487 Win Percentage, 0 Pennants, 0 Championships
Best Team: 1904, when they finished 92-59 in second place, 1.5 games behind Boston.
The Baltimore Orioles were a terror in the 1890s, playing a hard-nosed kind of baseball (that involved all manner of dirty tricks and intimidation). Though their roster was stocked with monster hitters in 1901 and 1902 (John McGraw, Turkey Mike Donlin, Roger Bresnahan, Cy Seymour and Jimmy T Williams) they had no pitching and did poorly. After the 1902 season the team was sold to a new owner who moved the team to New York as the Highlanders (because their park was on high land - you couldn't make this up). John McGraw, an exceptional hitter in his own right who would go on to be one of the greatest managers ever, was on the outs by the time the sale happened. McGraw and the American League Commissioner Ban Johnson despised each other (Johnson thought McGraw was a foul-mouthed ruffian while McGraw thought Johnson a tyrannical prick, both true) and midway through the 1902 season McGraw was suspended from the league. McGraw jumped to the NL's New York Giants and brought a lot of his best players with him (McGraw was not particularly kind but commanded a fierce loyalty from most of his players). The Highlanders had a few good years by paying top dollar to steal players from the NL (notably weakening the Pirates' dynasty) but ultimately had a fairly mediocre decade. The franchise's future as the most successful of the 20th century was not even a wild dream in those days.
Boston Americans / Red Sox: 0.520 Win Percentage, 2 Pennants, 1 Championship
Best Team: 1903, when they finished 91-47 and won the first World Series.
Boston headed into the decade in a fantastic position. They had Cy Young, the greatest pitcher in the American League, along with a slew of quality hitters like Jimmy Collins and Buck Freeman. They had a dominant four-year stretch, finishing 2nd, 3rd, 1st and 1st in the AL. But by 1905 their core was all in their mid 30s, and this in an era where players were not known for long careers. They had a few down years but by 1909 they finished third, led by a 21 year-old center fielder named Tris Speaker.
Boston Beaneaters / Doves: 0.393 Win Percentage, 0 Pennants, 0 Championships
Best Team: 1902, when they went 73-64 and finished 3rd, 29 games out of first
You gotta love a decade where a team can be called the Beaneaters without getting rocked on Twitter. I'm sure you've never heard of this team, but believe it or not Boston had two teams all the way until the 50s. Does anyone know what this franchise is named now? Anybody? I'll give you a hint: in 1912 they change their name to the Boston Braves. Okay, yeah, that gives it away. That said, this decade did not have much good going on for this Boston team.
Brooklyn Superbas: 0.429 Win Percentage, 0 Pennants, 0 Championships
Best Team: 1901, when they went 79-57 and finished 3rd, 9.5 games out of first.
Brooklyn was a fairly murderous team going into the decade, with players like Bill Dahlen, Willie Keeler and Jimmy Sheckard and Bill Donovan. But by 1901 they were already getting on in years and couldn't compete with the top teams. 1903 was their last year above 500 and they proceeded to be fairly terrible for the rest of the decade. Anyone know where this team is right now? The city should give it away . . . that's right, this team eventually became the Brooklyn Dodgers, which are now located in Los Angeles.
Chicago Orphans / Cubs: 0.612 Win Percentage, 3 Pennants, 2 Championships
Best Team: The Cubs won 100+ games in three years (1906, 1907, 1909), but 1906 must be considered their best year (even if it's the only team they didn't win the World Series. They went a ridiculous 116-36 that year and are generally considered one of the best teams ever.
The Cubs didn't start off the decade particularly strong but by 1903 they had hit their stride and wouldn't finish below 90 wins (adjusted for schedule) until 1914. The really interesting thing about this juggernaut is that it really lacked superstars. Pittsburgh had Honus Wagner. The Giants had Christy Matthewson. But Chicago just had a really deep team of quality performers. Johnny Kling was one of the first catchers to not be completely terrible with a bat (and was a heck of a fielder). Mordecai "Three Finger" Brown was very good, but he wasn't one of the top 5 of the decade. To make my point, here's the most common roster for the Cubs from 1904-1909, with their WARs and JONS scores (and for reference, a JONS of 30+ is required to be an Honorable Mention generally):
C: Johnny Kling, four 4+ WAR seasons, OPS+ 100, +40 defense, JONS of 12.7
1B: Frank Chance, One 7+ WAR, Four 5+ WAR, OPS+ 135, +48 defense, JONS of 24.8
2B: Johnny Evers, two 5+ WAR, eight 3+ WAR, OPS+ 106, +127 defense, JONS of 24.2
SS: Joe Tinker, one 7+ WAR, six 4+ WAR, twelve 3+ WAR, OPS+ 96, +180 defense, JONS of 29.1
3B: Harry Steinfeldt, one 7+ WAR, five 3+ WAR, OPS+ 102, +14 defense, JONS of 13.8
OF: Jimmy Sheckard, one 7+ WAR, three 5+, eight 3+, OPS+ 121, +77 defense, JONS of 23.6
OF: Frank Schulte, one 5+ WAR, three 3+, OPS+ 114, +4 defense, JONS of 7.1
OF: Jimmy Slagle, two 3+ WAR, OPS+ 97, +29 defense, JONS of 5
Notice anything in that roster? First, zero players that actually deserve to be in this building (Joe Tinker comes pretty close though). Also, few heavy bats; Chance's OPS+ of 135 is really good, but in the 30th percentile for this building at first base. That said, this lineup doesn't really have any holes. I mean, I suppose you could wish that Slagle was better (though he was consistently above average), but everyone here is pulling their weight. Compare this with, say, the 1927 Yankees who have a few superstars but still had two below-average starters. The Cubs are solid all the way through. Also, look at the defense. Not a single negative defensive rating; in that six year stretch the Cubs were #1 in defense in the NL every year except one, in which they placed second. That was a massive advantage in an era where home runs didn't exist, so every single ball was put in play.
As for their pitchers? It's a little bit challenging, because while they were considered exceptional in their day, the Cubs incredible fielding made all of them look good. Mordecai "Three-Finger" Brown is only a 28 JONS pitcher if you ignore his fielding support; really good but probably not even Honorable Mention. Build his JONS while crediting him for his BABIP (which was almost certainly his fielding support) and suddenly he has a JONS of 36.8, still not Bronze, but Honorable Mention by a mile. From 1904-1909 the Cubs were usually second in team FIP, again with one high-quality player (Brown) and several solid pitchers (Pfeister, Overall, Reulbach).
This is a long way of saying, that the Cubs of 1904-1909 are probably the only set of teams that were historically great, but had no historically great players on them, and instead just had a really deep roster and great defense that combined to make the aggregate result greater than the apparent sum of its parts.
*** In reality, Chance, Tinker, Evers and Brown are all in the Hall. There are worse travesties, but I don't think any of them really deserve it. I think it genuinely defies understanding that a team could be so dominant without any Hall of Fame quality players, so their best players were inducted, which I understand, but the Cubs dominance was a literal team effort. ***
Chicago White Sox: 0.564 Win Percentage, 2 Pennants, 1 Championship
Best Team: Probable the 1906 White Sox who went 93-58 and won the World Series against the Cubs.
The White Sox here probably had their best decade until the 2030s. They had a solid core of decent hitters and quality pitchers like Ed Walsh and Roy Patterson. They held their own, finishing in the first division every season except 1903. They had three really good years: 1901, 1905 and 1906. As the decade progressed the core aged and slowly receded in the standings, but it wasn't until 1910 that they finally dipped below 500.
