Ranking MLB Franchises from Worst to First! - You'll Be Surprised Where Teams Rank in History!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ก.ย. 2024
- Do you know which are the best and worst #MLB franchises of all-time? Do you know where the #Dodgers rank, or how about the #Orioles? The #PittsburghPirates may be higher than you think, and the #SanDiegoPadres may be way lower. Check out my rankings to find out who the best and worst teams are throughout history, and just how far behind the #Yankees all the teams are!
Don't forget to subscribe to my channel to see my upcoming videos and share any of the videos if you know someone that would enjoy it!
You can check me out on my Instagram account at: / brutusonbaseball
You can check out my latest videos all about team histories, including:
Astros: • Houston Astros Team Hi...
Phillies: • Philadelphia Phillies ...
Padres: • San Diego Padres Team ...
Blue Jays: • Toronto Blue Jays Team...
Braves: • Atlanta Braves Team Hi...
Orioles: • Baltimore Orioles Team...
Rangers: • Texas Rangers Team His...
Baseball History 101: • BASEBALL HISTORY 101
#majorleaguebaseball #worldserieschamps #worldseries #rangers #rangersbaseball #newyorkyankees #thehobby #baseball #sanfranciscogiants #stlouiscardinals #bostonredsox #texasrangers #seattlemariners #atlantabraves #kansascityroyals #minnesotatwins #cincinnatireds #houstonastros #arizonadiamondbacks #chicagocubs #chicagowhitesox #torontobluejays #tampabayrays #majorleaguebaseball #baseballlife⚾️ #baseball⚾️ #baseballlife
![HIWWHEE | OHM [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/OJJLtTLqLag/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for watching, I appreciate any likes, comments, and of course shares and new subscribers! Baseball season is coming, let's get excited about who will add to their World Series resume this year!
My Mariners last- can’t argue with it. Still remember the 2 wonderful seasons we’ve had- 1995 and 2001. The 2001 season really hurt. 116 regular season wins, and flameout vs the Yankees in the playoffs.
Good video. Thank you!!!
My pleasure!
I never understand why people detract from teams for losing the World Series instead of missing it entirely.
Thanks for the comment, I think it's a balance of the two along with how long the franchise has been around. For example, I put the Mariners last because they've never made, then the Brewers who have made one, and then the Padres who have made two. I put the Cubs (13) ahead of the White Sox (only 5) for two teams that have been around as long as each other.
But on the other hand I put the Marlins (2 for 2 since 1993) ahead of the Guardians (2 for 6 since 1901 and none since 1948) because fewer appearances for such a young team felt better than losing 4 with such a long history.
Not very scientific I know, but I do enjoy the conversations it brings up!
@brutusonbaseball Hi Brutus. Thanks for the response. I agree the conversations are always interesting. Thanks for your video!
Fascinating list, I had no idea some of the worst teams like the A's were so good historically!
No kidding, recent performance is not always an indicator of past performance!
Surprised by the A's and not surprised by the Brewers lol. Great show!
I think a lot of fans would be surprised by the A's based on recent results...
Go Brewers?
Heck ya!!! Time for some baseball!@@brutusonbaseball
@@thewaxpackdad love it!
Fantastic insights! Crazy to see how far ahead the Yankees stand all time
It is pretty crazy isn't it? It'll take another century for any other team to try and catch up!
2 title teams should have been: Phillies, Guardians, Astros, Mets, Royals, Bluejays, Marlins (Marlins are 2-0, but never won their division and have mostly sucked)
3 title teams should have been: Cubs, Orioles, Twins, White Sox
Reds > Pirates
Giants > A's can also be an argument because of more pennants and recent success in an expanded playoff era. Plus the A's are horrible.
Otherwise, I enjoy your videos. Keep up the content! :)
Thanks, glad you're enjoying the videos and thanks for adding your thoughts!
My first premise for making this video was that championships trump all...so no matter how much I agree with you based on recent success, I can't put the Giants ahead of the A's.
For the others, I understand how bad the Marlins have been most of the time, but I guess the question is as a fan whether you'd rather have two wins in two tries over 30 years plus a bunch of bad years, or two wins in five tries over the span of 120+years. From the historical perspective I just think that's way more brutal, which is why the Phillies and Guardians ranked lower for me.
