Born in '65 so this is the decade that shaped me and I became a fan for life!! The best decade of baseball by far that I've ever had the pleasure of witnessing. Not even close. The uniforms, the colorful characters, the beautiful old and new parks (all of whom are either old in turn now or gone for good) are unmatched in my mind. What a lovely stroll down memory lane.....
Jealous. I was born in 78 so my first recollection was 1985. 1986 had a great series and 88 had Gibson vs Eckersley, but this seems to fail in comparison to the the 70s
Grew up in the 70’s in a broken home . Baseball from 1972-1979 saved my life. Kept me away from trouble .. I would spend hours with my baseball cards ,listening to games on radio and watching games on tv .. even playing backyard baseball with friends …. So many great men were my heroes ! Hank Aaron first ! Thank you my heroes !
I agree. These days baseball is no comparison to the years I was growing, just home runs and lot of relievers. Analytics retired the old school managers.
Does anyone know the artist and/or music title played during the latter half of the Oakland A's piece, beginning around 15:40? It's jazz featuring a trumpet (or cornet) and a flute.
All I know is I went to the playoffs and World Series twice in the 70s so it was a pretty good decade for baseball. I won't mention what tickets cost back then because it would break a lot of hearts.
I went to the 76 series and it cost us 7.50, actually my cousin paid it....and we sat right behind the 3rd base side of the dugout...bleachers at yankee stadium was 1.50...now I go to a game once in a while..not alot
After they got the Steroids out of baseball, the stats reverted to being similar to the 1970s. The 1970s was the decade that MLB became a Super Sport with TV and huge attendances at stadiums. I think MLB being shown in color on National TV helped the game tremendously.
Being an Oakland A's fan since 1972, just watching this and seeing how great we were as champs in 1974 turn into chumps by 1978. Finley was not about the game, he was more about how little he could spend and be the prima donna behind it all. Nothing doing! It breaks my heart still to this day that such a person could decimate his own team by not supporting their own beet interest. There will never be teams ever again in Oakland like the ones from 1972 to 1974. At that, 1988 to 1990 was just as good, but it was just misfortune that the Dodgers took us in 1988 and the Reds (what a fluke!) swept us in 1990. "Sometimes ya gotta say...WTF?" - and that was so evident. 'Nuf ced.
decimate his own team? I won't disagree that he did that, but you had 3 straight World Series Championships......being a bit greedy and bitter at the same time, aren't you? LOL But historically, Finley was no different than the previous Athletics' ownership when they were in Philadelphia. Connie Mack did the same thing to the World Series dynasty's that he created in the 1910's and in the late 1920's-early 1930's. Funny how the decades are similar. A's went to the World Series in 1910, 1911, 1913, and 1914 (Champs in '10, '11, and '13, lost in '14). Then 15 years after their previous World Series visit, again in 1929, 1930, and 1931 (Champs in '29 and '30, lost in '31). Fast forward to 1972, 1973, 1974 (Champs all 3 years) and then 14 years from their last World Series visit, they go to the World Series in 1988, 1989, and 1990 (Champs in '89). Too weird how those era's occur with similar time separation between winning teams. I'd give anything (and am praying) for my Orioles to return to their winning ways of the mid-60's to the early 70s! It's been too long with an individual 1983 Championship in between!
The 1970s, only 5 different teams won World Championships. O's, Pirates (twice), Athletics (3 times), Reds (twice), Yankees (twice). The 1980s, 8 different teams won World Championships. Phillies, Dodgers (twice), Cardinals, O's, Tigers, Royals, Mets, Twins, Athletics. Despite dominating the 70s, neither the Reds nor Pirates won their divisions at all in the 80s. Also, the Yankees after 1981 would miss the postseason for 14 years. The Phillies after 1983 would miss the postseason for 10 years. The O's after 1983 would go 13 years without the postseason.