Cincinnati Reds: 0.482 Win Percentage, 0 Pennants, 0 Championships
Best Team: Probably 1904 when they went 88-65 and still finished 18 games out of first. The NL from 1904 to 1909 was hilariously top-heavy. And if you weren't the Giants, Cubs or Pirates you really had no chance.
The Reds were decent at the beginning of the decade, but not quite good enough to finish in the top 2. The second half of the decade the Reds were generally below average.
Cleveland Blues / Bronchos / Naps: 0.524 Win Percentage, 0 Pennants, 0 Championships
Best Team: Probably 1908 when they finished 90-64, half a game out of first.
So, Cleveland was fairly terrible in 1901, but in 1902 they traded for second basemen Napoleon (Nap) Lajoie. Nicknamed "The Frenchman", Lajoie was probably the second most valuable batter in the 1901-1909 timeframe and at the time was considered the best. In honor of their new star player the Cleveland fans voted to change their team to the Naps, and they kept the name until 1915, when they became the Indians. Lajoie did have some help, notably from third baseman Bill Bradley and from the tragic Addie Joss (broke into the majors at 22, put up 34 WAR over the next 8 years, and died of meningitis at 31). The Naps were consistently good, sometimes very good, but never quite good enough to win the league.
Detroit Tigers: 0.519 Win Percentage, 3 Pennants, 0 Championships
Best Team: 1909, when they went 98-54, winning the AL by 3.5 games. They lost the World Series to the Pirates in 7 games.
The Tigers didn't start the decade particularly well, but in 1903 acquired Hall of Fame outfielder Sam Crawford. Detroit grew into a decent team, but in 1905 they debuted an 18-year old outfielder named Ty Cobb, who turned out to be pretty good. At 18 (in 1905) he needed seasoning. At 19 (1906) he was quite good. At 20 (1907) he put up a 6.8 WAR season and led the Tigers to the pennant. That great season was the first of many; the next time he hit below 5.5 WAR was in 1920. With Cobb (along with Crawford and a solid supporting cast) the Tigers won the AL three straight times to end the decade.
Milwaukee Brewers / St. Louis Browns: 0.454 Win Percentage, 0 Pennants, 0 Championships
Best Team: 1902 when they went 78-58 and finished five games out of first.
The first fifty years of baseball had two major sad-sack franchises in the AL: the Browns and the Senators. It's not that the Browns didn't have their moments, they did, but they were generally fairly bad and would get worst in the proceeding decade.
New York Giants: 0.574 Win Percentage, 2 Pennants, 1 Championship
Best Team: 1904 and 1905 are pretty much identical, both 105+ win seasons where they won the Pennant (and one World Series)
The Giants were terrible in the first two years of the decade but turned things around very quickly under new manager John McGraw. With his masterful leadership they also gained a number of excellent players. They had their share of skilled batters, though McGraw (the Bill Belichick of his day) quickly demonstrated his ability to get quality performances out of mediocre players, who would regress the instant they left the team. Batters would come and go in McGraw's system and, somehow, they kept being good no matter how poor they had been elsewhere. McGraw's gift with the hitters was invaluable but the Giants had another ace up their sleeve. The 1901-1909 period had three great pitchers. Boston's Cy Young was exceptional, but he was already 34 in 1901, so the decade saw the tail end of his career. Rube Waddell (mostly for the Athletics) was the most dominant strikeout pitcher of his day, but was something of a head case. For pure excellence (and redoubtable sanity), Christy Mathewson was the best pitcher of the decade, and his ability, combined with McGraw's management, made the Giants one of the three great teams of the NL in this time period. Starting in 1904 they only won less than 92 games once (and this is back when they only played 155 games a year).
Philadelphia Athletics: 0.564 Win Percentage, 2 Pennants, 0 Championships
Best Team: Technically 1909, when they went 95-58 and finished 3.5 games behind the Tigers.
What-If Best Team: In 1902 the A's won the Pennant, going 83-53. This team wasn't technically as good as the 1909 team, even if they did win. But. Before the 1901 season Nap Lajoie, over a salary dispute with the Phillies, jumped to the American League and signed with the A's. In 1901 he hit 426/463/643 for an OPS+ of 198. But in 1902 the courts ruled that Lajoie had broken his contract with the Phillies illegally and issued an injunction to keep him from playing in Pennsylvania. So the A's ended up needing to sell him to the Cleveland Bronchos, and won the 1902 Pennant without the American League's best hitter. But they could have been fantastic.
Philadelphia in the first two thirds of the decade had a very respectable lineup but was carried by their pitching, notably two pitchers in this building, Rube Waddell and Eddie Plank, and another quality starter in Charles "Chief" Bender. They were well above average until 1908 when the wheels came off. Luckily they had two top prospects just hitting their roster, second baseman Eddie Collins and third baseman Frank Baker (not yet "Home Run"). In 1909 these players hit their stride and would lead the A's to five years of great baseball.
Philadelphia Phillies: 0.480 Win Percentage, 0 Pennants, 0 Championships
Best Team: 1901, when they went 83-57 and finished 7.5 games behind Pittsburgh.
The Phillies were pretty good in 1901, but lost many of their best players in the next few years. They never again finished second or better in the decade.
Pittsburgh Pirates: 0.642 Win Percentage, 4 Pennants, 1 Championship
Best Team: The 1902 Pirates were one of the best teams ever, going 103-36, the second best win percentage ever behind the 1906 Cubs. They had the best offense in the NL, scoring a full run a game more than the 2nd best offense. But their pitching was absolutely out of control; each of their four starters was incredible and their team FIP that year was so good, the gap between them and the #2 team was greater than the gap between the #2 team and the #8 team. And this team has a better claim to all-time quality than the 1906 Cubs. Move the Cubs out of the era and their reliance on fielding and small-ball becomes a liability (not that they aren't really good still, but no longer invincible). But the 1902 Pirates . . . had the #1 starter, the #2 starter, #5 starter and #9 starter in the league. There has *never* been a rotation with such top to bottom dominance. Then the newly founded New York Highlanders made hard bids for their players,and two of that four-man rotation jumped to the AL. And suddenly the Pirates were mortal. Great, but mortal.
The Pirates of this decade were really, really, really good. They had a quality rotation the whole time (and in 1901 actually had Rube Waddell, even if they cut him because they found him too unreliable). Their lineup was full of quality players, but Honus Wagner was unquestionably the reason Pittsburgh enjoyed so much success. From 1901 to 1909 Wagner was worth almost 80 wins (79.4 WAR), averaging almost 9 WAR per year. Having such a reliably dominant player doesn't guarantee anything, but if you give them a quality supporting cast then you've got it made. The Pirates checked all those boxes and had one of the best decades of any team ever.
St. Louis Cardinals: 0.388 Win Percentage, 0 Pennants, 0 Championships
Best Team: 1901, when they went 76-64 and finished 4th, 14.5 games out of first.
1901 was their only season in the decade above 500. They only had one more season that decade above 60 wins. They were not good.
Washington Senators: 0.366 Win Percentage, 0 Pennants, 0 Championships
Best Team: 1908, when they went 67-85 and finished 7th.
I don't know what you want from me. The Senators were terrible, the worst team of the decade. How bad? Let's just say that in 1909 they had 21 year-old Walter Johnson (one of the best pitchers ever, though that year he was only #13 in the AL or so) and they won 42 games.
