A remarkable pitching performance--3 complete games, 2 shutouts, and only 2 runs allowed, for a 3-0 record. Christy Mathewson's WS performance in 1905 was even better--3 CG, 3 shutouts, 0 runs, and 13 H (Baseball Reference), for a 3-0 record. Second G on 3 days' rest, and third on 2 days' rest. Matty pitched 3 CG in the 1912 WS, giving up only 3 ER, but ended up with an 0-3 record, because he gave up 11 R total. Well, 11 R, only 3 of them earned, stands as Exhibit A for the importance of defense.
Lou bragged that he threw alot of spitters in his career and that includes those 3 wins in the 57 series...that doesn't change my opinion of him ..he was a fine man and a great pitcher....I don't no if that has anything to do with him not being in the HOF..
@@SorgiStories This is , of course, all predicated on whether or not Perini would sell the team if they did become a dynasty. In my opinion, his sale of the team was predestined regardless of the category of winning that took place. They were a winning team nonetheless and a very marketable one from an investment standpoint at that. So my guess is probably not. Bartholomay was intent on moving the team to Atlanta. The larger television market was there. As we have been made well aware, MLB is a business first and a loyal municipal entity second.
I have recently taken a deep dive on the Milwaukee braves lately as well. The team was almost always competitive. Between 1953 and 1960, they finished either first or second in the national league all but one time, when they finished third. They also very nearly won it all again the following year in 1958. They were the closest thing to a baseball Dynasty that wasn’t from New York between the years 1947-1964.
Wait. What about the Dodgers during those same years? Won 3 World Series (plus 1 in '64). And lost 4 world series during that same stretch. Sorry, the Braves were not as dominant as the Dodgers at that time.
I grew up in Milwaukee during that era. The Braves were magic and had several future Hall of Famers and an outstanding group around them. However, "the best in MLB history" is quite a reach.
I'm reading Hank Aaron's autobiography right now, "I had a hammer." excellent story telling. Racism was not just something he encountered in baseball's worst moments -- it was a throughline during his entire minor and major league career. He was one of three players who broke the color barrier in the SE minor league system and was a crucial part of integrating the majors. I also am just now appreciating him as more than just the HR king -- he was among the most feared batters of his time and probably all time.
Joe Adcock, Red Schoendienst, Johnny Logan, Del Crandall, Wes Covington, Billy Bruton, and Bob Buhl round out "the best team ever". In 13 years in Milwaukee- The Braves never had a losing season- and competed for the pennant almost every year. While they only won 1 World Series- I agree most underrated team in baseball history.
@@johnnyangel9163 You could state that in a better way. You don’t have to agree with everything, but it would be so nice if you were kind. God bless you
Great vid. My parents used to go to Braves games in the 50s and 60s. My very first game ever was Coca Cola bat day in 1975 at old County Stadium (the predessor of Miller Park), the first year that Hank Aaron was back in Milwaukee. Great memory.
Hank Aaron is also the all-time leader in Home Runs. That other guy mentioned disqualified himself by using steroids, as is perfectly obvious to anyone with vision. Got THAT corrected.
Actually you're not correct. Steroids have nothing to do with legit talent. You can't take steroids and all of a sudden be a great player. Hank Aaron was great, but stop discrediting "He Who Must Not Be Named" for doing what everyone else was doing
I was 8 years old in 1957 and loved the Braves. I devoured the stats in the paper after every game. In addition to the players mentioned, Del Crandall was one of the best hitting catchers of that era. As a Louisianan, I could pull for Joe Adcock, the power hitting first baseman. If I recall correctly, Adcock, Mathews and Aaron batted consecutively. That was quite a row of power! Mathews played 3rd based and fielded it exceptionally well. I recall a leaping grab on a line drive against the Yankees that would have surely been for extra bases if not caught. I think Mathews rivalled Mike Schmidt as the best NL third baseman ever. If I recall correctly, the right field fence in County Stadium was fairly close to home and not very high, either. There was a little concession area beyond it. I wonder if this helped with Mathews' home run total. But he was a great hitter, anyway.