I honestly don't think titles should matter that much. I mean, yeah, they indicate that you were the best that year but it can cover the rest of the season. The Marlins are the perfect example. They have won 2 world series only playing 32 seasons. However, in pretty much every other season they had been horrible or just mid. Anyways great video.
Yes, this has been a common sentiment in responses to this video. That's definitely another video that could be made that ranks the teams based on their overall record, or how many times they've made the playoffs, or how well they draw fans. Lots of options, but just not how I chose to make this video. Thanks for watching and leaving a comment!
@@brutusonbaseball If that video comes out, I'll be there!
@@dominicanball2361 I'll keep that in mind!
As a Brewers fan, I am sad and not at all surprised 😢
At least you're not a Mariners fan!
This is a great list! I’m a Tigers fan that wants to disagree with their ranking. However based on criteria, you’re actually right. I knew we lost the World Series a few times, I just didn’t the actual record. This is great content, and good luck to the Mariners this year!
I'm a Tigers fan too! Did you think initially that they should have ranked higher or lower?
Good luck to the Mariners every year!
@@brutusonbaseball I initially thought they’d be one or two spots higher. I guess I didn’t factor in the Braves history of the late 1800s. Also, the number of World Series that we lost.
@terrancewatts4812 yeah the Tigers were really good early on, but they didn't win nearly as many WS as they lost. Here's to hoping there's more success than failures in the coming years!
Amazing! I always thought the Cardinals were good, but didn't know they were THAT good!
Sneaky good, huh? They've just been very consistently good for a very long time
@@brutusonbaseball I am a former Montreal Expos fan. Everytime the Cards came to town, the games were exciting. I remember in the the late 70s, Cards often had 4 batters in the top 10 batters list: Hernandez, Reitz, Simmons and Templeton. Devastating offense! Mid eighties, Darrell Porter hit a grand slam home run walloping the Expos...
@@merc340sr Nice, it's always so refreshing to hear from anyone Expos fan. Just not enough of them around anymore! Would love to see them back in some way in the future
@@brutusonbaseball You bet. The problem here is that the public is uneasy about using public funds to build a new stadium. Secondly, Toronto is a much larger market and attracts most of the advertising and tv contracts. Difficult for the Expos to raise enough revenue to pay their players. That said, the Expos were brilliant at drafting and developing talent. Maybe someday they'll be back. I hope.
Great channel!
Thank you!
Mostly I agree with this. The surprises, until you really think about, are the A's and Cardinals.
Yes, I think the A's especially will surprise most fans
I did not know about that 1892 title for a pre-Boston Braves team, but I figured the clear answer for the Braves over Tigers would have been simply being a more consistent winning team in the past 30 years and having more WS appearances in that time.
That would have been the tie breaker had it not been for 1892...I guess it depends if you value recent success vs early success. The Tigers were way better pre-war and the Braves way better post-war.
I value recent success much more for two reasons: 1) higher chances of winning in the near future, and 2) harder to win the WS with more teams in the playoffs mix
Great video but so inconsistent wether making it to the world series and losing is portrayed as good or bad.
Thanks for watching and the feedback! I've addressed this in a few other spots, but my primary intention in making the video was to show the historical success of the franchises in terms of WS victories at a high level, so how good the A's and Red Sox and Pirates have been all time compared to the Phillies and Mets and Guardians for example. I hadn't put nearly as much thought into nitpicking which of the 1-win or 2-win teams would go in which order, so making that happen was a lot more off the cuff.
I ended up going with a very un-scientific method of my gut feeling after looking at the number of times they made the World Series vs. how many they've won vs. how long the team has existed vs. what their current outlook is at winning again. For the 0-win teams it was easy to put M's last, Brewers next with 1 appearance in 50+ seasons then Rockies with 1 appearance in 30+ seasons, and then the Padres with two appearances in 50+ seasons and then the Rays with two appearances in 25+ seasons. For the 1-win teams, I ranked them with more weight given to teams that have made it more often even if they lost, with some weight given to how long the team has been around.