Breakdown by Year:
1901: 272/327/360, 4.99 runs/game per team, the average game had 0.4 home runs, 2.6 steals, 6.3 K's
Pennant Winners: Chicago White Sox 83-53, Pittsburgh Pirates 90-49
World Series: not invented yet
Best Hitters: Nap Lajoie (PHA), Bobby Wallace (STL)
Best Pitchers: Cy Young (BOS), Noodles Hahn (CIN)
1902: 267/322/344, 4.43 runs/game per team, the average game had 0.3 home runs, 2.4 steals, 5.9 K's
Pennant Winners: Philadelphia Athletics 83-53, Pittsburgh Pirates 103-36
World Series: still not invented yet
Best Hitters: Ed Delahanty (WAS), Honus Wagner (PIT)
Best Pitchers: Rube Waddell (PHA), Deacon Phillipe (PIT)
1903: 262/317/346, 4.44 runs/game per team, the average game had 0.3 home runs, 2.5 steals, 7.1 K's
Pennant Winners: Boston Americans 91-47, Pittsburgh Pirates 91-49
World Series: Boston Americans defeat Pittsburgh Pirates 5-3
Best Hitters: Nap Lajoie, 2 (CLE), Honus Wagner, 2 (PIT)
Best Pitchers: Rube Waddell, 2 (PHA), Christy Mathewson (NYG)
1904: 247/301/321, 3.72 runs/game per team, the average game had 0.3 home runs, 2.2 steals, 7.4 K's
Pennant Winners: Boston Americans 95-59, New York Giants 106-47
World Series: John McGraw (the Giants's manager) refused to play the AL team so the series never happened
Best Hitters: Nap Lajoie, 3 (CLE), Honus Wagner, 3 (PIT)
Best Pitchers: Rube Waddell, 3 (PHA), Christy Mathewson, 2 (NYG)
1905: 248/307/323, 3.90 runs/game per team, the average game had 0.3 home runs, 2.4 steals, 7.7 K's
Pennant Winners: Philadelphia Athletics 92-56, New York Giants 105-48
World Series: New York Giants defeat Philadelphia Athletics 4-1
Best Hitters: George Davis (CHA), Honus Wagner, 4 (PIT)
Best Pitchers: Cy Young, 2 (BOS), Christy Mathewson, 3 (NYG)
1906: 247/306/314, 3.61 runs/game per team, the average game had 0.2 home runs, 2.4 steals, 7.4 K's
Pennant Winners: Chicago White Sox 93-58, Chicago Cubs 116-36
World Series: Chicago White Sox defeat Chicago Cubs 4-2
Best Hitters: Nap Lajoie, 4 (CLE), Honus Wagner, 5 (PIT)
Best Pitchers: Al Orth (NYH), Bob Ewing (CIN)
1907: 245/305/309, 3.52 runs/game per team, the average game had 0.2 home runs, 2.3 steals, 7.2 K's
Pennant Winners: Detroit Tigers 92-58, Chicago Cubs 107-45
World Series: Chicago Cubs defeat Detroit Tigers 4-0-1
Best Hitters: Nap Lajoie, 5 (CLE), Honus Wagner, 6 (PIT)
Best Pitchers: Rube Waddell, 4 (PHA), Christy Mathewson, 4 (NYG)
1908: 239/297/305, 3.38 runs/game per team, the average game had 0.2 home runs, 2.2 steals, 7.3 K's
Pennant Winners: Detroit Tigers 90-63, Chicago Cubs 99-57
World Series: Chicago Cubs defeat Detroit Tigers 4-1
Best Hitters: Nap Lajoie, 6 (CLE), Honus Wagner, 7 (PIT)
Best Pitchers: Ed Walsh (CHA), Christy Mathewson, 5 (NYG)
1909: 244/306/311, 3.54 runs/game per team, the average game had 0.2 home runs, 2.5 steals, 7.6 K's
Pennant Winners: Detroit Tigers 98-54, Pittsburgh Pirates 110-42
World Series: Pittsburgh Pirates defeat Detroit Tigers 4-3
Best Hitters: Eddie Collins (PHA), Honus Wagner, 8 (PIT)
Best Pitchers: Frank Smith (CHA), Mordecai Brown (CHN)
All-Decade Team (based on aggregate results for the decade):
C: Roger Bresnahan, BAL/NYG
1B: Frank Chance, CHN
2B: Nap Lajoie, PHA/CLE
3B: Honus Wagner, PIT (Wagner played mostly short but started the decade at 3rd. Wallace > the next best 3B by a lot)
SS: Bobby Wallace, SLA
OF: Fred Clarke, PIT
CF: Sam Crawford, CIN/DET
OF: Elmer Flick, PHI/CLE
SP: Christy Mathewson, NYG
SP: Cy Young, BOS/CLE
SP: Rube Waddell, PIT/CHN/PHA/SLA
SP: Eddie Plank, PHA
SP: Jack Chesbro, PIT/NYH
Top Franchises of the Decade:
1) Pittsburgh Pirates
2) Chicago Cubs
3) New York Giants
4) Chicago White Sox
5) Philadelphia Athletics
Worst Franchises of the Decade:
1) Washington Senators
2) St. Louis Cardinals
3) Boston Beaneaters
4) Brooklyn Superbas
5) St. Louis Browns
Welcome to our best teams of all-time section! We'll show the top ten teams for each decade (adjusted for league size, so for the 1900s we do the top ten teams, for the 2030s we do the top twenty teams, because there are twice as many teams) and this will lead to a final top 100 teams of all-time countdown in the Pantheon. Exciting! We won't go into too much detail here (we'll save the detail for the Top 100) but I wanted to discuss the methodology briefly. These ratings are a combination of 1) Record, 2) Pythagorean record (runs scored vs. allowed basically), 3) Team WAR, 4) Playoff success and 5) league environment. #5 is the weird one, so I want to talk about it briefly. Basically, we want to reward teams for being successful in competitive environments. The prime example is the 1969 Baltimore Orioles. By every objective measure they're the best team of the 60s. Here's the problem: four expansion teams had been added to the league in 1969 (which were reliably terrible) and so the top teams looked artificially good. We don't want to reward that team for playing against watered-down competition. Or consider the 1906 Cubs, widely considered one of the best teams ever. The Cubs have an impressive track record, going 116-36 (arguably the best record ever). But going against them was the fact that the NL was incredibly weak that year. Two teams won 35% of their games or less (52-98 and 49-102) while two other teams stomped the competition (96-56 and 93-60). When you see 1) several teams with terrible records and 2) several teams with great records it suggests that the average level of competition was pretty low. Our system rewards teams for being dominant, ideally, in a scenario where there aren't many terrible teams and where there aren't many other juggernauts, both of which suggest that the team in question was in a class by themselves. It's not a perfect methodology, but it does compensate a bit for eras like the 1900s where there were terrible teams everywhere.
Anyhow. These sections will be reasonably brief. The first line will be results, the second line will be performance measured by standard deviations from the mean in WAR (when in doubt, +1 is really good, +2 is amazing, and remember, they're in order of value so +1 hitting > +1 pitching > +1 fielding), the third line is top batters (with WAR numbers), the fourth line is top starters (with WAR numbers), the fifth line (if practical) is top relievers (with WPA).
