Best teams of the 1970s and 1980s

[tklem321]

I'm planning to play a one-season tournament of the best teams for each franchise from roughly 1970-1988 (the period I watched the most MLB). I've tried to pick the best season for each of 24 franchises and I'm going to play a large round robin tournament. Every team will play every other team 6 times. I will be managing my childhood favorite Reds and playing out all of their games.

Does anyone see anything terribly wrong with the choices below?

NL East
1977 Philadelphia Phillies
1979 Montreal Expos
1979 Pittsburgh Pirates (alternate: 1971 Pirates)
1984 Chicago Cubs
1985 St. Louis Cardinals (alternate: 1982 Cardinals)
1986 New York Mets

NL West
1971 San Francisco Giants
1974 Los Angeles Dodgers
1976 Cincinnati Reds
1982 Atlanta Braves
1984 San Diego Padres
1986 Houston Astros

AL East
1970 Baltimore Orioles
1977 New York Yankees
1978 Boston Red Sox (alternate: 1975 Red Sox)
1982 Milwaukie Brewers
1984 Detroit Tigers
1985 Toronto Blue Jays

AL West
1970 Minnesota Twins
1973 Oakland A’s
1977 Texas Rangers
1977 Kansas City Royals
1982 California Angels
1983 Chicago White Sox

I've omitted the Indians and Mariners since I needed to remove two teams to fit the format and both franchises were woeful in this period.

I'm particularly torn on the Phillies. They won the WS in 1980 but had much better records in 1976 and 1977. Any Phillies fans have an opinion?

Edited to replace 1987 Twins with 1970 Twins.
Edited to replace 1988 Dodgers with 1974 Dodgers.
Edited to add 1971 Pirates as an alternate choice.
Edited to add 1975 Red Sox as an alternate choice.
Edited to add 1982 Cardinals as an alternate choice.

[panda234]

Would move dodgers up. Love the expos on top! They had a great team for a while

[tklem321]

Well, they're just in chronological order by year. The Expos are on top because it's their 1979 team. Dodgers are on the bottom because it's 1988.

[SxSnts9]

My poor White Sox. Win 99 games and then score 1 run over the last 3 games of the LCS to crap the bed. Looks like a good choice to me though.

[MightyVotto]

If you're going '70s through '80s, as your headline suggests, why leave out '89? If you include that year, the '89 Giants might be a better option than the '71 Giants.

[Curve Ball Dave]

It's a tough call but you could go with the '75 Red Sox and '82 Cardinals.

[cheo25]

I think the '75/78 Red Sox is a close call, and the '82/'85 Cards is a close call. You could compare the '71 and '79 Pirates, too, I guess. Otherwise, I think your group looks good.

[tklem321]

Thanks everyone. Regarding not using the '89 Giants, it's simply because I wasn't paying attention to baseball after 1988. I'm familiar with a lot of the players on the '71 team. The '89 team is mostly a blank to me. I admit it's arbitrary but one of the reasons for playing this is to see all the guys I used to have on my baseball cards growing up.

[andyhdz]

stealing this list thanks. When are you doing the 90/00s tournament?

[mirrf]

Originally Posted by tklem321

AL West
1973 Oakland A’s

The 72-73-74, even the 75 A's were really, really good. And the 1988 A's had the start of the bash brothers hey day.

I have a slight preference for the 1974 A's, but you can't argue with 73.

[tklem321]

Originally Posted by andyhdz

stealing this list thanks. When are you doing the 90/00s tournament?

Other than the 2016 Cubs I haven't watched much baseball at all since the late 1980s. All I know about the 90s is what I learned from watching Ken Burns' Baseball.

I've also decided to swap out the 1980 Phillies and add the 1977 Phillies. The general consensus seems to be that they were significantly better, even if the 1980 team won the WS.

If anyone wants it, I've attached the schedule for "24 teams, 4 divisions, everyone plays everyone 6 times" that I'll be using.

[sprague]

One thing you might want to do is play "add one player to those teams"
not from way off but maybe the year before or after as a slight upgrade.
Yankees could choose guidry upgrade from 78. or add gossage from 78 to help the pen.


Maybe the 79 expos want to add Ron Leflore from 1980.


The 76 reds would probably love to add George Foster from 77.



Just a thought to give the game a twist, and add a few more star players from around the team chosen...

[Mariner and Giants Fan]

Originally Posted by tklem321

Other than the 2016 Cubs I haven't watched much baseball at all since the late 1980s. All I know about the 90s is what I learned from watching Ken Burns' Baseball.

I've also decided to swap out the 1980 Phillies and add the 1977 Phillies. The general consensus seems to be that they were significantly better, even if the 1980 team won the WS.

If anyone wants it, I've attached the schedule for "24 teams, 4 divisions, everyone plays everyone 6 times" that I'll be using.

If I may ask, why haven't you watched much baseball since the 1980s? I cannot imagine giving up the enjoyment of following baseball unless you were out of the country where there is little to no technology. I have been following the MLB since 1966. Sure there were a few years where I did not watch it as much, such as when I met my first wife but for the most part I have been an avid fan for almost 53 years now!