I think where things get a bit wonky for viewers is with the 2-win teams where I put the Guardians last (2 for 6 since 1901), then the Mets (2 for 5 since 1962), then the Phillies (2 for 8 since 1883), then the Royals (2 for 4 since 1969), then the Blue Jays (2 for 2 since 1977), then the the Marlins (2 for 2 since 1993), and finally the Astros (2 for 5 since 1962). It seems most people think I should put the Phillies first and then the Guardians since they've made it the most often, but I give the Blue Jays and Marlins more credit because they've won the same amount as those historic teams in a fraction of the time in which they've existed. To me, that's a more successful team to have made it twice and won both times in a short history than making it 8 times and only winning twice in 120+ years of history. Then on top of that I've added in the current outlook for the team to win again, which is how I decided to put the Phillies above the Mets/Guardians and the Astros above the Royals/Jays/Marlins.
I didn't mention this in the video (because I don't always remember to include everything), but I also do give a bit more weight to team that have made it recently rather than historically. The Cubs, for example, made it 12 times to the WS, but the vast majority of those times were prior to any expanded playoffs, so if you finished the best record in the league you automatically made the World Series. I ranked the Twins just ahead of them even though they have made it half the number of times, and partially that is because a lot of those Twins teams were in the more current era where they had to battle through the playoffs a bit more to make it. Just another factor...I probably could have explained all these factors better, but my videos tend to get so long that a lot of viewers aren't willing to watch through all the details...just like this post most likely!
Hope that helps, but as always let me know if you disagree!
Very informative video, as always. I'm not entirely sure I agree with your methodology for ranking teams, I think you penalize losing the World Series more than not making it, and I think you tend to ignore bad seasons a lot more than you should. Example, you put the Marlins on top of the two win group (not entirely sure grouping exclusively by WS wins is entirely accurate either, but I can see why you did it that way, it's easier), I'd put them on the bottom. Outside of the championship years, the Marlins have generally been pretty awful, they and the Rockies are the only teams that have never won a division title.
I understand how your method puts the Mariners on the bottom, but if we were to use all-time teams as a criteria, the M's would very easily move up 8-10 spots with guys like Griffey, A-Rod, Edgar, Ichiro, the Big Unit, King Felix, etc.
All that said, I did enjoy the video and I freely acknowledge that it's a lot easier to be the guy nitpicking after the fact than it is to be the guy who puts together the video in the first place.
Well first of all, let me say that as someone I consider a loyal viewer, I am incredibly disappointed that you don't blindly agree with my opinions! So sad...
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, I totally get your point. I understand overall competency is important to a fan base, but when push comes to shove it's all about the rings, so even though the Mariners had the winningest season in history and lots of good players...they just haven't shown up when it matters.
How this actually all unfolded was that I had the general idea, but I had no idea until I dug in just how many teams would be grouped at the bottom of the list. Needless to say, I didn't really devise a strategy for ranking at that level until I was already knee deep in making the video! So how I ended up ranking the 0 to 3 win teams was based less on a scientific method and more on my whim at the time for what seemed to make sense. This ended up being a combination of not only what you mentioned (success at winning the WS rather than just making it), but also how many WS overall a team has made, the time they've been a franchise to make the WS, and the outlook going forward to win another one (if they've won any).
So this is how I ended up ranking the Marlins (2 wins out of 2 in only 30 years of existence) ahead of say the Guardians (2 wins out of 6 in 120+ years. It's also why I ranked the Cubs ahead of the White Sox...two teams that have existed for about the same period, but the Cubs have made way more WS (even though they've also lost way more). In cases where teams were too close to call, that's when I generally considered recent success and potential to win again as a tie-breaker of sorts.
Let me know if this novel helps to have it all make more sense now!
@@brutusonbaseball I get it, but, respectfully, I still have to disagree. Checking out the Baseball Reference team page, the Marlins have the worst winning percentage of all the MLB teams, you have them 16th, exactly in the middle. Two championships aside, that's much too high. Conversely, Cleveland has the 7th best winning percentage and you have them ranked 21st. Just switching those two teams makes the list much more accurate IMO.
Personally, my approach would have been a tier list based on primarily on all-time winning percentage, then rank the teams within the tier.