I think it's debatable whether the Cincinnati Reds were the MLB's Team of the Decade for the 1970s. After all, they only won two World Series in the decade, while the Oakland A's won three, one of which came at the Reds' expense in 1972 without an injured Reggie Jackson. That stated, all four divisions had a team that was dominant in the decade, winning at least half of the decade's division titles. In the AL East, the Baltimore Orioles took half of the decade's division titles (1970-'71, '73-'74, and '79). In the AL West, the Oakland A's won five successive division titles from 1971-'75 (and nearly ran down the Kansas City Royals in '76), including their run of three consecutive World Series crowns from 1972-'74, a feat matched by only one organization, the New York Yankees. And in the National League, the decade's two dominant teams had an even greater stranglehold on their respective divisions, with the Cincinnati Reds winning six NL West crowns in the decade, a feat matched by their frequent NLCS sparring partners, the Pittsburgh Pirates, who also took six division crowns in the 70s, and those two teams began and ended the decade the same way. Squaring off in the NLCS, something they did four times in the 70s (1970, '72, '75, and '79).
I think that if you're only talking about the first half of the 70s, you'd have a point. But remember the Reds still won divisions after 1976. And even when they didn't, they came in 2nd behind the Dodgers. Both teams usually had the best 1-2 win list records in baseball several of those years, even though they didn't win Series. The As on the other hand went on a precipitous decline once Finley sold off all of their stars in 1977. So taking 3ntire decade into consideration, I think the Reds hold up pretty well. .
@@jamescurran9002 The key is the fact that one of the A's titles in the 1970s, in fact the one that, in retrospect, broke the tie, came at the Reds' expense. I'd be more inclined to agree if the A's hadn't actually beaten the Reds for one of those titles. Had the Reds defeated the A's in '72, giving them three titles to the A's, Pirates', and Yankees' two, there would be no doubt about the Reds being the team of the decade, because that means they would have beaten the decade's other top teams, the A's, Pirates, and Yankees when it counted. But the fact that the A's, who were without their best player, beat the Reds for one of those titles, carries a lot of weight. The strange thing is that in three of the four divisions, the AL West and both divisions in the NL, there was a similar pattern. From 1970-'76, the A's, Reds, and Pirates all dominated their divisions, but all three fell back in 1977 and '78 and ceded to the Royals, Dodgers, and Phillies respectively. And while the A's rebuilt themselves to where they were competitive in 1980 and '81, the Reds and Pirates each won their divisions again in '79 to finish the decade the way they started it.
i'm not sure which is the team of the 70's. the case is strong on both sides. but what you are saying amounts to the fact that the A's accomplished in less time than the Reds....... theoretically speaking, lets say a team wind 5 straight WS to begin a decade, then lose between 90 and a 100 games a years the remaining 5 years of the decade. would they be the team of the decade over the A's and Reds?
@@sportsrevisited9699 Something similar happened in the NFL regarding who the team of the decade was in the 90s, because the Cowboys won three Super Bowl titles, which was more than anyone else in the decade, but did all that in a four year period, while the 49ers, who won only one Super Bowl in the 90s, were actually more consistently excellent that entire decade. But there's no question that the Cowboys were the team of the decade, not just because of the three Super Bowl titles, but also because they beat the 49ers in two of the three NFC Championship game match-ups to get those titles. Had the 49ers beat the Cowboys in two of the three NFC Championship Game match-ups and wound up with two Super Bowl titles to match what the Cowboys did, they'd be the team of the 90s in the NFL. Why I give the edge to the A's is not just because of the three World Series titles (and two key cornerstones of those championship teams would later be key players on the Yankees teams that won the World Series in 1977 and '78), but because they beat the Reds head-to-head for one of them. If not for the head-to-head victory in '72 (which came without their best player, no less), I might be swayed in favor of the Reds, even though they won fewer World Series titles than the A's in the 70s, but that head-to-head World Series triumph tilts it to Oakland.
cjs83172, the head to head is important, particularly this case. that pretty much was the big red machine right there, foster was already on the team albeit not a regular and only appeared 2x in the 72' series without an abat. so that could be considered a wash with Jackson being out. apart from that only griffey was missing. the A's had way better pitching. one other thing is the reds lost to the mets while the A's beat them. even though the A's did win 5 Div titles and 3 WS, they weren't a team that dominated the league each of those seasons. while the reds were much dominating team. i remember quite well in '76 everyone expected the Reds to sweep the yankees easily and they did, because they were that dominant. after taking everything into account, i would say the A's were because they were a more complete, balanced team. if you needed one win badly, the A's could come up with more than one Ace, while closest the Reds ever came to having an ace was Billingham and then a past his prime Seaver for the last 3 years.
Arguably the best team ever. 1927, 1939, 1961, and 1998 Yankees are in the mix. The 1953 Brooklyn Dodgers and the 1906 Chicago Cubs, best record in baseball but lost in the World Series to the White Sox.
