All Time MLB Rankings

[BillD1984]

Inspired by HDMM's great thread about NFL rankings, I figured I'd start one for all-time MLB. Other than the ultra- obvious #1 ranking, I think there's plenty of debate possible.

****After each franchise I have number of championships, number of pennants, team all-time winning pct., and year that franchise started.

NOTE: I'm only listing where the franchise currently exists. However, all locations for each franchise counts (ie. St. Louis Browns counts for Baltimore Orioles).

1. DAHHHHH!!! Yankees (26 championships, 39 pennants, .567 WP, started in 1901)




2. Cardinals (10-21- .517- 1882).....10 championships make them #2
3. Dodgers (6-22- .524- 1884)
4. Giants (5-20- .538- 1883)
5. Red Sox (7-12- .516- 1901)
6. Athletics (9-15- .486- 1901).....winning pct. knocks them down on my list
7. Tigers (4-10- .506- 1901)
8. Reds (5-10- .508- 1869)
9. Pirates (5-9- .506- 1882)
10. Diamondbacks (1-1- .505- 1998)......pretty impressive first 10 years
11. Cubs (2-6- .514- 1876).......was shocked when I looked up their winning pct.
12. White Sox (3-6- .506- 1901)
13. Blue Jays (2-2- .495- 1977)......would have been in top 5 fifteen years ago
14. Braves (3-17- .499- 1876)
15. Indians (2-5- .511- 1901)
16. Marlins (2-2- .472- 1993).........2 championships and ZERO division titles
17. Mets (2-4- .478- 1962)
18. Twins (3-6- .481- 1901)
19. Orioles (3-7- .476- 1901).....years in St. Louis knocks them way down
20. Royals (1-2- .486- 1969)
21. Angels (1-1- .494- 1961)
22. Astros (0-1- .498- 1962).....surprised their WP was that high
23. Rockies (0-1- .469- 1993)
24. Brewers (0-1- .473- 1969)
25. Phillies (1-5- .469- 1883).....would have been at bottom if not for 1980
26. Padres (0-2- .463- 1969)
27. Mariners (0-0- .471- 1977)
28. Nationals (0-0- .481- 1969)....like Astros, surprised WP was that high
29. Rays (0-0- .408- 1998)......saved from basement by relative infancy
30. Rangers (0-0- .468- 1961)

 

[SabresRule]

You switched your avatar, Bill.

Is that because NBA season is over?

 

[BillD1984]

You switched your avatar, Bill.

Is that because NBA season is over?

Yes, now it's time for my #1 passion..........the SAWX!!!!!

 

[Ramy]

The Reds actually started in 1869, they were referred to as the Redstockings back then.

 

[Ramy]

How can the Tigers be ranked above the Reds?

 

[BillD1984]

How can the Tigers be ranked above the Reds?

That certainly is debatable. I guess I ranked the Tigers higher because they have won one less championship, have won the same amount of pennants, and have virtually the same winning percentage, in almost 30 less years than the Reds. I can see your point however.

 

[HD MM]

Bill,

The Indians #15? I'm hurt. I think their .511 all-time win percentage should bump them up on that list for sure. The Indians are one of the original MLB teams and they still have one of the best records of all time. That alone should at least count for something. Besides, I think you're missing a huge criteria in your rankings: notable players in each franchise and their contribution/records in the league. The Indians have 28 players currently in the Hall-of-Fame. The Diamondbacks have 0! With names like Cy Young, Bob Feller, Larry Doby, Frank Robinson, Satchel Page and Gaylord Perry, how could the Indians not be ranked higher?!

Bottom line, no way in hell the Diamondbacks should even be mentioned in the top 10. As far as I'm concerned, they're still in their hazing period in this fraternity. 10 years of existence isn't enough of a resume to consider them a top 10. Other teams have so much more rich history.

 

[SabresRule]

Bill,

The Indians #15? I'm hurt. I think their .511 all-time win percentage should bump them up on that list for sure. The Indians are one of the original MLB teams and they still have one of the best records of all time. That alone should at least count for something. Besides, I think you're missing a huge criteria in your rankings: notable players in each franchise and their contribution/records in the league. The Indians have 28 players currently in the Hall-of-Fame. The Diamondbacks have 0! With names like Cy Young, Bob Feller, Larry Doby, Frank Robinson, Satchel Page and Gaylord Perry, how could the Indians not be ranked higher?!

He's got a point.

Winning percentage can be overrated.

It's about other things as well.

BTW, I'm an A's fan, and if the team wasn't playing well, I'd jump ship.

I'm still rooting for Oakland, but if they get rid of anymore stars, I'm severing my ties.

 

[HD MM]

The Reds actually started in 1869, they were referred to as the Redstockings back then.

Yep. Professional baseball started in Cleveland in 1869 as well. The teams went by the names: Cleveland Forest Cities and the Cleveland Spiders, before they ultimately settled on the Indians.

 

[BillD1984]

Bill,

The Indians #15? I'm hurt. I think their .511 all-time win percentage should bump them up on that list for sure. The Indians are one of the original MLB teams and they still have one of the best records of all time. That alone should at least count for something. Besides, I think you're missing a huge criteria in your rankings: notable players in each franchise and their contribution/records in the league. The Indians have 28 players currently in the Hall-of-Fame. The Diamondbacks have 0! With names like Cy Young, Bob Feller, Larry Doby, Frank Robinson, Satchel Page and Gaylord Perry, how could the Indians not be ranked higher?!

Bottom line, no way in hell the Diamondbacks should even be mentioned in the top 10. As far as I'm concerned, they're still in their hazing period in this fraternity. 10 years of existence isn't enough of a resume to consider them a top 10. Other teams have so much more rich history.

You make a very compelling argument, and I think you're right. The Indians probably belong in the 9-12 range because of their history and winning percentage. Honestly, 7-15 for me was a crapshoot. I was trying to weigh in all the factors and came up with that order. In retrospect, I agree I may have ranked the D-Backs too high. However, the fact that they are over .500 and have won a championship in their ten year history makes them a top 15 franchise (at least in my book). They shouldn't be punished because of their age.... considering the relative success they've had in such a short time.

 

[BillD1984]

Yep. Professional baseball started in Cleveland in 1869 as well. The teams went by the names: Cleveland Forest Cities and the Cleveland Spiders, before they ultimately settled on the Indians.

But was that the same franchise that exists in Cleveland today? I always thought the Indians were a charter member of the American League. The AL didn't start until 1901.

 

[HD MM]

But was that the same franchise that exists in Cleveland today? I always thought the Indians were a charter member of the American League. The AL didn't start until 1901.

I believe you're right. The Forrest Cities and the Spiders were in the old "National Association". I believe these teams were a separate entity to the Indians.

 

[HD MM]

You make a very compelling argument, and I think you're right. The Indians probably belong in the 9-12 range because of their history and winning percentage. Honestly, 7-15 for me was a crapshoot. I was trying to weigh in all the factors and came up with that order. In retrospect, I agree I may have ranked the D-Backs too high. However, the fact that they are over .500 and have won a championship in their ten year history makes them a top 15 franchise (at least in my book). They shouldn't be punished because of their age.... considering the relative success they've had in such a short time.

Fair enough. I'll accept that. :up