S tier: Yankees
A tier (elite but not the Yankees): Giants, Dodgers, Cardinals, Red Sox
B tier (winning record all-time): Cubs, Guardians, Reds, Braves, Tigers, White Sox, Astros, Pirates. I'd also put the Athletics here, even though they have a losing record all-time, just because 15 pennants and 9 championships are hard to ignore.
C tier (losing record, but close): Blue Jays, Angels, Rays, Diamondbacks, Brewers, Nationals, Mets, Twins
D tier (solid losing record, but had some high points): Rangers, Mariners, Royals, Orioles, Phillies
F tier (rare high points, mostly pretty bad): Rockies, Padres, Marlins.
Maybe you can move a couple of teams up or down based on other factors (like I did with the A's, I'd also probably move the Brewers and Nats down and the O's and Phillies up), but that's the general idea. I'd have probably used the championships to justify putting the Marlins on top of the F tier, which would rank them 28th.
Fun fact: October 11, 1972: NLCS Game 5 (best of 5 series) Pittsburgh Pirates @ Cincinnati Reds. Bottom of the 9th inning. 2 outs. Game tied 3-3. Bob Moose throws a wild pitch allowing George Foster to score the pennant winning run. The Reds would go on to lose the World Series to the Oakland Athletics. Moose's heroics prevented the Pirates from losing the World Series to the A's and preserved their 7th spot on Brutus' list, one ahead of the Reds. (Both teams would have been 5-3 instead of the Pirates 5-2 to the Reds 5-4). 😉
@big8dog887 @big8dog887 all I'm saying is that if you ask a Yankees fan, the last 14 years haven't been a success even though they have one of the best records over that time 🙃
Nice fun fact, but i have to point out your error in logic there. In that parallel universe where the Pirates beat the Reds, they also beat the A's thereby solidifying their superiority to the Reds (and downgrading the A's to a level below the Giants)
@@brutusonbaseball You might have a point, the Pirates haven't lost a World Series since 1927.
Yankee fans are a little different, but let's ride with that example. If you're a Yankee fan, would you trade the last 14 years with a Royals fan? The Royals have been to two World Series in that time, winning one, but they've also only had 3 winning seasons, and have lost 100+ games 3 times and 90+ 4 more. Championships do matter, as a Yankee fan, I'd probably be jealous of the Red Sox, even though they've had a few clunkers in the last 14 years, and have been worse than the Yanks overall, but the Royals? Not so much. There are limits.
Got it, that makes sense that the Royals are the bar you don't want to go under.
That being said...I'm worried that my Tigers are likely under that bar too. Please tell me Tigers > Royals 😭
I’m glad you took the time to rank them but your evaluation system seems inconsistent. Number of championships is the rubrics you say you use but then rank the marlins high bc of time frame. If that’s how it works then it should be championships per year so divide the number by total years. I kind of think that’s unfair though since the clubs that have been it in the longest we’re competing against a much smaller pool, even smaller considering that there was some really bad teams that weren’t competitive at all. So yeah the Yankees and cubs won all those championships but they were playing against only a few real teams. However, be consistent if that’s what you are going to do. Your evaluation is way too basic. Just saying. Marlins aren’t successful. They won two World Series but have been basically non competitive 80% of the time. That’s not success. That’s a flash in the pan. The white Sox at 14? 3 WS in over a hundred years? That ain’t success either. Give me a break. I have you a thumbs up though bc you put in some much effort.
This has been a very common comment to this video that I've answered several times, so obviously my delivery was missing something. I won't take the time to explain in detail again (feel free to check out the other comments to get the gist), but I think my main issue was that I didn't explain my ranking system in detail. It's always tough to find the balance between too much information (and making the video too long) vs. not enough.
Essentially, my ranking was based on a number of factors, not just one. The primary factor was WS wins, so there's no way I was going to rank the White Sox below teams with less than 3 wins, or the Marlins below teams with less than two. Total number of WS appearances was important, but so was how long the teams has been around, and whether most of their appearances were before expansion or after. Also factoring in was the recent team quality and how likely they are to win the WS again soon.
It's interesting, the team most commonly mentioned that people take issue with is the Marlins. Twos WS wins in 25 years is pretty good compared to all the other teams that have 2 WS wins or less...even if they haven't been competitive 80% of the time. I guess it depends on how you view success, is it being in the running every year, or actually winning it all? I decided this video was going to be based primarily on WS wins, if someone else thinks that overall W/L record or anything else is a better way, I won't argue with that. There's a number of different ways you could look at it.