Best Teams of the Decade:
#10: 1908 Chicago Cubs
Results: 99-55 (.643), 3.96 R/G vs 2.92 RA/G (.635), Finished 1st by one game, Won the NL, Won World Series 4-1
Ratings: Hitting: +0.84, Pitching: +0.95, Fielding +1.36
Top Batters: Joe Tinker, 7.5 (SS), Johnny Evers, 5.8 (2B), Frank Chance, 3.9 (1B), Johnny Kling, 3.6 (C)
Top Starters: Mordecai Brown (5.7), Orval Overall (4.1), Jack Pfiester (3.6)
#9: 1903 Boston Americans
Results: 91-47 (.659), 5.02 R/G vs 3.58 RA/G (.649), Finished 1st by fifteen games, Won the AL, Won World Series 5-3
Ratings: Hitting: +1.38, Pitching: +0.28, Fielding: +1.35
Top Batters: Freddy Parent, 6.2 (SS), Jimmy Collins, 5.3 (3B), Patsy Dougherty, 4.9 (OF), Buck Freemnan, 4.0 (1B)
Top Starters: Cy Young (5.7), Bill Dineen (3.7)
#8: 1908 New York Giants
Results: 98-56 (.636), 4.15 R/G vs 2.90 RA/G (.658), Finished 2nd by one game to the Cubs
SDFM: Hitting: +1.98, Pitching: +2.46, Fielding +0.41
Top Batters: Mike Donlin, 6.6 (OF), Roger Bresnahan, 5.4 (C), Al Bridwell, 4.7 (SS), Art Devlin, 4.4 (3B), Fred Tenney, 3.4 (1B), Larry Doyle, 3.2 (2B)
Top Starters: Christy Mathewson (10.8), Hooks Wiltse (4.3)
#7: 1904 New York Giants
Results: 106-47 (.693), 4.71 R/G vs 3.01 RA/G (.693), Finished 1st by thirteen games, won the NL, no World Series held
Ratings: Hitting: +1.63, Pitching: +1.37, Fielding: +1.82
Top Batters: Bill Dahlen, 5.9 (SS), Art Devlin, 5.4 (3B), Dan McGann, 4.9 (1B), Sam Mertes, 4.7 (OF), Roger Bresnahan, C (4.0), Billy Gilbert, 3.7 (2B)
Top Starters: Christy Mathewson (6.7), Joe McGinnity (4.6), Dummy Taylor (3.8)
#6: 1909 Pittsburgh Pirates
Results: 110-42 (.724), 4.55 R/G vs 2.91 RA/G (.693), Finished 1st by six games, Won the NL, Won World Series 4-3
Ratings: Hitting: +1.52, Pitching: +1.25, Fielding: +0.66
Top Batters: Honus Wagner, 9.7 (SS), Fred Clarke, 5.7 (OF), Dots Miller, 4.8 (2B), Tommy Leach, 4.2 (3B), George Gibson, 3.6 (C)
Top Starters: Howie Camnitz (4.8), Vic Willis (3.2)
#5: 1901 Pittsburgh Pirates
Results: 90-49 (.647), 5.55 R/G vs 3.81 RA/G (.665), Finished 1st by seven games, Won the NL, no World Series held
Ratings: Hitting: +1.62, Pitching: +0.67, Fielding: +1.06
Top Batters: Honus Wagner, 7.5 (SS), Fred Clarke, 5.5 (OF), Ginger Beaumont, 4.3 (OF), Lefty Davis, 3.5 (OF), Claude Ritchey, 3.3 (2B), Tommy Leach, 3.1 (3B)
Top Starters: Jesse Tannehill (4.5), Jack Chesbro (4.0), Deacon Phillippe (3.8)
#4: 1906 Chicago Cubs
Results: 116-36 (.763), 4.54 R/G vs 2.46 RA/G (.753), Finished 1st by twenty games, Won the NL, Lost World Series 4-2
Ratings: Hitting: +1.48, Pitching: +1.22, Fielding: +2.15
Top Batters: Frank Chance, 7.7 (1B), Harry Steinfeldt, 7.5 (3B), Joe Tinker, 4.2 (SS), Jimmy Sheckard, 3.9 (OF), Frank Schulte, 3.9 (OF), Johnny Evers, 3.8 (2B), Johnny Kling, 3.7 (C)
Top Starters: Mordecai Brown (5.3), Jack Pfeister (4.4)
#3: 1907 Chicago Cubs
Results: 107-45 (.704), 3.68 R/G vs. 2.52 RA/G (.666), Finished 1st by seventeen games, Won World Series 4-0-1
Ratings: Hitting: +0.43, Pitching +1.28, Fielding +2.69
Top Batters: Johnny Evers, 5.0 (2B), Frank Chance, 4.9 (1B), Harry Steinfeldt, 4.7 (3B), Johnny Kling, 3.2 (C), Jimmy Sheckard, 3.1 (OF)
Top Starters: Mordecai Brown (4.4), Orval Overall (4.3), Jack Pfiester (3.1)
#2: 1905 New York Giants
Results: 105-48 (.686), 5.02 R/G vs 3.26 RA/G (.687), Finished 1st by nine games, Won World Series 4-1
Ratings: Hitting +2.26, Pitching +2.28, Fielding +1.68
Top Batters: Mike Donlin, 7.4 (OF), Bill Dahlen, 5.7 (SS), Dan McGann, 5.3 (1B), Art Devlin, 4.4 (3B), Sam Mertes, 4.0 (OF), Roger Bresnahan, 3.5 (C)
Top Starters: Christy Mathewson (7.4), Red Ames (4.7), Joe McGinnity (3.9)
#1: 1902 Pittsburgh Pirates
Results: 103-36 (.741), 5.45 R/G vs 3.10 R/G (.736), Finished 1st by twenty-eight games, no World Series held
Ratings: Hitting: +2.69, Pitching: +1.34, Fielding: +1.35
Top Batters: Honus Wagner, 7.5 (SS), Tommy Leach, 5.9 (3B), Ginger Beaumont, 5.7 (OF), Fred Clarke, 5.4 (OF), Claude Ritchey, 3.5 (2B)
Top Starters: Deacon Phillippe (5.3), Jesse Tannehill (4.1), Jack Chesbro (3.8), Sam Leever (3.2)
The 1906 Cubs get penalized because their underlying performance is worse than their record or pythag, as well as their weirdly uncompetitive league environment. Had they won their World Series against the White Sox they'd be 3rd, but the 1905 Giants and 1902 Pirates are scary-good with none of the 1906 Cubs' failcards. Comparing the player WAR between the teams, please bear in mind that the 1902 Pirates only played 139 games that year, so the player WARs that you're seeing are 10% or so lower than they ought to be for comparison purposes.
Phew, that was some tour through history, right? Isn't it crazy how scoring and hitting dropped so much? Why did it happen? That's a good question. Part of it was that fielding (and gloves, which at the time were reasonably new) was getting better, so at the beginning of the decade a ball put in play was a hit 29.9% of the time, but by 1908 (the most deadball of the era) only 26.1% would be hits. That may not sound like much, but the gap is enormous. Another factor is that at the beginning of the decade foul balls were declared strikes (before they had not). This increased the number of pitchers counts that batters saw. And lastly, at the time the league would use the same balls as long as they could. Pitchers started to discover that balls that were scuffed gained a lot more movement and used this to their advantage. In general, everything worked against hitters as the decade went on.
Okay, hit the bathroom, and when we're all ready, Honorable Mention Third Basemen!
Basically, a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, there were a lot of baseball leagues. It wasn't like today where there's the PBL, the minor leagues and a couple random independent leagues. I'm talking about dozens and dozens of leagues, formal and informal all over the country. The largest of these leagues was the National League. Challengers to this league came and went but eventually one stuck. The National League had just downsized from twelve teams to eight and one man saw an opportunity. Bancroft (Ban) Johnson got a bunch of owners together and founded the American League to compete. Part of this competition was founded in having teams in the same cities so a lot of cities (Philadelphia, New York, Chicago, Boston and St. Louis had a team in each leagues by the end of the decade). Another part was to put AL teams in cities that the NL had abandoned (Baltimore and Washington).
