EVIL~! alkeiper

Because Kobe's had a better reputation and career before this year, fans don't have current statistics readily available, the statistics they do keep are fuzzy, and voting begins near the beginning of the season.

I honestly think this book will rank among the worst baseball books of all time. Besides name dropping, I can't see anything of quality that will come out of it. Thank god my copy of Weaver On Strategy just showed up.

They're a full dynasty, in my view. They won ten straight division titles, and led the NL in wins for five years in a row. The 1949-53 Yankees are the only other team to do that. They won three NL titles, and a world championship. Great players? Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Chipper Jones, and Andruw Jones are likely Hall of Famers, and John Smoltz and Javy Lopez have a chance to post HOF numbers by the time they are through. Yes, they have their postseason failures, but its not easy to win an eight-team tournament, and that is the ONLY strike against them. The thing is dynasties usually refer to a single team, but Atlanta has gone through numerous transformations in that decade. Aside from Smoltz, who else is still playing for Atlanta in 1991? I consider that more a great franchise that has good management and a knack for finding players than a single dynasty. The Braves have gone through alot of roster turnover since 1991 and still won, but I could hardly hold that against the dynasty. I consider their dynasty era 1995-99, and during that time they maintained most of their core, with a few changes here and there. Anything around that time period is window dressing for this club.

Jingus, I don't know why you even bothered to dissect that. Lately from the IWC, I've witnessed more and more "writers" who can not even master the basics of grammer, let alone form coherant thoughts. When something is that poorly written, I can not even bring myself to grant it serious consideration.

They're a full dynasty, in my view. They won ten straight division titles, and led the NL in wins for five years in a row. The 1949-53 Yankees are the only other team to do that. They won three NL titles, and a world championship. Great players? Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Chipper Jones, and Andruw Jones are likely Hall of Famers, and John Smoltz and Javy Lopez have a chance to post HOF numbers by the time they are through. Yes, they have their postseason failures, but its not easy to win an eight-team tournament, and that is the ONLY strike against them.

I actually did a top 50 list for the Phillies, and I might complete it someday. I'm debating whether to combine it with the Philadelphia Athletics, and then there's the question of whether I should get cute and include the Negro league Hillsdale club. Good times.

If a dynasty requires more than 4-5 years, then you can effectively throw out every dynasty in MLB history except for Casey Stengel's Yankees. I can't see applying such a strict standard. My thinking is that a dynasty term should run about five years. When you go longer than five years, your definition determines who your pick is for the greatest team, rather than the other way around. In addition, the teams that you compare have such roster turnover in that time period that it becomes a chore to make direct comparisons between two or more teams. The 49ers won four titles in the 80s. They also had sub-.500 seasons in that span. You really can't group the early 80s and late 80s teams together. Each needs to stand on its own merits. As for forgotten dynasties that someone else asked about, the Denver Broncos won back-to-back Super Bowls. It's not long-term, but not many people have done it. On another question, what were the best dynasties/teams of the pre-Lombardi Packers era?

Perhaps, but if you take a look at those old rosters, you will still see a surprising amount of Scrappy McScrubbersons on the rosters. Look at it this way. Imagine reducing the NBA to eight teams, an evaluate such an imaginary team. I find it difficult to think a team from the 1960, eight team NBA could compare with such a team.

I agree. If anything, wouldn't it be harder to win with fewer teams in a league simply because the collective talent of each team would be much stronger and thus the level of competition higher? Not really. The number of teams is a reflection of the talent available, and the interest in the product. An eight team league is an indication of an infant league, where there is not as much general interest for the public, and thus less kids dream of being NBA players as they would other sports (generally baseball in that period). Now, as interest increases, a league adds teams to meet the demand, and there are more athletes attempting to play basketball because of the interest in the league. So it actually works in a linear fashion, so to speak. In 1960, there were simply less NBA caliber players available than there is today. This holds true for almost any sport.