Mathews’ story that year was also about how he overcame his weakness. He was a baaaaad fielder. He worked his tail off that year & became a great one. And the Series-ending play was the kind of play where, if he hadn’t worked to get better, two runs score & the Yankees start a rally. All that besides his walk-off extra-innings bomb in Game 4.
Would love to see the ‘60 Bucs and ‘57 braves battle each other would have been epic. Pirates actually finished in second place behind the braves in ‘58 after 10 pathetic seasons. The braves and pirates had a big rivalry in the late 50s and early 60s.
Would love to see the ‘57 braves and the ‘60 buccos battle each other. The Braves and pirates actually had a big rivalry between each other in the late 50s and early 60s.
Great tribute to the best team ever.We grew up watching the Milwaukee Braves in a big Greek family of Seven kids in Milwaukee. The Brewers are awesome,and we are thankful to Bud Selig for bringing the Pilots to Milwaukee in 1970.Thank you for the great story and comparison of former and future MLB players. This man's stats tell the real story of our beloved 57 World Champs,the great people of Wisconsin watched in one of the greatest ball parks ever,Milwaukee County Stadium. Thank you,great job to both of you .
Your comment is a far reach from what's reality.the 57 braves wouldn't rank in the top 5 or even 10 best of all time and milwaukee county stadium was a dump it doesn't compare to a tiger stadium,comiskey park,fenway or other stadiums back in those days
Wonderful Post... I was a Braves Fan back in 1957 as a 9yr old. After seeing the Dodgers in 1959 I became a Dodger Fan and have been since. Aaron and Mathews are two of my all time favorites. Spahn's up there too.
I think it's also that he really wasn't a slugger in the usual sense: he had a high average throughout his career; he was a contact, line-drive hitter that happened to have a lot of power behind an exquisite swing. His opposite was his contemporary Killibrew who swung for the fences, had many more home run crowns and moonshots, but had a crummy BA.
Most underrated team 1975 Red Sox . Went up against the Big Red Machine with memorable players Luis Tiante, Carlton Fisk, Dwight Evans, Bill Lee, Fred Lynn, Carl Yaz. Missing was Jim Rice injured last week of the season. If that didn’t happen it would have been a different outcome.
they were super close to winning in 1956, 1958, and 1959, along with 1957 championship, it was a good run, wish I would have been alive to see it, my generation got stuck with the Brewers
Anyone who treasures the memory of the Milwaukee Braves as I do would love the book "The Milwaukee Braves: A Baseball Eulogy" by Bob Buege. It was published in 1988 and even has a foreword written by Eddie Mathews. I dearly love those Braves teams of that era, even lesser remembered players like Bill Bruton, Johnny Logan, Wes Covington, Frank Torre, Red Schoendienst, Del Crandall, Joe Adcock, Bob Buhl, and Gene Conley. That was a fantastic team. A little aside here: Hank Aaron's salary for 1957 was $22,500, about 5 times more than an average factory worker would make. How many millions would he have been paid in today's game?
I was a Pacific Coast League follower back then, living in So Cal. Nippy Jones was a big PCL star back then and got called up to the Braves in 1957. His "shoe polish argument" was another crucial element of that series - fun for this old PCL guy. But yeah, what a team!!
That Braves team was a hair from clearly being the best team of all time. In 1956 and 1959 they just barely fell short of winning the pennant. In 1958 they led the Yankees 3-1 in the World Series. Had they won those late season games in 56,58 and 59 they would be considered better than the other great teams in baseball history.
I had an interesting experience some years ago (15 or so). I went into a high end restaurant to sit at the bar in Evanston,IL for a meal. Halfway into it, two guys who were having an animated conversation that was not fully audible to me stopped and one turned around to me. He asked in a plaintive voice, “we have put together 7 of 8 position players on the ‘57 Milwaukee Braves, we just can’t figure out the left fielder.” I cracked up. What were the odds? I said it was their lucky day and immediately mentioned Wes Covington.
The Milwaukee Braves were a dynasty that could have been. They blew it by one game in 1956, won it all in 1957, blew a 3-1 World Series lead against the Yankees in 1958, and lost a one-game playoff to the Los Angeles Dodgers in 1959. "We would be getting a lot more credit than we got, because we should have been in four straight World Series," Frank Torre lamented. From the book Bushville Wins!