He also took advantage of some of the flaws in the NL's operation. First, the NL had a maximum salary in place, keeping individual players from making more than a certain amount ($2,400, about $75k today). Ban Johnson announced that players who played in his American League didn't have to worry about that cap. A number of stars jumped from the NL to the AL, including Nap Lajoie, Elmer Flick and Cy Young. The NL game was also known for 'rowdyism', violence in the field, intimidation of umpires or just generally dirty play that you wouldn't want to take your family to go see. Johnson cleaned up the AL, enforcing fines and suspensions on players/managers that stepped out of line, and sold American League baseball as good clean family fun.
This all worked. By 1902 the AL was outdrawing the NL by 500,000 fans a year, and in the cities with a team in each league the AL team consistently drew more fans. The National League, realizing that it was losing the battle, sued for peace. They agreed to a sort of loose merger, where the two leagues respected each others' contracts and agreed to send their champions to a World Series to determine the winner. And, from that point forward, we had (more or less) the same MLB that existed for the next 107 years.
Next, a tour through the teams of the day!
Baltimore Orioles / New York Highlanders: 0.487 Win Percentage, 0 Pennants, 0 Championships
Best Team: 1904, when they finished 92-59 in second place, 1.5 games behind Boston.
The Baltimore Orioles were a terror in the 1890s, playing a hard-nosed kind of baseball (that involved all manner of dirty tricks and intimidation). Though their roster was stocked with monster hitters in 1901 and 1902 (John McGraw, Turkey Mike Donlin, Roger Bresnahan, Cy Seymour and Jimmy T Williams) they had no pitching and did poorly. After the 1902 season the team was sold to a new owner who moved the team to New York as the Highlanders (because their park was on high land - you couldn't make this up). John McGraw, an exceptional hitter in his own right who would go on to be one of the greatest managers ever, was on the outs by the time the sale happened. McGraw and the American League Commissioner Ban Johnson despised each other (Johnson thought McGraw was a foul-mouthed ruffian while McGraw thought Johnson a tyrannical prick, both true) and midway through the 1902 season McGraw was suspended from the league. McGraw jumped to the NL's New York Giants and brought a lot of his best players with him (McGraw was not particularly kind but commanded a fierce loyalty from most of his players). The Highlanders had a few good years by paying top dollar to steal players from the NL (notably weakening the Pirates' dynasty) but ultimately had a fairly mediocre decade. The franchise's future as the most successful of the 20th century was not even a wild dream in those days.
Boston Americans / Red Sox: 0.520 Win Percentage, 2 Pennants, 1 Championship
Best Team: 1903, when they finished 91-47 and won the first World Series.
Boston headed into the decade in a fantastic position. They had Cy Young, the greatest pitcher in the American League, along with a slew of quality hitters like Jimmy Collins and Buck Freeman. They had a dominant four-year stretch, finishing 2nd, 3rd, 1st and 1st in the AL. But by 1905 their core was all in their mid 30s, and this in an era where players were not known for long careers. They had a few down years but by 1909 they finished third, led by a 21 year-old center fielder named Tris Speaker.
Boston Beaneaters / Doves: 0.393 Win Percentage, 0 Pennants, 0 Championships
Best Team: 1902, when they went 73-64 and finished 3rd, 29 games out of first
You gotta love a decade where a team can be called the Beaneaters without getting rocked on Twitter. I'm sure you've never heard of this team, but believe it or not Boston had two teams all the way until the 50s. Does anyone know what this franchise is named now? Anybody? I'll give you a hint: in 1912 they change their name to the Boston Braves. Okay, yeah, that gives it away. That said, this decade did not have much good going on for this Boston team.
Brooklyn Superbas: 0.429 Win Percentage, 0 Pennants, 0 Championships
Best Team: 1901, when they went 79-57 and finished 3rd, 9.5 games out of first.
Brooklyn was a fairly murderous team going into the decade, with players like Bill Dahlen, Willie Keeler and Jimmy Sheckard and Bill Donovan. But by 1901 they were already getting on in years and couldn't compete with the top teams. 1903 was their last year above 500 and they proceeded to be fairly terrible for the rest of the decade. Anyone know where this team is right now? The city should give it away . . . that's right, this team eventually became the Brooklyn Dodgers, which are now located in Los Angeles.
Chicago Orphans / Cubs: 0.612 Win Percentage, 3 Pennants, 2 Championships
Best Team: The Cubs won 100+ games in three years (1906, 1907, 1909), but 1906 must be considered their best year (even if it's the only team they didn't win the World Series. They went a ridiculous 116-36 that year and are generally considered one of the best teams ever.
The Cubs didn't start off the decade particularly strong but by 1903 they had hit their stride and wouldn't finish below 90 wins (adjusted for schedule) until 1914. The really interesting thing about this juggernaut is that it really lacked superstars. Pittsburgh had Honus Wagner. The Giants had Christy Matthewson. But Chicago just had a really deep team of quality performers. Johnny Kling was one of the first catchers to not be completely terrible with a bat (and was a heck of a fielder). Mordecai "Three Finger" Brown was very good, but he wasn't one of the top 5 of the decade. To make my point, here's the most common roster for the Cubs from 1904-1909, with their WARs and JONS scores (and for reference, a JONS of 30+ is required to be an Honorable Mention generally):
C: Johnny Kling, four 4+ WAR seasons, OPS+ 100, +40 defense, JONS of 12.7
1B: Frank Chance, One 7+ WAR, Four 5+ WAR, OPS+ 135, +48 defense, JONS of 24.8
2B: Johnny Evers, two 5+ WAR, eight 3+ WAR, OPS+ 106, +127 defense, JONS of 24.2
SS: Joe Tinker, one 7+ WAR, six 4+ WAR, twelve 3+ WAR, OPS+ 96, +180 defense, JONS of 29.1
3B: Harry Steinfeldt, one 7+ WAR, five 3+ WAR, OPS+ 102, +14 defense, JONS of 13.8
OF: Jimmy Sheckard, one 7+ WAR, three 5+, eight 3+, OPS+ 121, +77 defense, JONS of 23.6
OF: Frank Schulte, one 5+ WAR, three 3+, OPS+ 114, +4 defense, JONS of 7.1
OF: Jimmy Slagle, two 3+ WAR, OPS+ 97, +29 defense, JONS of 5
Notice anything in that roster? First, zero players that actually deserve to be in this building (Joe Tinker comes pretty close though). Also, few heavy bats; Chance's OPS+ of 135 is really good, but in the 30th percentile for this building at first base. That said, this lineup doesn't really have any holes. I mean, I suppose you could wish that Slagle was better (though he was consistently above average), but everyone here is pulling their weight. Compare this with, say, the 1927 Yankees who have a few superstars but still had two below-average starters. The Cubs are solid all the way through. Also, look at the defense. Not a single negative defensive rating; in that six year stretch the Cubs were #1 in defense in the NL every year except one, in which they placed second. That was a massive advantage in an era where home runs didn't exist, so every single ball was put in play.
As for their pitchers? It's a little bit challenging, because while they were considered exceptional in their day, the Cubs incredible fielding made all of them look good. Mordecai "Three-Finger" Brown is only a 28 JONS pitcher if you ignore his fielding support; really good but probably not even Honorable Mention. Build his JONS while crediting him for his BABIP (which was almost certainly his fielding support) and suddenly he has a JONS of 36.8, still not Bronze, but Honorable Mention by a mile. From 1904-1909 the Cubs were usually second in team FIP, again with one high-quality player (Brown) and several solid pitchers (Pfeister, Overall, Reulbach).
This is a long way of saying, that the Cubs of 1904-1909 are probably the only set of teams that were historically great, but had no historically great players on them, and instead just had a really deep roster and great defense that combined to make the aggregate result greater than the apparent sum of its parts.
