| 0 |
Subject: Brooklyn Dodgers: 1953 or 1955?
Posted by: Bernie H.
- [19852422] Tue, May 07, 2002, 01:16
Hi guys,
As Erik mentioned, our next release of Strat-O-Matic Online will be based on legendary teams in baseball history. More specifically, our player pool will consist of one team from each of the current major league franchises. In most cases, we picked the best team in that franchise's history, but in some cases we chose the most "compelling" team with a notable star.
We're torn about our Brooklyn Dodgers pick, though - do we pick the 1953 or the 1955 team?
In 1955, the Bums finally won the Series. However, Jackie Robinson (our main star) had an off-year: .256 in 317 AB.
The 1953 team, although they lost to the Yanks in the Series, were arguably a better team, and more interestingly, they were the subject of the book "Boys of Summer". Jackie had a Jackie year. And you might say that losing to the Yankees was what the 1950's Dodgers were most known for.
What do you guys think?
Thanks,
Bernie, TSN |
| 1 | Madman
ID: 3233813
Tue, May 07, 2002, 12:50
|
I think you ought to have a "playoff" between them. Pro's and con's for each.
The '53 Dodgers were the better team, statistically, IMO, although there were issues with the Korean war and the talent pool making it harder to proclaim them better on a more fundamental basis. The '53 offense had a wider variety of weapons; you've got tons of defensive flexibility with Jackie playing everywhere. The starting pitching would annoy you, however. Bullpen is adequate in depth.
The '55 team, on the flip side, would be a reasonably boring offense to run. Like most teams in '55, sit back and play for the 3 run HR. On the flip side, managing their pitching would be a fun task. Erskine, Newcombe both in their primes, Podres starting to come around. You'd get to baby a very young and very wild Sandy Koufax, and you've got tons of bullpen options.
If you like offense strategy, I'd go '53 (or even '51) Brooklyn. If you like pitching tactics, I'd go '55.
Personally, not that it matters, but looking over the lineup options with the '53 Dodgers, coupled with a reasonable bullpen, would make me enjoy managing that team more than the '55 Dodgers.
Plus, playing with a good Jackie Robinson and Pee Wee Reese would just be plain fun. Not to mention Campy and Duke having career years. Those things would make it worth the effort trying to get through those 3-5th starters . . .
|
| 2 | Madman
ID: 3233813
Tue, May 07, 2002, 12:52
|
Hmmm. I should also say that fans of Brooklyn might want to play with the '53 Dodgers so that they could prove that they SHOULD have won. That might motivate people as much if not more than playing with a World Series winner.
I'm a KC fan, and I'd play with the '80 team any day before the '85 team. When I was a kid, I replayed the '80 series a zillion times, compared to just a few replays of the '85 one. Granted, part of that is because the '80 team was much better. But a good part of it was that I wanted to "prove" I was a good manager and/or that the '80 team was really better. So I wanted to bury the '80 Phils . . . Which I did, most of the time, BTW. :)
|
| 3 | blue hen, almighty
ID: 473133021
Fri, May 10, 2002, 15:09
|
And I bet it never happened, Madman, not even in Strat-o-Matic... for every ball that bounces out of Boone's glove, Charlie Hustle is right there...
I'd go with 1953 myself. They go beyond "World Series winner"... they are immortalized.
|
| 5 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Fri, May 10, 2002, 15:27
|
It's a draft, so the team component of the question is not too relevant. Nobody will get the *whole* Dodgers, unless Erik B. is sneaking in at night and fooling with the computers. The question is which team had more memorable seasons by memorable players.
Looking at the two sets of stats, 53 seems to win by that standard fairly clearly.
Another problem is the Yankees. If you take 61, you miss Mantle's super-spectacular 1956 season, one of the best of all time. But no one could afford to draft Mick '56 anyway -- rather like Bonds 2001 -- and much of the rest of the team is mediocre -- so I guess it's 61.
Toral
|
| 6 | Madman
ID: 21020124
Fri, May 10, 2002, 17:16
|
The 1980 Phillies were unarguably the weakest Phillies team to ever win the World Series. Not only did I like to bury the 1980 Phillies, I buried them with the 1977 Royals, which was my favorite club to manage. . .
Doh! about the team thing.
Honestly, if you are only drafting players off the team, the '53 version is a no-brainer.
They are picking the '61 Yankees? Hmmm. I'd have to think about that one. No Dimaggio, no Ruth, weaker Mickey. Plus it was an expansion year, and the stats were inflated. Kind of like the '77 Royals.
|
| 7 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Fri, May 10, 2002, 19:51
|
I don't know who they are picking for the Yankees, Madman, just offering some speculation. I was guessing also that the pre- and post-war Yanks would be treated differently. True, '61 was an expansion year, and that Yankee team has been vastly over-rated. Do you know that it did not even lead the AL in runs scored? You can win bar bets with that.
But the *cards* don't know that they are being overrated, which makes them attractive.
Toral
|
| 8 | The Beezer
Leader
ID: 191202817
Fri, May 10, 2002, 21:11
|
The 1980 Phillies were also the strongest Phillies team to ever win the World Series. In a related story, Madman is the smartest guy named "Madman" on this board. :)
|
| 9 | blue hen, madman
Leader
ID: 27048221
Sat, May 11, 2002, 02:00
|
I beg to differ!
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|