When talking about the greatest teams in baseball history, usually it's just a competition between the Yankees and the Yankees and the Yankees. The 1976 Reds get some love, but at best they're the 4th best all time. The top 3 are ordered based on your perspective. Most people only know of the 1998 Yankees with their all time record of 125 wins. The 1961 Yankees are another one with Ford and the M&M boys...
But only one team touts the name "Murderers Row"
I give you the 1927 Yankees. A team that had their World Series won during batting practice before the series even started.
110 regular season wins. 4 more in the world series. The '98 Yankees had 8 more regular season games and 7 more post season wins to add to their win total. There exists a very real possibility that they could match the 125 win mark as well if they had the extra games, assuming they could march through two extra postseason series like Torre's Yankees did. It's what-if scenarios like this are what makes the "best ever" debates so fun and impossible to settle.
The 60 home run season of Babe Ruth seems to get a disrespectful 18+ for the homers. The 16 on-base however means he'll always get the advantage. Most pitchers have a 3 for control, the best controls top out at 6. That means there's at least a 50% chance that Ruth will get the advantage against even the best control pitchers in the game. If you have a lesser control pitcher in the game, then just hope you have a lead that can survive the inevitable homer.
Ruth hit 60 mainly because he had this beast protecting him in the lineup. Gehrig socked 47 of his own homers and took home MVP for the season (Ruth was ineligible because of the rule at the time that said you could only win MVP once). Lou's on-base is lower at a "mere" 14, but he can hurt you very easily with more extra base hit possibility, and he doesn't strike out.
Murderers Row only had three guys reach double digits in the home run column, and Tony here is that third man, with 18 of his own, tied for 8th in all of baseball.
The rest of the regulars. All with on-bases of 9 or better. The '27 Yankees always had the advantage. One thing you'll notice is that nobody strikes out on their own chart. Only Ruth strikes out on his own chart and he's the LAST guy you wanna take that chance on.
Special mention to Earl Combs, who ran his way to a club record 23 triples that year. I feel his chart could use more love for that category.
The bench is a bit of a mixed bag. Paschal has a very tempting chart at 14+ extra base hit potential, and Gazella has that nice 13 on base...but then you have guys like Durst, Bengough and Wera with 1-9, 1-9 and 1-10 out potential. Those guys you definitely wanna play a "Do or Die" strategy card.
When half the lineup is comprised of future hall of famers, you don't need a very deep bench.
Two future hall of famers headline this rotation, which also includes my favorite name on the team of "Urban Shocker"...who, shockingly, decided strikeouts aren't his style.
"Relievers" back then were just starters who didn't make the cut to be in the rotation. "Closers" didn't exist either, so giving Moore that distinction is being a bit charitable. Not too shabby to bring out in the 6th inning though.
Do you know how irritating it was to get a pic of Giard without autocorrect constantly suggesting "Did you mean Joe Girardi?" I was very close to putting a pic of Girardi and figuring no one would notice.
These Yankees also happen to have been led by a HoF caliber manager. Huggins' 1912 season is pretty good for a dead-ball era offense, but not quite super season. HoF logo looks better on him anyway.
Other coaches on staff. Remember: dead ball era.