Thanks for watching and commenting, appreciate the support even if you don't agree with all my methods!
As much as it pains me to say this...the New York Yankees are the most successful franchise in the history of American sport. Of the original 8 National League franchises still in operation (Dodgers, Giants, Braves, Phills, Pirates, Reds, Cubs and Cardinals), Philadelphia was the last team to post 10,000 all-time wins. The NL is 20+ years older than the AL.
I feel your pain my friend, unfortunately we cannot change the past 😔
With all the suffering us Yankees fans have went through (shut up I know I’m a spoiled Yankees fan) the past decade plus it’s always good to see what the current team could have been if Hal Steinbrenner was ok with having one less yacht
My condolences to you and those that are forced to suffer along with you
Nobody asked for this but the discussion we had on the other thread got me to thinking about how some of the defunct teams would rank. So here's a quick and dirty ranking of the 17 defunct MLB/Negro League teams that have played at least 700 recorded games. I won't try to compare them with the active teams.
*17) Washington Senators (Statesmen) (AA 1891, NL 1892-99):* Never had a winning season, overall .366 winning percentage is easily the worst on this list.
*16) Louisville Colonels (AA 1882-91, NL 1892-99):* One of the original AA teams, the highlight was the 1890 AA pennant when they became the first worst-to-first team in MLB history (thanks largely to the formation of the Player's League which took stars away from everyone else.) Gave us Pete Browning, who found a lathe worker named Bud Hillerich to make him a bat, which started the Louisville Slugger company. Also gave Honus Wagner and Fred Clarke their start before they and a few others from Louisville would form the nucleus of some great Pirates teams. Overall, though, just a .429 winning percentage.
*15) Memphis Red Sox (Neg.Lg. 1921-1948):* Actually stayed in business until 1960, so from that standpoint, a very successful Negro League franchise. Not a lot of on-field success though, won 1 pennant in 1938, overall .403 winning percentage.
*14) Philadelphia Stars (Neg.Lg. 1934-48):* Two postseason appearances, one pennant. .473 winning percentage. Jud Wilson is the only HOFer who spent significant time there, a couple others played there briefly.
*13) Detroit Wolverines (NL 1881-88):* Tempted to rank them higher because their peak was so good, a .704 winning percentage in 1888, and a "World Series" win in 1899, with superstars Dan Brouthers, Sam Thompson, and Deacon White in the HOF. Ned Hanlon was also a decent player who's in the Hall as a manager, and Hardy Richardson arguably should be. Overall though, only a .494 winning percentage.
*12) Baltimore Elite Giants (Neg.Lg. 1930-48):* Also played in Nashville, Columbus and Washington. 3 postseason appearances, one pennant, .501 winning percentage. Gave us Roy Campanella, who was tutored by another HOF catching great, Biz Mackey.
*11) Cleveland Spiders: (AA 1887-88, NL 1889-1899):* Kind of the Athletics of 19th century baseball, very high highs, very low lows. Finished 20-134 in their final season, worst team in MLB history. But from 1892-96 they, along with the Boston Beaneaters and the Baltimore Orioles were the three only really serious contenders in the National League (the only major league at the time). Lost the "World Series" in 1892, won the Temple Cup in 1895, lost the Temple Cup series in 1896. Was the primary team of Cy Young, along with HOFers Jesse Burkett and Bobby Wallace. Had a reputation as a team that played dirty. Would be ranked higher but overall .469 percentage hurts them.
*10) Detroit Stars: (Neg.Lg. 1920-1931):* Biggest stars were Turkey Stearnes and Andy Cooper. Only one postseason appearance, but overall .542 winning percentage tops all current MLB teams except the Yankees.
*9) Philadelphia Athletics (AA 1882-1890):* The second of four franchises to use that name, won the AA pennant in 1883. Not a very colorful history, but a very solid .529 percentage. Probably interchangeable with the Stars at #10, the pennant is my tiebreaker.
