Top 20 Greatest World Series Champs of the last 40 Years

Are you ready for some baseball?! Baseball history, that is. Since the NFL Network is doing their countdown of the 20 greatest Super Bowl champs of all-time, I thought I would do a similar list for the 20 greatest World Series champs during the Super Bowl era, which began in the 1966 season. I only included one representative team from any of the dynasties, like the Yankees, Reds, A’s, etc. Doing it that way gave more teams a chance to be on the list. The ’98 Yankees was the best of their dynasty, as were the ’78 Yankees, ’75 Reds, ’73 A’s and ’93 Jays. I’ve heard some say the ’76 Reds were a little better than ‘75, but that is debatable.

I hedged some on #20, so I included two teams in a tie. The ’69 Mets are there for sentimental reasons alone – such a great story, but really not that great compared to many of the other teams on this list and even those off it. They were a team that received much favorable providence (or “luck” as we say in non-theological sports terms). The ’82 Cardinals team was not nearly as good as their ’85 and ’87 teams that both lost the Series (the ’85 team would have cracked the top 10 had it won the Series). I knocked down the ’89 A’s a bit (I originally had them in the top 10), since they employed at least two known juicers. I kept moving up the ’83 Orioles (I originally had them back at #19); a very fine team. The ’95 Braves team wasn’t even their best during their long run of divisional titles; otherwise they would have ranked a little higher. I think the ’86 Mets tend to be overrated – probably most pundits would put them higher on this list.

Fans of the Big Red Machine will be happy that I put them #1. However, I think the top 3 teams on this list all have legit claims at being #1. Most people probably wouldn’t consider the ’70 Orioles in that class, but I certainly do. Go back and look at that team and see how they dominated in pitching, hitting and defense, and how they were very close to winning 3 straight years (and they even won in ’66). I would put these top 3 teams against any other of the great teams in history. They are in the top 5 or 6 of all-time (included with them would be the ’27 Yankees, ’36 Yankees and ’29 A’s.)

For those of you who remember my tirade on this Board against the “lucky” Twins, you will notice that I left both of their teams (’87 and ’91) off the list. O.k., I admit that I made some overstatements on the Twins’ luck, but I do maintain that the Metrodome is an awful stadium and gives them a greater home field advantage than most other teams.

Let the debating begin!

20) ’82 Cardinals and ’69 Mets (Tie)
19) ’80 Phillies
18) ’05 White Sox
17) ‘02 Angels
16) ’71 Pirates
15) ’79 Pirates
14) ’95 Braves
13) ’83 Orioles
12) ’89 A’s
11) ’04 Red Sox
10) ’93 Blue Jays
9) ’67 Cardinals
8) ’86 Mets
7) ’73 A’s
6) ’78 Yankees
5) ’68 Tigers
4) ’84 Tigers
3) ’70 Orioles
2) ’98 Yankees
1) ’75 Reds

 

Tom, I mentioned in the OP that I only took one team from each of the "dynasties" like the Reds, A's and Yankees teams.

Why do you think the '95 Braves don't even deserve to be on the list? Sure, they had their post-season foilbles during their 13 straight division titles and many World Series appearances against one of the greatest teams of all-time (90's Yankees) and luckiest teams of all-time (Twins :laugh: ), but hey, who's to quibble?

And yet, you think the '90 Reds should be on the list - a team that did nothing before or after that season? A team who played in an unremarkable division and could only muster 91 wins? A team with one borderline Hall candidate (Larkin)? That team was not that great. Yes, they had a good season and a hot post-season, and no one can take that away from them. But at the same token, when lists like this are made, we are not obliged to recognize them as one of the "great" teams in history. Nice season. Great story. But not worthy of being called great.

Besides, I put the BRM at #1 - that should be enough to satisfy you rabid Reds fanaticals!

 

Another nice story like the '90 Reds, but the same reasons I gave to Tom about them apply here to the '88 Bums. IMO, I would rank the '88 Dodgers ahead of the '90 Reds. The Dodgers maybe around #23 or #24 if this list kept going.

I loved that team, BTW. Orel was awesome. And Gibson's homer - wow.

 

Ed,

If I were to do a list for all of baseball history, yes, many Yankees teams would be on it. Some representative teams from all of their many dynasties: '27, '36, '39, '53 and '61. The '36 and '39 teams might seem to be within the same dynasty, but the team changed quite a bit in those few years. In '36 DiMaggio was a rookie and Gehrig was in his last full season. Some other players turned over, too, so it was a different team.

Of those teams I mentioned, I think the '27 and '36 teams are the best while the other three are a notch below them. The '61 team is often vaunted above their due. 1961 was the first expansion year, which inflated their win total (109) and stats to an inordinate degree. Don't get me wrong, they were great, but I would not put them in the top 5 of all-time - probably somewhere between #6-10.

 

Correct - best teams, not actual Series.

The '01 D-Backs just missed the cut - I did consider them and almost put them in. Their regular season wasn't that impressive - only 92 wins. Although, they were anchored by two Hall of Fame pitchers, so that has to count for something. I wouldn't object to having them somewhere in the #16-20 slots. Their '02 team was better statistically and in wins (98), but they got swept in the Divisional Series against the Cardinals.

 

I wouldn't be averse to replacing the '69 Mets with the '01 D-Backs. About the only ones I would 'fight to the death' for to keep on this list are slots #1-15. After that, I think it's up for debate.

 

Interesting thought. Although I disagree with them being #1, I do think the team they beat, the Cleveland Indians of that year, is probably the best team to lose a World Series in the last 40 years. This does not count a team like the '88 A's who lost but then won in '89.

That Indians team was great for a few years and never won.

 

Actually, no, I am not an Indians fan. In fact, I hated the '90's with all the bandwagon Indians fans coming out of the woodwork here in Ohio.

I wasn't referring to their '97 team, which had a pretty mediocre record. I was referring to their '95 team, which went 100-44 in the strike shortened season (at the beginning of the year). Translate that into 162 games and they would have won 112-113 games! They led the league in both hitting and pitching, which is rare. Usually, only the "great" teams will lead in both categories. And they also made the playoffs in other years ('95-'99; '01) showing that they were not just a one-year wonder. Here is a sampling of guys in their '95 lineup:

Manny Ramirez (Hall of Famer)
Jim Thome (Hall of Famer)
Eddie Murray (Hall of Famer)
Albert Belle (almost a Hall of Famer but had a short career - he was ripped off in the MVP voting that year, too)
Kenny Lofton (best lead off man in baseball at the time; almost a Hall of Famer)
Carlos Baerga (in his prime, he was great)
Omar Vizquel (might be a Hall of Famer due to his glove and solid stick)

Their pitching included Orel Hershiser who had a very good season, Charles Nagy who, in his prime, was very good, and Jose Mesa who had one of the best season by a closer, ever, despite what we remember of his '97 World Series choke.

That '95 team was great. I would put them up against any World Series loser (and most winners) over the last 40 years.

 

Quick follow-up:

Vizquel will probably make the Hall of Fame (11 Gold Gloves and 2,500 hits). So that '95 team had 4 Hall of Famers and 3 others that are close to being Hall of Famers (Hershiser, Belle and Lofton). That is impressive.