Born in '65 so this is the decade that shaped me and I became a fan for life!! The best decade of baseball by far that I've ever had the pleasure of witnessing. Not even close. The uniforms, the colorful characters, the beautiful old and new parks (all of whom are either old in turn now or gone for good) are unmatched in my mind. What a lovely stroll down memory lane.....
Jealous. I was born in 78 so my first recollection was 1985. 1986 had a great series and 88 had Gibson vs Eckersley, but this seems to fail in comparison to the the 70s
Grew up in the 70’s in a broken home . Baseball from 1972-1979 saved my life. Kept me away from trouble .. I would spend hours with my baseball cards ,listening to games on radio and watching games on tv .. even playing backyard baseball with friends …. So many great men were my heroes ! Hank Aaron first ! Thank you my heroes !
To me the best baseball decade of all.
The baseball of my childhood. 1970's baseball was the most special for me.
70s 80s were great. Real baseball. Paved the way for the salaries the players get now
THE 80'S WERE BETTER
70s better than 80s.
💯
The 70s were my emelentary and middle school years. For me the all-star game meant more than Christmas. Magical era that will forever be my favorite
I'm the same age. I absolutely loved the all star game. That's when you got to see players you didn't really get to see the rest of the year.
It was a Glorious Time to be a kid & a baseball fanatic! This Week in Baseball, The Sporting News and The Big Red Machine.
Absolutely the most enjoyment from a video in a long time. Outstanding
Mel Allen was a great, folksy Announcer.
The best decade and the best uniforms colorfest
I agree. These days baseball is no comparison to the years I was growing, just home runs and lot of relievers. Analytics retired the old school managers.
This music is so cheerful and airy. Has a decade of debauchery ever sounded so wholesome?
They do not play that type of music with baseball clips anymore. I miss that.
Thank you for posting. I recorded this show off TV in the 1990s. But I haven't seen it anywhere since that time.
Does anyone know the artist and/or music title played during the latter half of the Oakland A's piece, beginning around 15:40? It's jazz featuring a trumpet (or cornet) and a flute.
The lat 60s and all of the 70s imo were the best eras for baseball
I miss Mel Allen "Oh My!"
Dick Enberg is also known for that
Saw this on ESPN during the Spring 1991.
All I know is I went to the playoffs and World Series twice in the 70s so it was a pretty good decade for baseball. I won't mention what tickets cost back then because it would break a lot of hearts.
I went to the 76 series and it cost us 7.50, actually my cousin paid it....and we sat right behind the 3rd base side of the dugout...bleachers at yankee stadium was 1.50...now I go to a game once in a while..not alot
@@jaycompany4886 It's a $3K mortgage payment for a 1/2 million dollar house for a boxseat behind home plate in Yankee Stadium.
My Dad took me to my very 1st MLB game in 1977 - Game 5 of the World Series in Los Angeles - Dodgers vs Yankees - Fond memories.
Watching this now and feeling for Oakland.
Loved MLB in the 70s!!!! Go Dodgers!!!!
NOLAN RYAN! BEST EVER!!
The Mets traded him when they had Seaver and Koosman. It still hurts.
@@NewarkBay357 The Mets got Seaver back in 1983 for one season
What a decade of change for baseball ⚾ no decade like it
After they got the Steroids out of baseball, the stats reverted to being similar to the 1970s. The 1970s was the decade that MLB became a Super Sport with TV and huge attendances at stadiums. I think MLB being shown in color on National TV helped the game tremendously.
got the steroids out..are you sure about that?
Thanks
Crazy how none of the new stadiums Mel Allen mentions were in use even by the 2000
Last game of the 1970's Pirates in Black and Gold Orioles in Orange and Black so much for white and gray uniforms
Does anyone know the music at the end?
Is there any way I can get in touch with you for info on your private site? Thank you.
Does anybody know the title of the music that begins at 40:30 (Orioles/Pirates segment?)
This guy probably knows and has already posted it. th-cam.com/channels/qfPGKps_-i_uRiWm5Pj2-w.htmlvideos
"Going Places" by Steve Gray. It's on Bruton Music.