[Clovidequano Dovatha]

Cardinals without Sutter in the 1980's? Bad idea, in my opinion. I'd take 82 over 85, unless you'd want to swap Coleman for someone like David Green or Tito Landrum, for example. We didn't have Hernandez in 85, either. We probably could have beaten KC if Coleman had not gotten hurt, I believe. Worrell was good, but I think Sutter was better in his best years with the Cards than Todd was. CD out.

[tklem321]

Originally Posted by Mariner and Giants Fan

If I may ask, why haven't you watched much baseball since the 1980s? I cannot imagine giving up the enjoyment of following baseball unless you were out of the country where there is little to no technology. I have been following the MLB since 1966. Sure there were a few years where I did not watch it as much, such as when I met my first wife but for the most part I have been an avid fan for almost 53 years now!

I graduated college and was busy with life, then the strike happened, then the steroids, etc. I tried three years ago to get back into it and followed the Cubs (I live in Indiana) through to the World Series. Currently, I'm just not a fan of the modern game for the commonly-stated reasons: The pace is too slow, too many strikeouts/home runs/walks, the endless pitcher changes, etc. When I do watch a game now I watch the Reds, but they kinda suck.

I've been satisfying my baseball craving with a fictional league in OOTP.

[SxSnts9]

Originally Posted by tklem321

I graduated college and was busy with life, then the strike happened, then the steroids, etc. I tried three years ago to get back into it and followed the Cubs (I live in Indiana) through to the World Series. Currently, I'm just not a fan of the modern game for the commonly-stated reasons: The pace is too slow, too many strikeouts/home runs/walks, the endless pitcher changes, etc. When I do watch a game now I watch the Reds, but they kinda suck.

I've been satisfying my baseball craving with a fictional league in OOTP.

This is what worries me for the future of baseball. Of the 3 major sports (I don't count hockey) baseball is the only one where the most effective way to win includes 2 of the most boring outcomes. Follow me on this...

In football the game has changed to where a quick passing attack on offense and a vicious pass rush on defense are the most efficient ways to win. What does this lead to? More TD passes (Exciting), more sacks (Exciting), more long plays (Exciting), more interceptions (Exciting), more incompletions (Not Exciting). That's 4-1 exciting. Plus it indirectly leads to fewer hand offs to the rb who trips after two yards. Remember 3 yards and a cloud of dust? No? That's because it doesn't work in today's game.

In basketball the game has changed to where the 3 point shot and layups/dunks are the most efficient ways to win. What does this lead to? More 3's (Exciting), more dunks (Exciting), more layups (Mixed), more fouls (Not Exciting). That's 2.5 - 1.5 (Depending on how you count the mixed) for exciting. Plus, since basketball is the easiest sport to see the actual players while the game is going on it makes the dunks and the emotions all the more exhilarating.

But baseball...ooh my poor love baseball. The game has changed to the TTO is the most efficient way to win. What does this lead to? More homeruns (Exciting), more strikeouts (Not Exciting), more walks (The most insufferable god awful Not Exciting event in sports). That's 2-1 not exciting. Granted the home run is probably the most difficult single thing to do in all of sports, but for the lay person they don't know/care. Plus the TTO leads to more pitching changes and longer games. I'm sorry, even as an avid baseball fan I have no interest in watching 5 pitchers per side and 3 hour 35 minute games.

You can try the pitch clock (Dumb), you can try runners on 2nd in extra innings (Meh, still pretty dumb), you can try anything. But until the most effective way to win generates more exciting outcomes than boring ones...baseball won't get out of it's own way. I still love the game and watch my White Sox every chance I get, but the game is going the wrong way when it comes to watch-ability.

Obviously, this is my opinion so I'd love to hear dissenting voices/agreements from the community. Unless you're a Cubs fan.

[Clovidequano Dovatha]

And I suggest eliminating the DH, and go with 4-man rotations, et cetera, if possible, so we could see the best pitchers more often and for uniformity and for a more traditional way of doing certain things, for sure. CD out.

[Boomcoach]

Originally Posted by tklem321

I graduated college and was busy with life, then the strike happened, then the steroids, etc. I tried three years ago to get back into it and followed the Cubs (I live in Indiana) through to the World Series. Currently, I'm just not a fan of the modern game for the commonly-stated reasons: The pace is too slow, too many strikeouts/home runs/walks, the endless pitcher changes, etc. When I do watch a game now I watch the Reds, but they kinda suck.

I've been satisfying my baseball craving with a fictional league in OOTP.

from another Reds fan in the Hoosier state! I would agree that the way that baseball is played today makes for a more boring game. I still follow baseball, but don't end up watching it much. Love the idea of your tournament and may steal it.

[tklem321]

Originally Posted by SxSnts9

This is what worries me for the future of baseball.

I agree, and I mostly blame sabermetrics. I don't deny that sabermetrics works. I just think that sabermetrically perfect baseball may in fact be perfectly boring baseball.

[Curve Ball Dave]

While I wouldn't argue with the '87 Twins, a good case could be made for the '70 Twins.