Wow.  I honestly wouldn’t have been surprised that the 2009 team rated as the best.  Also not surprised the 2007 team is that high up.  The things that surprise me are a) 1994 was a REALLY good team, wasn’t it?  Thanks Bud!  b) The fact that the 2009 Yankees thus far are destroying the second place team!

Ah the 1990 Yankees, what memories!  I wouldn’t be offended if - you know - you were to just never list their stats again.  Ever.

man that ‘93-‘94 lineup was nice. i started following the yankees cause of them and with Jimmy Key pitching, man..

Just trying to understand the methodology here.  How does the 1987 team have a wOBA higher than league average but have a negative r600aa?

The 1994 result surprised me too. Looking at OPS+, Stanley and Boggs were excellent that season (140 and 141 respectively), and O’Neill was unconscious (176).

One thing I should have at least mentioned, if the ‘98 Yankees swap out Curtis with Tim Raines, they gain about 18 runs and move into second place.

Why is the 1998 team rated higher than the 2005 team? Their wOBA was smaller, the league wOBA was higher, and they had less PA.

SG’s da man! 2009 Yankees are teh awesome!

That’s all.

I thought before the 2007 Yankees were better offensively, but that was probably because what a freakishly good season A-Rod had, how much Posado raked and how much Abreu was a force after he joined the Yankees.

Swish, Damon, Jetes, Robbie, Jorgie, Teix, Alex, Matsui ...

Yeah, hard to top this bunch. Even Melky has been above average.

I really wouldn’t have thought that the ‘09 team would come out on top.  Sweet.

How does the 1987 team have a wOBA higher than league average but have a negative r600aa?

Park factor changes their wOBA from above average to below average I think, but I’ll double-check.

Why is the 1998 team rated higher than the 2005 team? Their wOBA was smaller, the league wOBA was higher, and they had less PA.

Same reason as in post 9, park factor probably, but I’m checking.

SG came back and beat me.  1998 Yankees had a single year PF of 100, multi-year of 97.  2005 Yankees had a single year of 101, multi-year of 98 (from BBRef).

Ah, thanks.  That makes sense.

[10] [11] Thanks. It still looks odd, it is a 1% difference in park factors, while the difference in League wOBA is 2%, and the difference in wOBA is 1%.

And park factors should only count for 50% of the games.

OK, found a park factor bug which changes some of the numbers.  Revised table posted.

Color me surprised at the 2001 team and their 93 r600aa.  Not really low, all things considered, but I figured it would be a little higher.

Oh, and I posted the wOBAs post-park-adjustment in the new table.

Now even lower.

There is still probably a bug in the spreadsheet, the 2003 team did not have a bellow league average wOBA.

Seems wrong somehow.  1994 team now is 15th in runs above average, but 2nd in runs above replacement?  Did you apply park-factors to average and not replacement?  I know there can be some years where there’s a bigger gap between avg and replacement (depending on how you calculate it) but that seems too large…

2003 should show as team wOBA of .368 now.

Yeah, replacement level is screwy, I’m just going to delete that column.

As long as the 2009 team remains on top…

Ok thanks. You are really a devoted guy for this site. I´d be glad to help with Rilke´s plan for your tickets, it is the least I can do to thank you.

And it looks like some teams aren’t getting their DH players pulled in, which is why team wOBA are low.  I need to probably re-run the whole thing.

As long as the 2009 team remains on top…

Yeah, it looks like despite the bugs that will remain the case.

If we want to look at the real question about most talented Yankee team ever…

Why is this the “real” question?  Seems to me that the question of which team had the most production, flukes and all, is every bit as valid and interesting.  It’s just different.

Remember back in 1998 when all the haters were trying to concoct reasons why the Yankees really weren’t a historically great team?  One of the most prominent (and mindless) was that they didn’t have enough hall of famers.  Well, if the question is about how good a team is or was, then does it really matter if the right fielder is a true HOF talent or just a guy who happens to have played like one for that season?

Why is this the “real” question?  Seems to me that the question of which team had the most production, flukes and all, is every bit as valid and interesting.  It’s just different.

Here’s the question as it was asked in the prior thread. 

How does this team stack up historically in terms of talent?

If the question was actually ‘which Yankee team had the best collective set of performances in any given season, then yes looking at a single season’s performances would answer it.  But that’s not what sam asked.

lgWoba includes NYY?  That’s a bit distortive I think.

Oh, didn’t realize you’d started taking orders from sam.  Hope he doesn’t let it go to his head.

Fun fact:  The 1939 Yankees scored 967 runs and allowed 556.  In 152 games (one tie, I guess).  They must have been fun to watch.

[28] Not relatively distortive, it just expands the 2009/1990 gap.

lgWoba includes NYY?  That’s a bit distortive I think.

Yeah, I forgot to remove them.  Here’s the r600aa if we remove the Yanks from the league average.