Being an Oakland A's fan since 1972, just watching this and seeing how great we were as champs in 1974 turn into chumps by 1978. Finley was not about the game, he was more about how little he could spend and be the prima donna behind it all. Nothing doing! It breaks my heart still to this day that such a person could decimate his own team by not supporting their own beet interest. There will never be teams ever again in Oakland like the ones from 1972 to 1974. At that, 1988 to 1990 was just as good, but it was just misfortune that the Dodgers took us in 1988 and the Reds (what a fluke!) swept us in 1990. "Sometimes ya gotta say...WTF?" - and that was so evident. 'Nuf ced.
What about the San Francisco Giants vs. Oakland A's in the Earthquake Series?
@@NewarkBay357 we won that one
decimate his own team? I won't disagree that he did that, but you had 3 straight World Series Championships......being a bit greedy and bitter at the same time, aren't you? LOL But historically, Finley was no different than the previous Athletics' ownership when they were in Philadelphia. Connie Mack did the same thing to the World Series dynasty's that he created in the 1910's and in the late 1920's-early 1930's. Funny how the decades are similar. A's went to the World Series in 1910, 1911, 1913, and 1914 (Champs in '10, '11, and '13, lost in '14). Then 15 years after their previous World Series visit, again in 1929, 1930, and 1931 (Champs in '29 and '30, lost in '31). Fast forward to 1972, 1973, 1974 (Champs all 3 years) and then 14 years from their last World Series visit, they go to the World Series in 1988, 1989, and 1990 (Champs in '89). Too weird how those era's occur with similar time separation between winning teams. I'd give anything (and am praying) for my Orioles to return to their winning ways of the mid-60's to the early 70s! It's been too long with an individual 1983 Championship in between!
The top players hated Finley when free agency came in 1976 they couldn't wait to get out
And those teams were dismantled in 1993 the Bash Brothers Era
Billy was hired again for 1980 but fired again before 1980
Frank Robinson stepping on the field as a manager didn’t make the cut?
Gross injustice. It was one of the seminal moments in MLB history.
Anybody ever have a Topps 1978-79 Ron Greschner of the Rangers with the error of saying he was on the Penguins?
If there is such a card someone has one. if you want to buy one try ebay.
1:43 BO KNOWS STYLE POINTS
How did we fall so far from this 😢
The 1970s, only 5 different teams won World Championships. O's, Pirates (twice), Athletics (3 times), Reds (twice), Yankees (twice).
The 1980s, 8 different teams won World Championships. Phillies, Dodgers (twice), Cardinals, O's, Tigers, Royals, Mets, Twins, Athletics. Despite dominating the 70s, neither the Reds nor Pirates won their divisions at all in the 80s. Also, the Yankees after 1981 would miss the postseason for 14 years. The Phillies after 1983 would miss the postseason for 10 years. The O's after 1983 would go 13 years without the postseason.
I think it's debatable whether the Cincinnati Reds were the MLB's Team of the Decade for the 1970s. After all, they only won two World Series in the decade, while the Oakland A's won three, one of which came at the Reds' expense in 1972 without an injured Reggie Jackson.
That stated, all four divisions had a team that was dominant in the decade, winning at least half of the decade's division titles. In the AL East, the Baltimore Orioles took half of the decade's division titles (1970-'71, '73-'74, and '79). In the AL West, the Oakland A's won five successive division titles from 1971-'75 (and nearly ran down the Kansas City Royals in '76), including their run of three consecutive World Series crowns from 1972-'74, a feat matched by only one organization, the New York Yankees.
And in the National League, the decade's two dominant teams had an even greater stranglehold on their respective divisions, with the Cincinnati Reds winning six NL West crowns in the decade, a feat matched by their frequent NLCS sparring partners, the Pittsburgh Pirates, who also took six division crowns in the 70s, and those two teams began and ended the decade the same way. Squaring off in the NLCS, something they did four times in the 70s (1970, '72, '75, and '79).
I think that if you're only talking about the first half of the 70s, you'd have a point. But remember the Reds still won divisions after 1976. And even when they didn't, they came in 2nd behind the Dodgers. Both teams usually had the best 1-2 win list records in baseball several of those years, even though they didn't win Series. The As on the other hand went on a precipitous decline once Finley sold off all of their stars in 1977. So taking 3ntire decade into consideration, I think the Reds hold up pretty well. .