Not a mention of Red, Billy Bruton, Joe Adcock, Del Crandall, Johnny Logan this team was Stacked with talent, Overall great Video, Burdette was the reason for this impeccable upset!!!!!
Baseball, the greatest sport of all time , featured some of the most memorable names on EVERY team.when I was growing up.in the 60's ... born in '58 , naturally I missed the Braves season but everything points to your choice as true ... Watching Ernie Banks as a young'un all the teams that visited Wrigley had names greater than life during my childhood , with Clemente and eventually Bench as some of the truly greatest ... but the Giants had May's and McCovery .. Cards had Cepeda and Brock(don't get me started), Dodgers Koufax & Drysdale , every series was watching future All Stars in action ... baseball cards were a child's joy beyond belief( loved the bubble gum) and the list goes on .. the halcyon days of childhood are gone and although I played semi-pro baseball , can still see us all emulating every batters stance at the plate & Willy May's Basket catches in center field .. remember the arm of Clemente!! Don't try to score on him!! THX..
7 месяцев назад
A little known fact is that around the time that the Braves came up with Henry Aaron, they also had an opportunity to get Willie Mays. But they did not think Mays was as promising as Aaron so they took a pass.
Small known fun fact. Both Hank aaron and Warren Spahn Credited the newly acquired veteran 2b man red schoendienst for being the final piece they needed to win a series. If not for Aaron’s monster year red likely would have been mvp as he led the league in hits(if not for stan musials incredible year as well). And he hit a modest 15 homers. Which is a pretty decent number for 2b.
This team was great but there were teams in the 1800s that were also great. From this franchise, when they were called the Beaneaters, there was the 1897 squad that won the NL pennant over by 2 games the Orioles with John McGraw at third. They were 93-39 for a .705 winning percentage which is the highest winning percentage in franchise history. The 1957 Braves were 95-59 .617 record of the Braves. There was no World Series or post season series in 1897. Both squads had 4 Hall of Famers. For the Braves they are Henry Aaron, Eddie Matthews, Red Schoendienst, and Warren Spahn. For the Beaneaters, they were outfielders Billy Hamilton and Hugh Duffy, third baseman Jimmy Collins, and pitcher Kid Nichols. Both squads outscored the rest of the league, the Beaneaters scoring 1025 runs and the Braves scoring 772 runs. The Braves team ERA was 3.47 which was 2nd in the NL while the Beaneaters ERA was 3.65 for third in the NL. Obviously comparing teams across eras like this is very problematical, but in some ways both these clubs were similar.
Someone posted the whole of the 57 World Series game 3. I wish MLB Archive would post the entire 57 World Series like they did with the 52 World Series.
You have no idea how much fun it was to root for that team and how it broke my heart as a kid when they unimaginably left Milwaukee for a better radio contract. As I sit here in my living room, I glance up at the shelf above the TV at a 9-inch statue of a Milwakee Brave swinging a bat and a baseball autographed by a couple dozen Braves. In my computer room, I have two framed 11x14-inch photos, one of Hank Aaron and the other, Eddie Mathews. In between them is a framed color photo of Warren Spahn, the greatest pitcher ever, with his career stats in a chart off to the side. The guy who typed it up, mistakenly referred to Spahn as playing for the Braves in the American League. I guess he thought the Braves changed their name to the Brewers. Damn.
I was a Phillies fan as a kid but I can remember every player in the Braves lineup that year. The thing I really remember most about that year was some kid named Hurricane Hazel coming up at the end of the season and hitting a high number of home runs in a very short stint with the major league team. I don't know what happened to him after that but I think he hit more HR's at the tail end of that season then he did the rest of his career.
I just discovered he was born on the same date I was. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Hazle Robert Sydney "Hurricane" Hazle (December 9, 1930 - April 25, 1992)
It's amazing how Hank Aaron wound up his career with 755 career home runs, but never hit 50 in a season. Also he had more career at bats than Babe Ruth, but hit only 41 more home runs than Ruth.