*8) Newark Eagles (Neg.Lg. 1935-48):* Owned by Abe and Effa Manley, Effa is the first and so far only woman in the Hall of Fame. Won Negro League World Series in 1946, made another postseason appearance in 1939. .530 winning percentage. To Effa's chagrin, was one of MLB's main feeder teams during the integration period, giving us Larry Doby, Monte Irvin and Don Newcombe among others. HOFers Ray Dandridge, Leon Day, Biz Mackey, and Mule Suttles all spent significant chunks of their careers there.
*7) Birmingham Black Barons (Neg.Lg. 1923-48):* Based on the talent and overall winning percentage of the franchise (.501), they probably should be behind the Eagles, but they made 4 postseason appearances, which is significantly more. This is where both Satchel Paige and Willie Mays got their starts.
*6) Providence Grays (NL 1878-1885):* Two time NL pennant winner, beat the New York Metropolitans in the first "World Series" between pennant winners of two different leagues. Never finished below third place until their final season, overall winning percentage of .612, mostly on the efforts of one man, Old Hoss Radbourn, who won a record 59 or 60 games in 1884. HOFer John Montgomery Ward, who was MLBs first labor activist, also got his start there.
*5) St. Louis Stars (Neg.Lg. 1920-1931):* Led by Cool Papa Bell, Mule Suttles, and Willie Wells, formed one of the Negro League's great dynasties, winning 3 pennants in 4 years from 1928-1931. In their final 7 seasons finished 1st 3 times, 2nd 3 times and third once. Overall winning percentage of .599.
*4) Baltimore Orioles (AA 1883-90, NL 1891-99):* Not much of a team until 1892, when Ned Hanlon took over as manager. He struggled at first, but starting in 1894... wow! Three straight pennants, then won the Temple Cup as a second place team in the fourth year of that run and finished second again in year 5, never having a winning percentage below .644 in that run. HOFers all over the place with Wee Willie Keeler, John McGraw, Hughie Jennings, Joe Kelly and Dan Brouthers. Participated in all four Temple Cup series played. Very innovative style of play, some of which was dirty, but they also invented the hit and run play, and the Baltimore chop, where they'd deliberately hit the ball hard into the ground, then get to first base before the ball came down from the bounce. The lean years before the success results in a winning percentage of only .519, which keeps them behind the legendary Negro League teams comprising the top 3.
*3) Chicago American Giants (Neg.Lg. 1920-1948):* Actually existed from 1910-1956, and can trace their roots back to 1887. This was Negro League founder Rube Foster's team, the OG Negro League dynasty. Seven league titles and two Negro World Series titles in the years we track, a .530 winning percentage. HOFers Rube Foster, his younger brother Bill, Turkey Stearnes, Mule Suttles, Cristobal Torriente, and Willie Wells all spent significant time there, as did Pop Lloyd in the era before we have the stats.
*2) Homestead Grays (Neg.Lg. 1928-1948):* Actually date from 1912-1950. Played mostly in Pittsburgh until 1940 and mostly in Washington D.C. afterward. 10 League titles, 3 Negro League World Series titles, the most of anyone. Overall .622 winning percentage. 14 HOFers spent some time there, most notably Josh Gibson, the "Black Babe Ruth", and Buck Leonard, the "Black Lou Gehrig". Ray Brown, Smoky Joe Williams, Jud Wilson, and Cool Papa Bell also spent significant time there.
*1) Kansas City Monarchs (Neg.Lg. 1920-1948):* 12 League titles, 2 World Series championships, .648 winning percentage. The Grays have more Negro League World Series titles, but this isn't a very good indicator because the Negro Leagues didn't always play a World Series. The Monarchs get the edge on both pennants and winning percentage, as well as the fact that in 1942, the only time they met head to head, the Monarchs swept the series, which included the famous (and over-embellished) incident where Satchel Paige struck out Josh Gibson with the bases loaded. This is the first team who regularly played night baseball games, they hauled their own lighting on their barnstorming tours. This is also the franchise that gave Jackie Robinson his start. Paige, Bullet Rogan, Willard Brown, Hilton Smith, Jose Mendez and Turkey Stearnes all spent significant time there as well as the lovable Buck O'Neill, MLB's first black coach. After the Negro Leagues lost MLB status, their final contribution as a minor league team was Ernie Banks.
