MovieChat Forums > 61* (2001) Discussion > 1961 Yankees - Most Overrated Team in ML...

1961 Yankees - Most Overrated Team in MLB Histroy

posted 15 years ago by raiderfan14943
16 replies | jump to latest

This is coming from a Yankees fan. Some people rank this team as a top 10 team of all time, but are they even a top 10 Yankees team of all time? We all now Mickey Mantle and Roger Maris had legendary seasons that year, but the rest of the line up really wasn't all that impressive. They were a one-dimensional offense that could hit for power and nothing more. Bobby Richardson, who was #1 in the Yankees batting order batted .261, That lineup had 5 players that batted under .280. Like I said, they were a one-dimensional offense that is overrated. And other than Whitey Ford, the pitching staff had a bunch of one-year wonders.

[–] mravholt 15 years ago

Your point being...??????

'back at the saloon my tears mixed in mildew with my drink'

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] FloridaBoy24 14 years ago

Only an idiot would think this team is overrated. Maybe compared to the steroid driven statistics of the last 20 years, but overall, it was an excellent team. I'm not even a Yankees fan, but this was an incredible team.

[–] wm-westbrook 14 years ago

Bill James dissected this team (in the Historical Baseball Abstract) much better than I could, but I can try summing it up from memory and baseball-reference.com: The 1961 Yankees didn't lead the league in runs scored or in fewest runs surrendered and were fourth in batting average, ninth in walks and LAST in doubles and stolen bases. The team had one real starting pitcher and no bench.

[–] jackhammer111 14 years ago

it's easy to point out who the mvp was and who won the cy young award. and remember that mantles year had an astounding year to with an on base percentage at .448. maris and mantle combined for 270 runs batted in, 263 runs scored, but hat wasn't it.

critics that point out that they didn't lead many statistics categories treat baseball like it's a board game.

the point was, they won. a lot. get a lead and manage. if you don't have the lead get it, and manage it. get your opponent down and hold them down. dominate. get down, get back up, pin your opponent down and keep them there. dominate.

this was the most dominating team in my life time. in games that they had a lead in in the SECOND INNING, they were 41-1. in games they led in the ninth inning they were 87-1. in extra inning games they were 20-5. they came from behind to win 50 times will blowing on 19 leads. they won in the bottom ninth 13 times vs being beaten in bottom nine 4 times.

won 109 games. won the league by 8 games. won the series 4-1.

it's not possible to overrate this team.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bonehunter7 14 years ago

I just wish they would have kept the legendary Ryne Duren for the season. Loved seeing him heave a 100 mph fastball over the catcher's head, putting a dent in the backstop. Nobody dug in against Ryne.

[–] r2626 14 years ago

The OP's nickname says it all.

Help stamp out and do away with superfluous redundancy

[–] c7c7c7r 14 years ago

I'm just astounded the Reds didn't do better. The National League was so much better than the American League back then. But NY had Whitey Ford. Who was a super cool dude.

[–] Marvelouis 14 years ago

Tell that to the 1961 Detroit Tigers.... they won 101 games and got squat, even with the AL batting champion.

[–] edjavega 14 years ago

Maybe they were "overrated" in the sense that it was really just about Maris and Mantle for the offense that season. But 109 wins is 109 wins.

So they can't simply be the most overrated team in the entire HISTORY of baseball.

If I could name some other candidates, we could try:

1. The Oakland Athletics of the late 80's/early 90's: had great power and pitching and all, but won just one World Series

2. The Oakland Athletics (again) of the early 70's: they won 3 straight World Series plus had some more division titles, and that's very good, but in the regular season, they couldn't even win more than 95 games or so. And their best offensive player Reggie Jackson, great as he was, was no Ruth or Gehrig or Mantle. He couldn't hit .300 and often had trouble reaching 100 runs batted in for the season.

3. Cleveland Indians of early 50's - all that pitching with Feller, Garcia, Wynn and all, but they got bombed by the New York Giants in 4 straight in 1954 World Series despite 111-43 record. After their victory in 1948 World Series, they kept winning regular season games with their pitching but could not win it all.

4-5. Los Angeles Dodgers and Baltimore Orioles of mid 70's to early 80's: lots of stars, pitching greats for Baltimore and star infielders for LA Dodgers, but they also usually failed to reach 100 wins and won only one World Series each for this period (LA in 1981, Baltimore in 1983).

These teams were good (the Oakland 3-peat from 72-74 was impressive), but between them and the 1961 Yankees, a team which was riding a dynasty, then I would say these teams were more overrated than the Yanks.

[–] blackhawkswincup2010 12 years ago

comparing teams from year to year is pretty useless, amounting to mental masturbation. Champions from any year don't have to apologize for winning the World Series. Their story is written and done, and their names are in the book. The Amazins won in 1969, the Dodgers in 88, a very weak-hitting Giants team won in 2010. Who cares? They all won the games they had to win. I think the 87 Twins were like 8 games over .500 for the year.

I like to tease my wife, a RABID Giants fan, and an equally rabid Dodger hater, by comparing the current Giants to the Dodgers of the early 60s. In the words of Roger Kahn, both teams had "the kind of pitching that makes victory certain." Yet I think I have a point. They win games the same way.

61* is about the love of baseball. That's why I like it.

[–] emncaity 10 years ago

Well-said. And as for "most overrated"...they won the Series. That's it. As you say, comparing from year to year is useless. The comparison is you versus other teams that year, and on that basis, they were champions. The end.

[–] EPLakeLA 12 years ago

I think one of the Oakland teams from the '70s won 100 games, but didn't win the World Series that year.

Snoopy is one cool cat...although he's a dog.

[–] blackhawkswincup2010 12 years ago

Yeah, but three titles in a row? They knew how to win. And the '93 Giants won like 103 games and still missed the playoffs. Every year is different.

[–] EPLakeLA 12 years ago

I was just mentioning it in reference to what the OP said. I respect those A's teams, but there was at least one season (I think it was 1971) where they won 100 games, but fell in the ALCS.

Snoopy is one cool cat...although he's a dog.