It's just an inherant matter-of-fact that it is harder to win a league with more competition, and when the competition is more refined. Many people point to the Boston Celtics as basketball's greatest dynasty. They have a great record, sure. But they won many titles in an eight team league, and in a league that does not have as many mechanisms as they do now to identify and draft the best players available.

The Packers of the 60s would have done it had the Super Bowl come in a year earlier. They still stand as the only team to ever win three consecutive World Championships. These Pats have to get to 5 to match them. If they don't, then Green Bay will still be the greatest team in NFL history. In terms of franchises they have a real long way to go. New England has 3 titles, Green Bay has 12. However, the Packers' first of those World Championships came when they only needed to win a fourteen team league. Pre-Super Bowl championships were easier to garner, and it also needs to be remembered that the AFL was probably not of the caliber of the NFL just yet, when the Super Bowl was first played.

Let's see. C- Kevin Cash/Toby Hall 1B- Travis Lee 2B- Roberto Alomar/Jorge Cantu SS- Julio Lugo 3B- B.J. Upton/Alex Gonzalez LF- Danny Bautista (Rocco Baldelli is out until around June) CF- Carl Crawford RF- Aubrey Huff DH- Eduardo Perez/Josh Phelps Starting Rotation (pick five)- Casey Fossum, Hideo Nomo, Denny Neagle, Doug Waechter, Scott Kazmir, Rob Bell, Mark Hendrickson, Seth McClung, Dewon Brazleton.

It feels really icky to say so, but I'm in the Skip Bayless camp on the Patriots, especially with last night's win. The Patriots are a great team who've built a dynasty on the virtue of the rest of the competition being remarkably stupid. Donovan McNabb, John Kasay, and Mike Martz (and others) have all had a fair hand in choking away the games for their respective teams, which the Patriots still barely won by a field goal. They're a dynasty and a well-coached machine but, while I think they'd make a game out of it, I don't think they'd win against any of the other "dynasty teams" of NFL's past. I'm sorry, but I can't buy the idea that the Patriots only won three because of their competition. You could make an argument that the NFC is a weak conference and easier to beat in the Super Bowl, but that's moot because the Patriots had to beat the best teams to get there anyway. Having watched the game, I can't say McNabb played stupidly. He threw three interceptions, but he also threw three touchdown passes. He was pressured by a very tough defensive line. Meanwhile, the Pat's offensive line let almost nothing through, and I don't think it was because the Eagles' defensive line was stupid. As for the Michael Irvin comment earlier, Irvin was right. That the Cowboys blew out their opponents is an indication of dominance.

The NY Yankees of 1936-39 won four straight World Series, and led the league in runs scored AND least runs allowed EVERY SINGLE YEAR.

Fossum needed a change of scenery. He was ineffective for the Diamondbacks. In return for Fossum, the D'backs get a player who is capable with the bat, and can play center field, or left if Gonzo isn't ready for opening day. Cruz may carry a slightly above average bat, but when you lose 111 games, you learn to appreciate those average players.`

Agreed. That offensive line is insanely good.

I think Philly's a great team, but New England was just a better team. McNabb had a bad game, but that's a tough, tough defense they faced. McNabb was pressured constantly, while it seemed like the Eagles' D NEVER got to Brady.

My post implied that it was a good trade for the D'backs, not the Devil Rays.

Absolutely. Not many teams have 3 titles in 4 years in ANY era.

I see not reason not to allow it either. You're not soliciting sale of services, so its not quite advertising in the accepted form. I say go for it.

This is great. After the overblown extravaganzas of the past few years, we go back to the basics.

In all fairness to Canseco, he and Ken Caminiti WERE two of the guys who broke the silence on steroids and baseball before it became such a huge story. However, Caminiti wasn't trying to cash in on it. True, but Canseco from the start explicitly threatened that he would name names. You know that isn't going to sit well.

Wow. The D'backs raped the Devil Rays on that one.

I know better than to count on it. The only time a Philadelphia team won a title was when I was just a year old. If the Eagles win, it will effectively be the FIRST time I ever see my team win a championship.

Not bad so far. This is nerve racking for me.