Tigers voted 10th greatest baseball franchise ever

[wallerstein]

The Detroit Tigers are currently #10 in the ranking Best MLB franchise ever (http://www.rankopedia.com/ZoneID=3/Step1/27.htm) on rankopedia. The honors go to the Yankees, the Cardinals and the Red Sox. It'll be difficult to get to the lead but if your votes can send us up a few ranks.

[Greenberg #5]

The Detroit Tigers are currently #10 in the ranking Best MLB franchise ever (http://www.rankopedia.com/ZoneID=3/Step1/27.htm) on rankopedia. The honors go to the Yankees, the Cardinals and the Red Sox. It'll be difficult to get to the lead but if your votes can send us up a few ranks.

The Yankees....yes. The Cardnials....yes. The Dodgers (if you include Brookland and LA).....yes. Maybe Cincy and Pitt. Anyone else.......that is a joke. I know the late 90's and 00's really hurt our reputation, but there aren't many other franchises with our success, history and HOF's players etc.......

[djhutch]

My vote pushed us from 8 to 7. Now that's power. After voting the Tigers #1, I went to the bottom & put the rest of the teams in - starting with the Nationals.

[shabba4detroit]

I don't know what's more outrageous, that the White Sox are 3rd or that US Cellular is number one for best stadium.

[Yoda]

I don't know what's more outrageous, that the White Sox are 3rd or that US Cellular is number one for best stadium.

Yup. They probably mentioned the site on the radio in Chicago because they're getting a ton of votes. Sammy Sosa is the leading steroid user

[Tyrus]

As of 1:45 p.m. EST, the Tigers had moved up to #6 on the list. Now that sounds a hellova lot more feasible than 10th.

[tigerfanfromchicago]

We're currently 3rd for best team this year. (http://www.rankopedia.com/ZoneID=3/145007959/Step1/1882.htm)

Johnny Bench leads for best catcher of all time. Pudge is 6th, somehow behind Piazza. Cochrane is 11th.

[chasfh]

This ranking means less than nothing because it is only a popularity contest driven by emotion.

I wonder how actual experts would rank the franchises? My guess is that list would look something like this:

New York Yankees
Brooklyn/Los Angeles Dodgers
St. Louis Cardinals
Boston Red Sox
Chicago Cubs
New York/San Francisco Giants
Boston/Milwaukee/Atlanta Braves
Detroit Tigers

With the Reds and A's following close behind.

[Oblong]

This ranking means less than nothing because it is only a popularity contest driven by emotion.

I wonder how actual experts would rank the franchises? My guess is that list would look something like this:

New York Yankees
Brooklyn/Los Angeles Dodgers
St. Louis Cardinals
Boston Red Sox
Chicago Cubs
New York/San Francisco Giants
Boston/Milwaukee/Atlanta Braves
Detroit Tigers

With the Reds and A's following close behind.


Welcome to the internets.

[shabba4detroit]

This ranking means less than nothing because it is only a popularity contest driven by emotion.

I wonder how actual experts would rank the franchises? My guess is that list would look something like this:

New York Yankees
Brooklyn/Los Angeles Dodgers
St. Louis Cardinals
Boston Red Sox
Chicago Cubs
New York/San Francisco Giants
Boston/Milwaukee/Atlanta Braves
Detroit Tigers

With the Reds and A's following close behind.

What criteria would the experts be using?

IMH non-expert O, I would put probably put the Tigers third or fourth, with only the Yankees, Cards, Braves and either the Twins or the Tribe to round out the top 5.

Interestingly, IIRC the Yankees are the only team on the above list that weren't around in some form at the advent of the American League, 1901, which is considered the start of the modern era of baseball.

Interestingly also, there are only two teams in all of major league baseball that were around at the formation of their leagues and have not gone a name change or city change -- meaning that they are called exactly what they were when they played their first game. Can you name them without looking?

[Buddha]

This ranking means less than nothing because it is only a popularity contest driven by emotion.

I wonder how actual experts would rank the franchises? My guess is that list would look something like this:

New York Yankees
Brooklyn/Los Angeles Dodgers
St. Louis Cardinals
Boston Red Sox
Chicago Cubs
New York/San Francisco Giants
Boston/Milwaukee/Atlanta Braves
Detroit Tigers

With the Reds and A's following close behind.

Yankees
Dodgers
Cardinals
A's
Red Sox
Giants
Braves
Cubs
Reds
Tigers
Pirates

[Buddha]

IMH non-expert O, I would put probably put the Tigers third or fourth, with only the Yankees, Cards, Braves and either the Twins or the Tribe to round out the top 5.

Based on what?

I can't see any criteria that would put the Twins and the Indians in the list of top 5 franchises in baseball history.

