Here you go, discuss! :)

Why are the 1996 Red Wings there?  They didn't win crap that year. 



BTW, I voted for the 1998 Yankees.  In a head-to-head with the '27 team, they would have given them a stiff run for their money.

Too many to decide. I would have taken the Laker's and the Celtics of the 80's over the Bulls plus throw in the 76's the year they traded Dawkins for Mose's Malone. In the playoff that year they destroyed the Celts, then the  Laker's in the finals. Dr J's last great year.
For football you chose well with the 85 Bears. I think only the 49's with Montana, Then the 70s Stealer's and Cowboys, those teams had total control of the title's that decade,  with the Stealer's winning 4, the Cowboys winning 2. You could make a case for the 72 Dolphins. Who was undefeated. Then the same for the Pats with the longest winning streak in NFL history.
The case for the 27 Yankees is a good point. They had a over all higher batting average and lower era that year. The 27 Yankees had astounding team batting average of .307, Gehrig batted .373 with a slb of .765 Ruth's and Comb's ba was .356 and Ruth's slb was .772 . Ruth and Gehrig combined for 107 hrs 339 rbi's. Only 4 other players on the same teams are even close to them. Mantle and Marris, Ramirez and Ortiz. Plus the 27 Yankees played in the dead ball era. Give them the balls they use now, Ruth and Gehrig would own every offensive stat there is in baseball.
ok flamers get out the firestarters.

You had to bring up the Red Wings, who swept my beloved Flyers in the 1996-97 finals,
but still I can't vote for them. I would give my vote to the other team that beat the Flyers
in the 1983-84 finals. That team would be the Edmonton Oilers. It's hard to deny Gretzky,
Coffey, Kurri, Messier, Anderson and Linsmen, to name a few, backed up by Grant Fuhr. The
'83-'84 Oilers had three solid lines and a fourth that could have been a second for most of the
teams in the NHL.

He must have altered the poll choices.  The Avalanche of 1996 were pretty stacked and that's why the Wings couldn't move on.  They should have won in 1995 except that the Devils played out of their minds...I don't think you can even qualify that as an upset.

The 1998 version of the Yankees would have clobbered the 1927 version because 1927 had no black people :D

The 1998 version of the Yankees would have clobbered the 1927 version because 1927 had no black people :D



I don't believe that one bit.  I said it would be close.  We have no way of knowing who would beat who, but that '98 team versus Ruth/Gehrig in their prime would be one hell of a ballgame. 

He must have altered the poll choices.  The Avalanche of 1996 were pretty stacked and that's why the Wings couldn't move on.  They should have won in 1995 except that the Devils played out of their minds...I don't think you can even qualify that as an upset.



Okay, now I'm confused. The Avalanche won the Stanley Cup in 1996 but I would consider that the 1995
team because that is the year the season started. When you mention a hockey team and only give one year
instead of two I assume you mean the team that started the season in the year given. The Red Wings won
the cup in the '96-'97 season as well as the '97-'98 season. Still, I don't think either team would have beaten
Gretzky's Oilers of '83-'84.

Okay, now I'm confused. The Avalanche won the Stanley Cup in 1996 but I would consider that the 1995
team because that is the year the season started. When you mention a hockey team and only give one year
instead of two I assume you mean the team that started the season in the year given. The Red Wings won
the cup in the '96-'97 season as well as the '97-'98 season. Still, I don't think either team would have beaten
Gretzky's Oilers of '83-'84.



He's talking about the team that won the SC in 1996.  I always say the '97 Wings when I refer to the team that won in '97, the '98 Wings when I refer to the team that won in '98, etc.  That's apparently what he's doing as well. 

And the '02 Wings would have given the '84 Oilers a SERIOUS run for their money.  I know my boys.

He's talking about the team that won the SC in 1996.  I always say the '97 Wings when I refer to the team that won in '97, the '98 Wings when I refer to the team that won in '98, etc.  That's apparently what he's doing as well. 

And the '02 Wings would have given the '84 Oilers a SERIOUS run for their money.  I know my boys.


That is why I refer to hockey or basketball teams in two year increments, that way there is no confusion
to which team I am referring.

Two problems with running a poll like this. One, people tend to vote with their hearts instead of
their heads. Two, it is impossible to tell which team would be better when the comparison is spanning
decades. Rules change, field conditions change, make-up of the equipment change as well as the
players themselves. Evolution has shown us, that as humans, we are becoming bigger, stronger and
faster thereby rendering any comparison moot.

Just remember one thing the Devils played that trap defense which is why the NHL changed the rules to not let that happen again. The Devils where a boring team to watch that year. this is a case of a coach thinking way ahead when he built that team based on his ideas of the trap defense. He said the system was flawed and he won a cup with that flawed system. Hence the NHL changed the rules.