*** In reality, Chance, Tinker, Evers and Brown are all in the Hall. There are worse travesties, but I don't think any of them really deserve it. I think it genuinely defies understanding that a team could be so dominant without any Hall of Fame quality players, so their best players were inducted, which I understand, but the Cubs dominance was a literal team effort. ***
Chicago White Sox: 0.564 Win Percentage, 2 Pennants, 1 Championship
Best Team: Probable the 1906 White Sox who went 93-58 and won the World Series against the Cubs.
The White Sox here probably had their best decade until the 2030s. They had a solid core of decent hitters and quality pitchers like Ed Walsh and Roy Patterson. They held their own, finishing in the first division every season except 1903. They had three really good years: 1901, 1905 and 1906. As the decade progressed the core aged and slowly receded in the standings, but it wasn't until 1910 that they finally dipped below 500.
Cincinnati Reds: 0.482 Win Percentage, 0 Pennants, 0 Championships
Best Team: Probably 1904 when they went 88-65 and still finished 18 games out of first. The NL from 1904 to 1909 was hilariously top-heavy. And if you weren't the Giants, Cubs or Pirates you really had no chance.
The Reds were decent at the beginning of the decade, but not quite good enough to finish in the top 2. The second half of the decade the Reds were generally below average.
Cleveland Blues / Bronchos / Naps: 0.524 Win Percentage, 0 Pennants, 0 Championships
Best Team: Probably 1908 when they finished 90-64, half a game out of first.
So, Cleveland was fairly terrible in 1901, but in 1902 they traded for second basemen Napoleon (Nap) Lajoie. Nicknamed "The Frenchman", Lajoie was probably the second most valuable batter in the 1901-1909 timeframe and at the time was considered the best. In honor of their new star player the Cleveland fans voted to change their team to the Naps, and they kept the name until 1915, when they became the Indians. Lajoie did have some help, notably from third baseman Bill Bradley and from the tragic Addie Joss (broke into the majors at 22, put up 34 WAR over the next 8 years, and died of meningitis at 31). The Naps were consistently good, sometimes very good, but never quite good enough to win the league.
Detroit Tigers: 0.519 Win Percentage, 3 Pennants, 0 Championships
Best Team: 1909, when they went 98-54, winning the AL by 3.5 games. They lost the World Series to the Pirates in 7 games.
The Tigers didn't start the decade particularly well, but in 1903 acquired Hall of Fame outfielder Sam Crawford. Detroit grew into a decent team, but in 1905 they debuted an 18-year old outfielder named Ty Cobb, who turned out to be pretty good. At 18 (in 1905) he needed seasoning. At 19 (1906) he was quite good. At 20 (1907) he put up a 6.8 WAR season and led the Tigers to the pennant. That great season was the first of many; the next time he hit below 5.5 WAR was in 1920. With Cobb (along with Crawford and a solid supporting cast) the Tigers won the AL three straight times to end the decade.
Milwaukee Brewers / St. Louis Browns: 0.454 Win Percentage, 0 Pennants, 0 Championships
Best Team: 1902 when they went 78-58 and finished five games out of first.
The first fifty years of baseball had two major sad-sack franchises in the AL: the Browns and the Senators. It's not that the Browns didn't have their moments, they did, but they were generally fairly bad and would get worst in the proceeding decade.
New York Giants: 0.574 Win Percentage, 2 Pennants, 1 Championship
Best Team: 1904 and 1905 are pretty much identical, both 105+ win seasons where they won the Pennant (and one World Series)
The Giants were terrible in the first two years of the decade but turned things around very quickly under new manager John McGraw. With his masterful leadership they also gained a number of excellent players. They had their share of skilled batters, though McGraw (the Bill Belichick of his day) quickly demonstrated his ability to get quality performances out of mediocre players, who would regress the instant they left the team. Batters would come and go in McGraw's system and, somehow, they kept being good no matter how poor they had been elsewhere. McGraw's gift with the hitters was invaluable but the Giants had another ace up their sleeve. The 1901-1909 period had three great pitchers. Boston's Cy Young was exceptional, but he was already 34 in 1901, so the decade saw the tail end of his career. Rube Waddell (mostly for the Athletics) was the most dominant strikeout pitcher of his day, but was something of a head case. For pure excellence (and redoubtable sanity), Christy Mathewson was the best pitcher of the decade, and his ability, combined with McGraw's management, made the Giants one of the three great teams of the NL in this time period. Starting in 1904 they only won less than 92 games once (and this is back when they only played 155 games a year).
Philadelphia Athletics: 0.564 Win Percentage, 2 Pennants, 0 Championships
Best Team: Technically 1909, when they went 95-58 and finished 3.5 games behind the Tigers.
What-If Best Team: In 1902 the A's won the Pennant, going 83-53. This team wasn't technically as good as the 1909 team, even if they did win. But. Before the 1901 season Nap Lajoie, over a salary dispute with the Phillies, jumped to the American League and signed with the A's. In 1901 he hit 426/463/643 for an OPS+ of 198. But in 1902 the courts ruled that Lajoie had broken his contract with the Phillies illegally and issued an injunction to keep him from playing in Pennsylvania. So the A's ended up needing to sell him to the Cleveland Bronchos, and won the 1902 Pennant without the American League's best hitter. But they could have been fantastic.
Philadelphia in the first two thirds of the decade had a very respectable lineup but was carried by their pitching, notably two pitchers in this building, Rube Waddell and Eddie Plank, and another quality starter in Charles "Chief" Bender. They were well above average until 1908 when the wheels came off. Luckily they had two top prospects just hitting their roster, second baseman Eddie Collins and third baseman Frank Baker (not yet "Home Run"). In 1909 these players hit their stride and would lead the A's to five years of great baseball.
Philadelphia Phillies: 0.480 Win Percentage, 0 Pennants, 0 Championships
Best Team: 1901, when they went 83-57 and finished 7.5 games behind Pittsburgh.
The Phillies were pretty good in 1901, but lost many of their best players in the next few years. They never again finished second or better in the decade.
Pittsburgh Pirates: 0.642 Win Percentage, 4 Pennants, 1 Championship
Best Team: The 1902 Pirates were one of the best teams ever, going 103-36, the second best win percentage ever behind the 1906 Cubs. They had the best offense in the NL, scoring a full run a game more than the 2nd best offense. But their pitching was absolutely out of control; each of their four starters was incredible and their team FIP that year was so good, the gap between them and the #2 team was greater than the gap between the #2 team and the #8 team. And this team has a better claim to all-time quality than the 1906 Cubs. Move the Cubs out of the era and their reliance on fielding and small-ball becomes a liability (not that they aren't really good still, but no longer invincible). But the 1902 Pirates . . . had the #1 starter, the #2 starter, #5 starter and #9 starter in the league. There has *never* been a rotation with such top to bottom dominance. Then the newly founded New York Highlanders made hard bids for their players,and two of that four-man rotation jumped to the AL. And suddenly the Pirates were mortal. Great, but mortal.
The Pirates of this decade were really, really, really good. They had a quality rotation the whole time (and in 1901 actually had Rube Waddell, even if they cut him because they found him too unreliable). Their lineup was full of quality players, but Honus Wagner was unquestionably the reason Pittsburgh enjoyed so much success. From 1901 to 1909 Wagner was worth almost 80 wins (79.4 WAR), averaging almost 9 WAR per year. Having such a reliably dominant player doesn't guarantee anything, but if you give them a quality supporting cast then you've got it made. The Pirates checked all those boxes and had one of the best decades of any team ever.
St. Louis Cardinals: 0.388 Win Percentage, 0 Pennants, 0 Championships
Best Team: 1901, when they went 76-64 and finished 4th, 14.5 games out of first.