I find it hard to believe the Tigers would be in the top 5 either. No offense to the motown nine.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Hmm, this sounds like both the most unscientific poll possible, along with a plug for some Web site traffic, unless I'm missing something here.

[RedTeamGo!]

This ranking means less than nothing because it is only a popularity contest driven by emotion.

I wonder how actual experts would rank the franchises? My guess is that list would look something like this:

New York Yankees
Brooklyn/Los Angeles Dodgers
St. Louis Cardinals
Boston Red Sox
Chicago Cubs
New York/San Francisco Giants
Boston/Milwaukee/Atlanta Braves
Detroit Tigers

With the Reds and A's following close behind.

thats outrageous. big red machine. Also, they were the first complete professional team (all the players on the team were paid pros).

[Oblong]

reminds me of local TV in the mid 90s when CBS and Fox switched affiliates. My parents could not understand it. I just summarized "Channel 50 became channel 2 and channel 2 is now 62".

[Oblong]

reminds me of local TV in the mid 90s when CBS and Fox switched affiliates. My parents could not understand it. I just summarized "Channel 50 became channel 2 and channel 2 is now 62".

[ypsieast]

fwiw, here's mine:

NY Yankees
Brooklyn/LA Dodgers
St. Louis Cardinals
Cincinnati Reds
Boston Red Sox
NY/San Francisco Giants
Atlanta/Milwaukee/Boston Braves
Detroit Tigers
Chicago Cubs
Pittsburgh Pirates
Oakland A's

[FloridaTigers]

What criteria would the experts be using?

IMH non-expert O, I would put probably put the Tigers third or fourth, with only the Yankees, Cards, Braves and either the Twins or the Tribe to round out the top 5.

Interestingly, IIRC the Yankees are the only team on the above list that weren't around in some form at the advent of the American League, 1901, which is considered the start of the modern era of baseball.

Interestingly also, there are only two teams in all of major league baseball that were around at the formation of their leagues and have not gone a name change or city change -- meaning that they are called exactly what they were when they played their first game. Can you name them without looking?


The Detroit Tigers...and I'm guessing the Pirates?

[MackAveKurt]

I wouldn't know where to begin. Well, I would know where to begin. With the Yankees.

But after that, fan popularity? General history? World Series wins? Pennants?

Personally, I like the Dodgers second, but in success, it's pretty much got to be the Cards. To me, they'll never be as cool as the Brooklyn Dodgers, but it's hard to argue with 10 titles.

[ypsieast]

My personal criteria (not in any order):
1) historical success: penants, championships, consistent competitiveness
2) long history: extra points for being around for a while
3) players: HOFers and memorable players in the history of the game
4) fan appreciation: has the franchise a big part of the city

[chasfh]

What criteria would the experts be using?

IMH non-expert O, I would put probably put the Tigers third or fourth, with only the Yankees, Cards, Braves and either the Twins or the Tribe to round out the top 5.

Interestingly, IIRC the Yankees are the only team on the above list that weren't around in some form at the advent of the American League, 1901, which is considered the start of the modern era of baseball.

I would think it would be a combination of longevity, sustained levels of winning in their history, importance in popular culture, number of all-time great players, and feel free to add a couple more.

I don't see where the Indians and Twins rank above the Red Sox, Dodgers, Giants or Cubs. Especially the Twins.

Yankees
Dodgers
Cardinals
A's
Red Sox
Giants
Braves
Cubs
Reds
Tigers
Pirates

I don't think of the A's ranking above the Red Sox, Giants, Cubs or Braves. You can quibble about their ranking against the Tigers, I think. The thing about the A's is they had great 4- or 5-year periods of winning, not unlike a supernova, but they also had long, long stretches of losing a lot, and I mean a lot. I didn't think of the Pirates ranking this highly since they've won only in spurts in their history, but I can be talked into that.

thats outrageous. big red machine. Also, they were the first complete professional team (all the players on the team were paid pros).

I don't think pure longevity ranks them, nor does one decade of sustained excellence versus thirteen other decades of mostly futility. I would rank them above the Blue Jays and the Twins and the Rangers, if that makes you feel any better. :wink:

fwiw, here's mine:

NY Yankees
Brooklyn/LA Dodgers
St. Louis Cardinals
Cincinnati Reds
Boston Red Sox
NY/San Francisco Giants
Atlanta/Milwaukee/Boston Braves
Detroit Tigers
Chicago Cubs
Pittsburgh Pirates
Oakland A's

Flip the Cubs and Reds and I think you have a good case.

[ypsieast]

I know this is a very arbitrary subject and the actual linked contest is a joke, but I'm a sucker for these kinds of discussions.