@@jamescurran9002 The key is the fact that one of the A's titles in the 1970s, in fact the one that, in retrospect, broke the tie, came at the Reds' expense. I'd be more inclined to agree if the A's hadn't actually beaten the Reds for one of those titles. Had the Reds defeated the A's in '72, giving them three titles to the A's, Pirates', and Yankees' two, there would be no doubt about the Reds being the team of the decade, because that means they would have beaten the decade's other top teams, the A's, Pirates, and Yankees when it counted. But the fact that the A's, who were without their best player, beat the Reds for one of those titles, carries a lot of weight.
The strange thing is that in three of the four divisions, the AL West and both divisions in the NL, there was a similar pattern. From 1970-'76, the A's, Reds, and Pirates all dominated their divisions, but all three fell back in 1977 and '78 and ceded to the Royals, Dodgers, and Phillies respectively. And while the A's rebuilt themselves to where they were competitive in 1980 and '81, the Reds and Pirates each won their divisions again in '79 to finish the decade the way they started it.
i'm not sure which is the team of the 70's. the case is strong on both sides. but what you are saying amounts to the fact that the A's accomplished in less time than the Reds.......
theoretically speaking, lets say a team wind 5 straight WS to begin a decade, then lose between 90 and a 100 games a years the remaining 5 years of the decade. would they be the team of the decade over the A's and Reds?
@@sportsrevisited9699 Something similar happened in the NFL regarding who the team of the decade was in the 90s, because the Cowboys won three Super Bowl titles, which was more than anyone else in the decade, but did all that in a four year period, while the 49ers, who won only one Super Bowl in the 90s, were actually more consistently excellent that entire decade. But there's no question that the Cowboys were the team of the decade, not just because of the three Super Bowl titles, but also because they beat the 49ers in two of the three NFC Championship game match-ups to get those titles. Had the 49ers beat the Cowboys in two of the three NFC Championship Game match-ups and wound up with two Super Bowl titles to match what the Cowboys did, they'd be the team of the 90s in the NFL.
Why I give the edge to the A's is not just because of the three World Series titles (and two key cornerstones of those championship teams would later be key players on the Yankees teams that won the World Series in 1977 and '78), but because they beat the Reds head-to-head for one of them. If not for the head-to-head victory in '72 (which came without their best player, no less), I might be swayed in favor of the Reds, even though they won fewer World Series titles than the A's in the 70s, but that head-to-head World Series triumph tilts it to Oakland.
cjs83172, the head to head is important, particularly this case. that pretty much was the big red machine right there, foster was already on the team albeit not a regular and only appeared 2x in the 72' series without an abat. so that could be considered a wash with Jackson being out. apart from that only griffey was missing. the A's had way better pitching. one other thing is the reds lost to the mets while the A's beat them.
even though the A's did win 5 Div titles and 3 WS, they weren't a team that dominated the league each of those seasons. while the reds were much dominating team. i remember quite well in '76 everyone expected the Reds to sweep the yankees easily and they did, because they were that dominant.
after taking everything into account, i would say the A's were because they were a more complete, balanced team. if you needed one win badly, the A's could come up with more than one Ace, while closest the Reds ever came to having an ace was Billingham and then a past his prime Seaver for the last 3 years.
$19.95? So expensive
1977 it look like Exhibition Stadium in Toronto, the home of the new Blue Jays, was a dump
the big red machine
Arguably the best team ever. 1927, 1939, 1961, and 1998 Yankees are in the mix. The 1953 Brooklyn Dodgers and the 1906 Chicago Cubs, best record in baseball but lost in the World Series to the White Sox.
@NewarkBay357 you should include the 1953 Yankees in that list.
@@NewarkBay357 Were you there to see the all Chicago World Series in 1906?
I predict in the 1980's the Phillies won't win a world series.
what happened to you baseball? the 70's we're good to you now the 90's and the 2000"s 10'20' not so much 😞
Get off my lawn
Pitchers in the NL dont even give a shit about hitting.
Those numbers showed how cheap Cal Griffith was and the big spender like George Steinbrenner
The domes in the 70s was a downside of an otherwise good decade
The cookie-cutter stadiums were the real downside.
@@NewarkBay357 Forbes Field Crosley Field Old Busch Stadium Connie Mack Stadium they were getting ready old, they couldn't stand forever
Anyway, I'm just thinking that all those great innovations in the 70s are exactly what we think of now as terrible ideas
Except for that li'l ol' DH. That little three year experiment is now universal.