1901 was their only season in the decade above 500. They only had one more season that decade above 60 wins. They were not good.
Washington Senators: 0.366 Win Percentage, 0 Pennants, 0 Championships
Best Team: 1908, when they went 67-85 and finished 7th.
I don't know what you want from me. The Senators were terrible, the worst team of the decade. How bad? Let's just say that in 1909 they had 21 year-old Walter Johnson (one of the best pitchers ever, though that year he was only #13 in the AL or so) and they won 42 games.
Breakdown by Year:
1901: 272/327/360, 4.99 runs/game per team, the average game had 0.4 home runs, 2.6 steals, 6.3 K's
Pennant Winners: Chicago White Sox 83-53, Pittsburgh Pirates 90-49
World Series: not invented yet
Best Hitters: Nap Lajoie (PHA), Bobby Wallace (STL)
Best Pitchers: Cy Young (BOS), Noodles Hahn (CIN)
1902: 267/322/344, 4.43 runs/game per team, the average game had 0.3 home runs, 2.4 steals, 5.9 K's
Pennant Winners: Philadelphia Athletics 83-53, Pittsburgh Pirates 103-36
World Series: still not invented yet
Best Hitters: Ed Delahanty (WAS), Honus Wagner (PIT)
Best Pitchers: Rube Waddell (PHA), Deacon Phillipe (PIT)
1903: 262/317/346, 4.44 runs/game per team, the average game had 0.3 home runs, 2.5 steals, 7.1 K's
Pennant Winners: Boston Americans 91-47, Pittsburgh Pirates 91-49
World Series: Boston Americans defeat Pittsburgh Pirates 5-3
Best Hitters: Nap Lajoie, 2 (CLE), Honus Wagner, 2 (PIT)
Best Pitchers: Rube Waddell, 2 (PHA), Christy Mathewson (NYG)
1904: 247/301/321, 3.72 runs/game per team, the average game had 0.3 home runs, 2.2 steals, 7.4 K's
Pennant Winners: Boston Americans 95-59, New York Giants 106-47
World Series: John McGraw (the Giants's manager) refused to play the AL team so the series never happened
Best Hitters: Nap Lajoie, 3 (CLE), Honus Wagner, 3 (PIT)
Best Pitchers: Rube Waddell, 3 (PHA), Christy Mathewson, 2 (NYG)
1905: 248/307/323, 3.90 runs/game per team, the average game had 0.3 home runs, 2.4 steals, 7.7 K's
Pennant Winners: Philadelphia Athletics 92-56, New York Giants 105-48
World Series: New York Giants defeat Philadelphia Athletics 4-1
Best Hitters: George Davis (CHA), Honus Wagner, 4 (PIT)
Best Pitchers: Cy Young, 2 (BOS), Christy Mathewson, 3 (NYG)
1906: 247/306/314, 3.61 runs/game per team, the average game had 0.2 home runs, 2.4 steals, 7.4 K's
Pennant Winners: Chicago White Sox 93-58, Chicago Cubs 116-36
World Series: Chicago White Sox defeat Chicago Cubs 4-2
Best Hitters: Nap Lajoie, 4 (CLE), Honus Wagner, 5 (PIT)
Best Pitchers: Al Orth (NYH), Bob Ewing (CIN)
1907: 245/305/309, 3.52 runs/game per team, the average game had 0.2 home runs, 2.3 steals, 7.2 K's
Pennant Winners: Detroit Tigers 92-58, Chicago Cubs 107-45
World Series: Chicago Cubs defeat Detroit Tigers 4-0-1
Best Hitters: Nap Lajoie, 5 (CLE), Honus Wagner, 6 (PIT)
Best Pitchers: Rube Waddell, 4 (PHA), Christy Mathewson, 4 (NYG)
1908: 239/297/305, 3.38 runs/game per team, the average game had 0.2 home runs, 2.2 steals, 7.3 K's
Pennant Winners: Detroit Tigers 90-63, Chicago Cubs 99-57
World Series: Chicago Cubs defeat Detroit Tigers 4-1
Best Hitters: Nap Lajoie, 6 (CLE), Honus Wagner, 7 (PIT)
Best Pitchers: Ed Walsh (CHA), Christy Mathewson, 5 (NYG)
1909: 244/306/311, 3.54 runs/game per team, the average game had 0.2 home runs, 2.5 steals, 7.6 K's
Pennant Winners: Detroit Tigers 98-54, Pittsburgh Pirates 110-42
World Series: Pittsburgh Pirates defeat Detroit Tigers 4-3
Best Hitters: Eddie Collins (PHA), Honus Wagner, 8 (PIT)
Best Pitchers: Frank Smith (CHA), Mordecai Brown (CHN)
All-Decade Team (based on aggregate results for the decade):
C: Roger Bresnahan, BAL/NYG
1B: Frank Chance, CHN
2B: Nap Lajoie, PHA/CLE
3B: Honus Wagner, PIT (Wagner played mostly short but started the decade at 3rd. Wallace > the next best 3B by a lot)
SS: Bobby Wallace, SLA
OF: Fred Clarke, PIT
CF: Sam Crawford, CIN/DET
OF: Elmer Flick, PHI/CLE
SP: Christy Mathewson, NYG
SP: Cy Young, BOS/CLE
SP: Rube Waddell, PIT/CHN/PHA/SLA
SP: Eddie Plank, PHA
SP: Jack Chesbro, PIT/NYH
Top Franchises of the Decade:
1) Pittsburgh Pirates
2) Chicago Cubs
3) New York Giants
4) Chicago White Sox
5) Philadelphia Athletics
Worst Franchises of the Decade:
1) Washington Senators
2) St. Louis Cardinals
3) Boston Beaneaters
4) Brooklyn Superbas
5) St. Louis Browns
Welcome to our best teams of all-time section! We'll show the top ten teams for each decade (adjusted for league size, so for the 1900s we do the top ten teams, for the 2030s we do the top twenty teams, because there are twice as many teams) and this will lead to a final top 100 teams of all-time countdown in the Pantheon. Exciting! We won't go into too much detail here (we'll save the detail for the Top 100) but I wanted to discuss the methodology briefly. These ratings are a combination of 1) Record, 2) Pythagorean record (runs scored vs. allowed basically), 3) Team WAR, 4) Playoff success and 5) league environment. #5 is the weird one, so I want to talk about it briefly. Basically, we want to reward teams for being successful in competitive environments. The prime example is the 1969 Baltimore Orioles. By every objective measure they're the best team of the 60s. Here's the problem: four expansion teams had been added to the league in 1969 (which were reliably terrible) and so the top teams looked artificially good. We don't want to reward that team for playing against watered-down competition. Or consider the 1906 Cubs, widely considered one of the best teams ever. The Cubs have an impressive track record, going 116-36 (arguably the best record ever). But going against them was the fact that the NL was incredibly weak that year. Two teams won 35% of their games or less (52-98 and 49-102) while two other teams stomped the competition (96-56 and 93-60). When you see 1) several teams with terrible records and 2) several teams with great records it suggests that the average level of competition was pretty low. Our system rewards teams for being dominant, ideally, in a scenario where there aren't many terrible teams and where there aren't many other juggernauts, both of which suggest that the team in question was in a class by themselves. It's not a perfect methodology, but it does compensate a bit for eras like the 1900s where there were terrible teams everywhere.
Anyhow. These sections will be reasonably brief. The first line will be results, the second line will be performance measured by standard deviations from the mean in WAR (when in doubt, +1 is really good, +2 is amazing, and remember, they're in order of value so +1 hitting > +1 pitching > +1 fielding), the third line is top batters (with WAR numbers), the fourth line is top starters (with WAR numbers), the fifth line (if practical) is top relievers (with WPA).