You're right, nobody asked for it but it sure is a good read! Without researching it, I would have just assumed that the Greys would be #1, but those Monarchs were some pretty amazing teams
@@brutusonbaseball Thanks, I try. Here are 7 more interesting teams that I didn't rank because then I'd have to rank a ton of relatively uninteresting ones.
*Pittsburgh Crawfords (Neg.Lg. 1933-40):* Using modern sports terminology, this was a superteam. Racketeer Gus Greenlee set out to put together the best Negro League team money could buy, and did he ever. This channel did a very good video on the top 10 Negro League players of all time, and this team had four of them, Satchel Paige, Josh Gibson, Cool Papa Bell, and player-manager Oscar Charleston, as well as several other HOF/near HOF players. Unsurprisingly, they won four pennants in their first four seasons. After that, all the stars left, the team moved to Toledo, and were mediocre at best. Overall winning percentage of .551 is very good, but still surprisingly low given their reputation.
*Hilldale Daisies (Neg.Lg. 1923-32):* Based in the Philadelphia area, this team actually dates back to 1910 as an independent club. Their trajectory as a team in an organized league is very similar to the above-mentioned Crawfords, four pennants in their first four years, followed by a rapid drop off. 1925 Negro World Series champs. The strength of this team was behind the plate where HOFers Louis Santop and Biz Mackey both played. HOFer Judy Johnson spent most of the first half of his career here (he spent most of the second half with above-mentioned Crawfords.) Overall .586 percentage.
*Chicago Whales (Chi-Feds) (FL 1914-15):* Easily the most successful Federal League team in the two years of its existence, finishing a close second in 1914 and winning the pennant in 1915. Managed by Cubs HOF Joe Tinker, this was where Mordecai "Three-Finger" Brown had his last good season. This team's biggest contribution to the game: Wrigley Field. After the league folded, the owner, Charles Weeghman, bought the Cubs and moved in.
*Boston Reds (PL 1890, AA 1891):* This is the perfect franchise, existed for two years, won two pennants. Doesn't get any better than that. Won the Player's League title in the only year of its existence, then when that league folded, they joined the American Association and won the pennant in that league's final year. After that, since Boston already had an NL team, they weren't merged in, but were paid $135,000 to fold. Dan Brouthers was the star, Old Hoss Radbourn had his last good season in 1890, King Kelly managed the team in 1890, and in 1891, Boston mainstay Hugh Duffy played his first season in that city. .659 winning percentage is the highest of any team that played multiple seasons.
*St. Louis Maroons (UA 1884, NL 1885-86):* Runaway winners of the only Union Association pennant, finishing 94-19, 21 games ahead. After that, joined the National League and were a steaming hot pile of garbage, finishing 49 and 46 games out of first place, barely winning half as many games as they lost. Their star player, Fred Dunlap, put up a .412/.448/.621 line in 1884, his best numbers afterward were .274/.340/.441. It helps when your owner runs the league and buys up all the best players. The UA shouldn't even qualify as a major league.
*Philadelphia Athletics (NA 1871-75, NL 1876):* (Not the team that now resides in Oakland.) Won the first organized professional baseball pennant in 1871, and were the second most successful National Association team to the Boston Red Stockings (now Atlanta Braves). Team dates back to 1860. They were the "Athletic Club of Philadelphia", which is why it's kind of amusing that the city of Oakland now wants to claim that name if and when the current team moves to Las Vegas. Charter member of the National League, but were expelled from the league after the first year for failing to complete their schedule. .657 percentage in the NA, only .237 in the NL. Their most famous player was Al Reach, who would form a sporting goods company which rivaled Al Spalding's (also a player-turned entrepreneur), until the two companies merged in 1889.
*Brooklyn Atlantics (NA 1872-75):* Organized baseball has a history before it became professional. This team organized in 1855, and was a charter member of baseball's first "league", the National Amateur Association, in 1857. Led by Dickey Pearce, who pioneered the shortstop position and invented the bunt, they dominated this league, winning 8 championships in 14 years. This was the team that ended the Cincinnati Red Stockings historic 81 game winning streak. Then the greatest amateur team in the history of baseball became the worst professional team in the history of the game with 3 or more seasons, with a winning percentage of just .263. What happened? They opted not to join the NA in 1871, so they lost star players like George Zettlein, Lip Pike, Joe Start and Bob Ferguson to other teams, so when they did join the NA in 1872, they were severely undermanned. In the NA's final season, they finished 2-42. Unsurprisingly, they weren't invited to join the National League in 1876. They still managed to function as an independent team until 1883.
