I'd put this team maybe Top 50 all-time, but not better than the 1927 Yankees. I hate the Yankees, but there's no denying that team was one of the best ever. I think the '75 Reds would beat them though.
2007-10-30 17:29:05
·
answer #1
·
answered by kblavie 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
First off Boston was tied for having the best record in 2007 while the 1927 Yankees were head and shoulders above the rest of the league.
The 2007 Sox team was good but nothing even close to being great enough to compare to the 1927 Yankees team.
2007-10-30 07:53:52
·
answer #2
·
answered by Cool Shoes 2
·
4⤊
1⤋
I don't know the game has changed so much. Now pitching is a hell of alot more emphasized than it was even 50 years ago. So I'd have to say that alot of guys from 1927 wouldn't be able to keep up with 2007 Red Sox, Yankees, Indians, Blue Jays, Rockies, and Diamondbacks.
Not to knock the 1927 Yankees but they would be plaing a much different game today
2007-10-30 08:48:05
·
answer #3
·
answered by King of Kings fan 5
·
0⤊
2⤋
I'm a Red Sox fan, but there's no way the 2007 Red Sox are better than the 1927 Yankees. In fact, I think a strong case could be made that the '27 Yankees are the best team of all time.
They won 110 games (not including their 4 wins in the World Series against the Pirates) in a 154 game season, about the equivalent of winning 115 or 116 games today.
They had 7 future hall of famers--Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Tony Lazzeri, Miller Huggins, Earle Combs, Waite Hoyt, and Herb Pennock.
They have 5 regular starters who hit over .300, and 4 of those hit .337 or higher.
They had 4 guys with over 100 RBI.
3 of the 5 starters had ERA's of 3.00 or under.
They led the league in batting average (.307), runs scored (975), on base percentage (.381), slugging percentage (.489), ERA (3.20), and shutouts (11).
2007-10-30 08:26:09
·
answer #4
·
answered by bencas9900 4
·
5⤊
0⤋
In terms of historical perspective, obviously the '27 Yankees are better than the '07 Red Sox.
Craig your numbers are off, the Sox era was 3.87 this year.
It's impossible to compare teams that played 80 years apart. In 1927 there were only 8 teams in the AL, and 16 in the ML. There were also far less people in the world. If there were only 16 teams now, the winner of the World Series each year would dominate the '27 Yankees.
.
2007-10-30 08:07:37
·
answer #5
·
answered by Kris 6
·
0⤊
2⤋
I suppose it depends on how you are planning to compare them. Will the 07 red sox handle 07 teams better than the 27 Yankees did with 27 teams? No, I don't think so.
Could, all things being equal, the 07 red sox beat the 27 yankees. With conditioning and training like it is in 07, I don't think the 27 yankees would have much chance.
However, take away all the non-playing abilities of the 07 Sox and the 27 yanks would mop the floor.
While Boston was the best team in 07, it came down to one game against Cleveland. If you recognize that, then is Cleveland just a bit worse than 07 Boston for 2nd best ever overall?
I don't think so.
2007-10-30 07:47:33
·
answer #6
·
answered by brettj666 7
·
5⤊
1⤋
HAHAHAHA!!! I could use a good laugh today. The 1927 Yankees would make this years Red Sox look like a little league team.
2007-10-30 10:23:16
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
Its the 1927 Yanks... Consider one thing, the size of the stadiums in 27, compared to now. There are a lot smaller fields, including Yankee Stadium.
2007-10-30 08:09:44
·
answer #8
·
answered by Brian H 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
Are you high? The 1927 Yankees literally scared other team in batting practice alone.
What are you thinking?
2007-10-30 07:46:40
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
2⤋
I wonder how many of you on here were actually there watching the '27 Yankees.
On paper the Yankees were better.
2007-10-30 08:00:32
·
answer #10
·
answered by The Lorax 6
·
0⤊
1⤋