My cricket team Middlesex are on a losing streak and are due to be relegated at the end of the season, so I can not call my team as a best team.

Best Football Team:1985 Chigaco Bears
Best Baseball Team:1998 New York Yankees
Best Basketball Team:1995 Chicago Bulls(aside from the dream team of course)

Best Basketball Team:1995 Chicago Bulls(aside from the dream team of course)


That's the one that won in '96, right?  Because the Rockets won in '95.

That's the one that won in '96, right?  Because the Rockets won in '95.



Yeah, I should've said the '95-'96 Bulls. The team that won 72 games.

my choice would go to the '27 Yanks.. None can compare with Murderer's Row.  The pretty boys of today are juicers and spoiled brats compared to back then. That was when a sport was a sport ...
I've said my piece, carry on.

I don't believe that one bit.  I said it would be close.  We have no way of knowing who would beat who, but that '98 team versus Ruth/Gehrig in their prime would be one hell of a ballgame. 


I'd say freeridemt hit the nail on the head.

In a game between the '27 team and the '98 team.. considering the vast differences in the sport now, the '27 boys would kick the living sh.it out of the 90's primadonnas.

I'd say freeridemt hit the nail on the head.

In a game between the '27 team and the '98 team.. considering the vast differences in the sport now, the '27 boys would kick the living sh.it out of the 90's primadonnas.



I said it would be close, and that I didn't know who would win.  That '98 team was off the f*cking charts.

Now there is one thing you all have to consider. In 1927 Yankee stadium outfield walls where back a lot further then they are now in the 1970's they brought them in a lot.. The 27 Yankees had a better Ba and ERA. But the 98 team was bigger and faster.  But I still think to be honest if the 27 Yanks had this baseball which many say is juiced. Instead of the deadball they played with back then. I think their stats would have been much higher. I think if Ruth had to hit this current baseball he would had 80 Hrs the way it flies now.
And in my defense of Ruth I have one thing to say. Take his offensive numbers and remember how many years he pitched. If he does not pitch those years and just plays the field. The experts have agreed that he would have had over well over 850 hrs. Thats one hell of a lot. And if that was the case we would not even be comparing Bonds to Ruth in that department. I mean it. He when he went to the Yanks his first year hit over 50 homers, Just think what he would have done with the other 5 years.

The Colts 2005 team that finished 15-1, yet lost in their first playoff game to the eventual champs, the Steelers. (I got my fingers crossed this year.)

The Brazil team that won the 1970 World Cup, generally considered to be the best soccer team ever. Brazil was the best team of the era, having won two of the three previous World Cups, and the 1970 team was the best of all. Its unstoppable offence was led by the legendary Pele.

Hmmm... I'm going to say the best ice hockey team ever was the Soviet Union team that won the 1981 Canada Cup. They blew away Team Canada 8-1 in the final. The Canadian team had all the top players from the NHL in that era playing on it, like Wayne Gretzky and Mike Bossy. Wayne Gretzky was at the very peak of his playing abilities at the time of the 1981 Canada Cup. He set the NHL record for most goals in a single season the following year. But he and the rest of Team Canada were totally annihilated by the Soviets.

The 1976-77 Montreal Canadiens. Went 60-8-12. Swept the Bruins to win the cup. 387 goals for, 171 goals against.

I could just as easily pick any Edmonton Oilers team from the 80s though. But since i'm a Habs fan i'll stick with them ;)

For international play. Definately the Team Canada roster from the 1987 Canada Cup.

I realize this is on old topic but I had to ring in.  What about the Bill Russel led Celtics of the 50's and 60's.  I mean 11 World Championships in 13 years, that is pretty impressive by itself.

Best Team: The 1991-1992 Chicago Bulls that went 67-15 in the regular season and beat Portland in the NBA Finals 4 games to 2.

Best Team: The 1991-1992 Chicago Bulls that went 67-15 in the regular season and beat Portland in the NBA Finals 4 games to 2.


You do make a good case for the 92 Bulls.  I actually think had MJ not went to try Baseball this team would have won 8 consecutive titles and been among the talks of the greatest Dynasty in the NBA if not all of sports.  Certainly if you must mention a Bulls team then the 1997 edition that won more regular season games then any team in NBA history should be your first option.  Two future Hall of Famers, three if Rodman would just have been normal, and a Hall Of Fame coach.

I went for the Dolphins because they were 17-0.

The Patriots fell short and did it by cheating.

Yeah, I would never give the Patriots any kind of love.  They were cheaters, the league just does not want to openly admit it and punish them more sternly, they way they deserve to be.