This concludes my novel. I hope that when your channel takes off that people will read it and learn something. Have a nice day.
@big8dog887 thank you as always for the contribution!
I’m a Yankees fan and I love this video. They are the greatest of all time.
Let me start by saying that I'm sorry, I know it's tough to be a fan lately. Perhaps you and @DrAnarchy69 over there can get together and console each other!
But at least you can be proud that the rest of the baseball world still can't see you because you're team has lapped them multiple times
@@brutusonbaseball lol 😂
When I consider what constitutes a "successful" franchise...there are other factors beside number of WS titles. Did you see the Rays' attendance during last year's playoffs? It was embarrassing. I doubt if Cincinnati has put as many as 10,000 butts in the seats for a home game in the last decade. The majority of fans in attendance at Oakland, Pittsburgh and Miami games support the visiting team. The Cubs went a century without a title, but Wrigley was full of fans and, like the Red Sox (another franchise with a near-century of failure) they were an important part of their community...a way of life. The Braves, Cardinals and Dodgers have fewer empty seats in a season than Washington has for one game. They are a rite of passage in their hometowns. Successful teams give us entertainment, excitement, hope and a sense of community without winning the World Series. Gonna be a great season...God, I love baseball!!!
These are really good points when looking at "success" from a money making standpoint. The Rays have been one of the most successful franchises in terms of winning the past two decades, and probably the least successful for making money. Two totally different things.
Thanks for adding to the discussion, anyways inspiring to hear from fans that love this game as much as I do!
I'll hope for the Ms to win a series every year.
Me too, with so many great players it's too bad they've never been able to put it all together. It'll be their time one of these years!
The Shot Heard Around the World is the Giants not Pirates
You are quite right...flubbed that one up!
Dodgers fan here.
Lucky you!
FWIW, it’s pronounced ‘suPERbas’, like the word superb, not ‘SUPer-bahs’.
It's worth a lot to me, thanks for the pointer! I never considered that the root of the team name was "superb"... you learn something new every day!
@@brutusonbaseball I think there was a brand or type of cigar called 'Superbas'-the pronunciation makes even more sense if you think of it as having a Cuban accent. ;)
a's too high, they won a lot of world series but holy hell did they have some bad years, from 1932-67 they broke .500 ONCE, you shouldve looked at that too.
Yeah that's just not how I chose to order success for this video. If I just looked at overall W-L record or number of winning seasons, the order would be very different I'm sure. To me though, a winning season doesn't mean as much as winning the whole thing, so I used that as my first basis and the A's just fell where they did without much competition in terms of titles
Finally the Mariners are #1 at something! Thats right we suck more than anyone else...take that MLB!!
Sometimes you gotta take whatever you can get!
White Sox won in 05. **
Good catch, thanks for that! There's always going to be a couple mistakes in a big list like this...just have to accept my failures!
The Yankees are the greatest franchise in all of sports.
Cannot disagree with that
I'm sitting here trying to think of the top 5 in order, without looking. Yankees, cardinals? Giants? Dodgers, athletics, reds? Totally off the top of my head I can't wait to see
Not including international sports. Brazil!
I really liked this video. It was solid fun!
@275Vet-RLTW thanks for watching, and great job almost coming up with the top 5! Just missed on the Red Sox being in there!
My Mariners last- can’t argue with it. Still remember the 2 wonderful seasons we’ve had- 1995 and 2001. The 2001 season really hurt. 116 regular season wins, and flameout vs the Yankees in the playoffs.
Good video. Thank you!!!
Some great memories as a Mariners fan...but just haven't reached that pinnacle yet. I grew up in the Seattle area as well...that 95 post-season was AMAZING even if they lost the league championship. 2001 hurt more though because they had been unstoppable all season but lost steam in the playoffs again. Here's to hoping they move up about 10 spots in the next few seasons!