The case for the Reds:
The Big Red Machine was one of greatest teams ever.
The first professional franchise
5 Championships, 9 Pennants
Uniquely Great players:
Bench - all time best catcher
Morgan - all time best 2B
Rose - all time hits leader
Vander Meer - only back to back no hitters
Joe Nuxhall - youngest modern era player ever
Other greats:
36 HOFers

I think the Cubs franchise is a bit overrated. Their best case is how beloved the team is in the city and the historic ballpark. I just downgrade them a bit on their lack of overall success.

(I should confess... I was born in Cincinnati and that probably makes me biased. :wink: )

[DET Mr Malefic]

I came on this thread to make the argument that the Red Sox should not be ahead of the Tigers and A's.

While doing the research to attempt to make my point, I saw that the Sox have only had five losing seasons since 1967.*

They had the same number of losing seasons in a stretch from 1934-58.

Almost all of their losing seasons, as a franchise, came in the decade and a half that followed their sale of Babe Ruth.


And suddenly I'm on board with the Red Sox > Tigers & A's belief, as well.






* - For the record, since 1967 the Yankees have had eight losing seasons, the Tigers have had twenty, and the A's have had fifteen.

[djb6]

On the linked contest, if you change it to only US votes, Detroit moves up to the bronze medal position. GO USA!!!

[Buddha]

I know this is a very arbitrary subject and the actual linked contest is a joke, but I'm a sucker for these kinds of discussions.

The case for the Reds:
The Big Red Machine was one of greatest teams ever.
The first professional franchise
5 Championships, 9 Pennants
Uniquely Great players:
Bench - all time best catcher
Morgan - all time best 2B
Rose - all time hits leader
Vander Meer - only back to back no hitters
Joe Nuxhall - youngest modern era player ever
Other greats:
36 HOFers

I think the Cubs franchise is a bit overrated. Their best case is how beloved the team is in the city and the historic ballpark. I just downgrade them a bit on their lack of overall success.

(I should confess... I was born in Cincinnati and that probably makes me biased. :wink: )

The organization that eventually came to be called the "Cubs" have been around since 1876. That's a pretty long time.

The Cubs have won more games than the Reds. The Cubs have a higher winning percentage than the Reds. The Cubs have won 6 more pennants than the Reds.

The Cubs of the aughts and the 30s were powerhouse teams with the 1906 team being one of the best ever.

While the Reds have Morgan, Rose and Bench, the Cubs have Cap Anson, Gabby Hartnett and Ernie Banks.

You are right that people probably overrate the Cubs because they play in a unique park and have such a recently troubled history, but by the same token, the success of the Cubs is forgotten with all of their recent ineptitude. Before WWII, the Cubs were once called the "Yankees of the National League" and were pretty successful. People forget that.

[Oblong]

Cubs and Tigers should be tied because they both have yet to win a WS in their new park.

[Buddha]

I don't think of the A's ranking above the Red Sox, Giants, Cubs or Braves. You can quibble about their ranking against the Tigers, I think. The thing about the A's is they had great 4- or 5-year periods of winning, not unlike a supernova, but they also had long, long stretches of losing a lot, and I mean a lot. I didn't think of the Pirates ranking this highly since they've won only in spurts in their history, but I can be talked into that.


The Tigers haven't won in "spurts"? Sure they have. And other than the time they have, they've been good, but never horrible (until the Illitch pre-Dombrowski days).

The A's have had some of the best and some of the worst teams of all-time thanks to their quirky (if not simply profit driven) owners. But I'll take them and their best teams over the Tigers and their best teams any day of the week. And, unlike the Tigers, the A's best teams consistently won championships, whereas the Tigers best teams did not.

I think they're close. And it may come down to what criteria you value more: sustained good versus excellence coupled with terrible. But I'll take the multiple excellences over the sustained good.

[ypsieast]

Well, we all seem to have the same top 11 (with varying orders). A quick google search yielded this link (several years old): http://www.sportingnews.com/archives/sports2000/players/diamond/about.html

They don't rank the franchises, but they have picked their top 10... same as ours except for the Braves. They have brief descriptions of each franchise's credentials.

[DET Mr Malefic]

The Tigers haven't won in "spurts"? Sure they have. And other than the time they have, they've been good, but never horrible (until the Illitch pre-Dombrowski days).

The A's have had some of the best and some of the worst teams of all-time thanks to their quirky (if not simply profit driven) owners. But I'll take them and their best teams over the Tigers and their best teams any day of the week. And, unlike the Tigers, the A's best teams consistently won championships, whereas the Tigers best teams did not.

I think they're close. And it may come down to what criteria you value more: sustained good versus excellence coupled with terrible. But I'll take the multiple excellences over the sustained good.

I'm in agreement with you on this one.

To underscore what you've been talking about:

The Tigers have had 5 "hundred win" seasons and 6 "hundred loss" seasons in the history of their franchise.

Oakland? 10 "hundred win" seasons and 16 "hundred loss" seasons.