Best Teams of the Decade:
#10: 1908 Chicago Cubs
Results: 99-55 (.643), 3.96 R/G vs 2.92 RA/G (.635), Finished 1st by one game, Won the NL, Won World Series 4-1
Ratings: Hitting: +0.84, Pitching: +0.95, Fielding +1.36
Top Batters: Joe Tinker, 7.5 (SS), Johnny Evers, 5.8 (2B), Frank Chance, 3.9 (1B), Johnny Kling, 3.6 (C)
Top Starters: Mordecai Brown (5.7), Orval Overall (4.1), Jack Pfiester (3.6)
#9: 1903 Boston Americans
Results: 91-47 (.659), 5.02 R/G vs 3.58 RA/G (.649), Finished 1st by fifteen games, Won the AL, Won World Series 5-3
Ratings: Hitting: +1.38, Pitching: +0.28, Fielding: +1.35
Top Batters: Freddy Parent, 6.2 (SS), Jimmy Collins, 5.3 (3B), Patsy Dougherty, 4.9 (OF), Buck Freemnan, 4.0 (1B)
Top Starters: Cy Young (5.7), Bill Dineen (3.7)
#8: 1908 New York Giants
Results: 98-56 (.636), 4.15 R/G vs 2.90 RA/G (.658), Finished 2nd by one game to the Cubs
SDFM: Hitting: +1.98, Pitching: +2.46, Fielding +0.41
Top Batters: Mike Donlin, 6.6 (OF), Roger Bresnahan, 5.4 (C), Al Bridwell, 4.7 (SS), Art Devlin, 4.4 (3B), Fred Tenney, 3.4 (1B), Larry Doyle, 3.2 (2B)
Top Starters: Christy Mathewson (10.8), Hooks Wiltse (4.3)
#7: 1904 New York Giants
Results: 106-47 (.693), 4.71 R/G vs 3.01 RA/G (.693), Finished 1st by thirteen games, won the NL, no World Series held
Ratings: Hitting: +1.63, Pitching: +1.37, Fielding: +1.82
Top Batters: Bill Dahlen, 5.9 (SS), Art Devlin, 5.4 (3B), Dan McGann, 4.9 (1B), Sam Mertes, 4.7 (OF), Roger Bresnahan, C (4.0), Billy Gilbert, 3.7 (2B)
Top Starters: Christy Mathewson (6.7), Joe McGinnity (4.6), Dummy Taylor (3.8)
#6: 1909 Pittsburgh Pirates
Results: 110-42 (.724), 4.55 R/G vs 2.91 RA/G (.693), Finished 1st by six games, Won the NL, Won World Series 4-3
Ratings: Hitting: +1.52, Pitching: +1.25, Fielding: +0.66
Top Batters: Honus Wagner, 9.7 (SS), Fred Clarke, 5.7 (OF), Dots Miller, 4.8 (2B), Tommy Leach, 4.2 (3B), George Gibson, 3.6 (C)
Top Starters: Howie Camnitz (4.8), Vic Willis (3.2)
#5: 1901 Pittsburgh Pirates
Results: 90-49 (.647), 5.55 R/G vs 3.81 RA/G (.665), Finished 1st by seven games, Won the NL, no World Series held
Ratings: Hitting: +1.62, Pitching: +0.67, Fielding: +1.06
Top Batters: Honus Wagner, 7.5 (SS), Fred Clarke, 5.5 (OF), Ginger Beaumont, 4.3 (OF), Lefty Davis, 3.5 (OF), Claude Ritchey, 3.3 (2B), Tommy Leach, 3.1 (3B)
Top Starters: Jesse Tannehill (4.5), Jack Chesbro (4.0), Deacon Phillippe (3.8)
#4: 1906 Chicago Cubs
Results: 116-36 (.763), 4.54 R/G vs 2.46 RA/G (.753), Finished 1st by twenty games, Won the NL, Lost World Series 4-2
Ratings: Hitting: +1.48, Pitching: +1.22, Fielding: +2.15
Top Batters: Frank Chance, 7.7 (1B), Harry Steinfeldt, 7.5 (3B), Joe Tinker, 4.2 (SS), Jimmy Sheckard, 3.9 (OF), Frank Schulte, 3.9 (OF), Johnny Evers, 3.8 (2B), Johnny Kling, 3.7 (C)
Top Starters: Mordecai Brown (5.3), Jack Pfeister (4.4)
#3: 1907 Chicago Cubs
Results: 107-45 (.704), 3.68 R/G vs. 2.52 RA/G (.666), Finished 1st by seventeen games, Won World Series 4-0-1
Ratings: Hitting: +0.43, Pitching +1.28, Fielding +2.69
Top Batters: Johnny Evers, 5.0 (2B), Frank Chance, 4.9 (1B), Harry Steinfeldt, 4.7 (3B), Johnny Kling, 3.2 (C), Jimmy Sheckard, 3.1 (OF)
Top Starters: Mordecai Brown (4.4), Orval Overall (4.3), Jack Pfiester (3.1)
#2: 1905 New York Giants
Results: 105-48 (.686), 5.02 R/G vs 3.26 RA/G (.687), Finished 1st by nine games, Won World Series 4-1
Ratings: Hitting +2.26, Pitching +2.28, Fielding +1.68
Top Batters: Mike Donlin, 7.4 (OF), Bill Dahlen, 5.7 (SS), Dan McGann, 5.3 (1B), Art Devlin, 4.4 (3B), Sam Mertes, 4.0 (OF), Roger Bresnahan, 3.5 (C)
Top Starters: Christy Mathewson (7.4), Red Ames (4.7), Joe McGinnity (3.9)
#1: 1902 Pittsburgh Pirates
Results: 103-36 (.741), 5.45 R/G vs 3.10 R/G (.736), Finished 1st by twenty-eight games, no World Series held
Ratings: Hitting: +2.69, Pitching: +1.34, Fielding: +1.35
Top Batters: Honus Wagner, 7.5 (SS), Tommy Leach, 5.9 (3B), Ginger Beaumont, 5.7 (OF), Fred Clarke, 5.4 (OF), Claude Ritchey, 3.5 (2B)
Top Starters: Deacon Phillippe (5.3), Jesse Tannehill (4.1), Jack Chesbro (3.8), Sam Leever (3.2)
The 1906 Cubs get penalized because their underlying performance is worse than their record or pythag, as well as their weirdly uncompetitive league environment. Had they won their World Series against the White Sox they'd be 3rd, but the 1905 Giants and 1902 Pirates are scary-good with none of the 1906 Cubs' failcards. Comparing the player WAR between the teams, please bear in mind that the 1902 Pirates only played 139 games that year, so the player WARs that you're seeing are 10% or so lower than they ought to be for comparison purposes.
Phew, that was some tour through history, right? Isn't it crazy how scoring and hitting dropped so much? Why did it happen? That's a good question. Part of it was that fielding (and gloves, which at the time were reasonably new) was getting better, so at the beginning of the decade a ball put in play was a hit 29.9% of the time, but by 1908 (the most deadball of the era) only 26.1% would be hits. That may not sound like much, but the gap is enormous. Another factor is that at the beginning of the decade foul balls were declared strikes (before they had not). This increased the number of pitchers counts that batters saw. And lastly, at the time the league would use the same balls as long as they could. Pitchers started to discover that balls that were scuffed gained a lot more movement and used this to their advantage. In general, everything worked against hitters as the decade went on.
Okay, hit the bathroom, and when we're all ready, Honorable Mention Third Basemen!