2009: 244.2 r600aa
2005: 226.8 r600aa
2007: 203.5 r600aa
2003: 203.5 r600aa
2002: 191.9 r600aa
1986: 168.6 r600aa
2004: 168.6 r600aa
1998: 162.8 r600aa
2006: 162.8 r600aa
1983: 162.8 r600aa
1999: 133.8 r600aa
1985: 127.9 r600aa
1988: 122.1 r600aa
1994: 122.1 r600aa
1980: 110.5 r600aa
1984: 104.7 r600aa
1997: 98.9 r600aa
2001: 81.4 r600aa
1989: 75.6 r600aa
1993: 69.8 r600aa
1981: 64.0 r600aa
1982: 58.2 r600aa
1996: 40.7 r600aa
1987: 40.7 r600aa
2008: 23.3 r600aa
1991: 23.3 r600aa
2000: 17.4 r600aa
1995: 17.4 r600aa
1992: 0.0 r600aa
1990: -139.6 r600aa

Oh, didn’t realize you’d started taking orders from sam.  Hope he doesn’t let it go to his head.

Wait until he gets the bill.

Oh, didn’t realize you’d started taking orders from sam.  Hope he doesn’t let it go to his head.

You are just jealous that I have reached the pinnacle of my basement-dwelling career without even writing a blog.

In terms of teams in 2000s, you can see the Giambi effect and A-Rod effect.

2000 and 2001, Yankee offense sucks, but reach the World Series regardless. Giambi joins the team, and the team shoots up in 2002 and 2003. A-Rod joins in 2004 with Sheff, but has a sub-par year, Giambi has a bout with pancreatic cancer, and Sheff is unbelievable. Yankees somewhat regress. 2005, A-Rod kills everything, Giambi comes back, and Yankees rake again. After that, they have been a consistent offensive threat until last year, when you see the Posada absence effect, Jeter hit-by-ball effect, Cano and Melky stinking up the joint effect.

And then you have this year.

Interesting discussion.  I think that many of the 2000’s teams were made for the long haul. The burning question all of would have to admit is will 2009 be the same type of year?  As the information above shows a lot of things have gone right for a lot of the players to this point.  There have been a lot of feel-good stories and feel-good victories.  The past week or so its almost felt the same as in 98. 

that said, I’m drawing some distinctions and its about the condition of the starters.

In 98, Cone, Hernandez, Wells, Pettitte- all going good as I recall
In 09,  Sabbathia, Pettitte-going good
      Joba, Burnett-not so good as we all know
Bullpens were both good, but its worth noting Rivera was 11 years younger.

Tigers have Verlander, Jackson, Porcello- all of whom pitched quite well during the Yankees victories over them. The confidence I had in 98 was much stronger than it is for the postseason this year.

Finally, do you remember the 2001 Seattle Mariners who had that unbelievable good record for the season and were sent home by our Yanks. (I would guess few do) Let’s hope that this Yankee team won’t just be remembered for regular season excellence. The biggest need right now IMO is for Girardi to find a reliable No. 3 starter. Maybe Joba needs to go home for a week?

Yeah well, SG still owes me a prize from a few months back.

1994 was a REALLY good team, wasn’t it?  Thanks Bud!

Somewhere someone in Montreal has a single tear rolling down their cheek.

Anyways, the thing about the 98 team was that there was really only a couple teams even approaching the talent level to beat them or push them to the limit in a 5 or 7 game series, the Indians, Braves, and the Astros.

The Indians had lost Albert Belle, Matt Williams, Dennis Martinez, and Orel Hershiser in the previous couple of off-season, so it certainly wasn’t the best Indians team from their 95-01 run.

The Astros had a really good lineup, very good staff as that was the season they rented Big Ugly, and a shutdown closer.

And well, we saw that Braves movie twice and know how it probably would have ended.

It really didn’t hurt that in 98 they ran into a Padres team that was just happy to be in the WS rather than the Astros, who could have at least made things interesting.

Giambi has a bout with pancreatic cancer

For his sake, I’m glad you got the wrong organ here.

Jeter’s getting the night off.  Were they really afraid that he’d get nine hits in three games and pass Gehrig before they got back to the stadium?

The Indians were up 2-1 in the 98 ALCS. Then they ran into El Duque.

How does this post not include 1927 somewhere?

How does this post not include 1927 somewhere?

Last sentence, second paragraph.

Since the OF positions are not always split in the Lahman database prior to 1980, I’m only looking at the period between 1980-2009 for now.

For his sake, I’m glad you got the wrong organ here.

Yeah, memory lapse there. Benign pituitary tumor it was.

[34]
On the other hand, joeln, if they’re doing this well WITHOUT all things going right, especially in the key area of starting pitching, that could be viewed as a positive - it’s not the best case scenario, the scenario could get even better.
Could.

I swear, I love you geeky bastardos.  More pie.