I think you made a great video, and I had fun watching it, but I think the argument needs to be tweaked just slightly. I do absolutely agree that this team is criminally underrated, though. They were a solid team all-around and even the strange platoon with Frank Torre getting more playing time than Joe Adcock worked for them well enough that season. You could say that their one possible weakness is that they really didn't have a fourth starter, but a generally solid pen more than made up for it. If anything, they had a full-time three-man rotation of Spahn, Burdette and Buhl and the fourth was manned by Gene Conley and whomever else.
Another story: during the strike in the early 80’s CBS radio (I think), started up a series of World Series full series, full games as originally called on the radio. The first was the ‘57 series. Some of you old guys like me might remember that the home teams’ radio teams did the calls. I remember the Yankees radio guy inadvertently referred to Aaron as a Yankee. He stopped himself and said something to effect of “I wish.”
@@michaelward9880 Braves should have stayed in Boston. All Lou Perini had to do was put his team through a rebuilding period, spending the money necessary to obtain quality players, and upgrading the farm system, and in a few years, they would have been contending again for National League pennants, and more importantly, outdrawing the city rival Red Sox in attendance, instead of looking for an excuse to leave town. The only team that had a legitimate reason to move out is the St. Louis Browns, who were so bad, they couldn't even afford new equipment, even with the rent coming in from the Cardinals.
Well, as a kid I loved my Braves more than I ever loved another sports team. I sobbed like a baby when they lost the 56 pennant to the Bums. But I am kind of surprised that you mention them as a goat. They were very good and underrated but probably not as outright dominant as other championship teams.
That logo definitely will be banned in 2021 The Milwaukee fans of this era were spoiled by the early sixties While the braves were in Milwaukee they never had a losing season
More like the most underachieving team in history. From what I've read about them, it seems they were a team that liked to drink and party and weren't serious enough about their game. Well, they were from Beer City, Milwaukee. Read a book called "We Played The Game" by Danny Peary, a history of baseball in the 50's, and there's a lot about this. Both the Braves & Cleveland Indians, were living the high life, which is why both teams so often fell short. The Braves should have won the pennant every year from 56-59. They were like the 50's version of the late 80's Mets, too busy with off the field fun to win as much as they should have. The Yankees had their party guys, too, but when it came to the games, they were ready to play, which is why they (almost) always won.
I remember the Milwaukee Braves , when they existed it seems they were in the World Series practically every year , at least tho me , a young boy in the 1950’s this excellence must have carried over when they ran off to the south
6:09 I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but the reason that Top 100 list is like that is because it was made in 2001. It's the same list he featured in his New Historical Abstract in from that year.
the postwar Brooklyn Dodgers fielded 5 players in the HOF.Longevity of career seems to be central to MrJames formula for determining who makes his top 40-Due to the color line,2 of those Brooklyn superstars did not have uber long MLB careers.It does not help my Dodgers case for "best team ever" .that they only won one world series.As you correctly assert,the rankings are subjective,and,after all these years,I can still recall how really sensational the '56-59 Braves were.They came within 2 games of winning 4 straight pennants.
He hit a home run into the center field bleachers at the Polo Grounds, basically unreachable territory. The ball traveled almost 500 feet. Jaw dropping power.
@@colorblindfred And if I'm not mistaken, Joe Adcock was also one of the very few to hit one out of the deep center field at the NY polo grounds, where Mays made his famous over the shoulder World Series catch in '54.
SABR stands for society of. american. baseball. research. james was the first to use the term sabrmetrics to refer to the type of statistical analysis in question. he coined the term, but didnt invent the analysis that the term has come to represent.
youre correct that the 57 braves , though great, surely arent top 5 all time. the 27 yankees are a better candidate for first place, start with ruth and gehrig, throw in a hof centerfielder leading off and hitting .356, a deep, strong pitching staff, lazzeri at second, bob meusel in left etc. but the 27 yankees were very weak at short, third, and catcher. many teams have had fewer than 3 weaknesses. they also had NO bench at all. looking at multi-year performance the 29-31 a's were better than the 26-28 yankees. by 29-30 the yankees murderer's row lineup was even stronger, but their pitching staff had fallen apart. i'd love to know how the 1933 pittsburgh crawfords would have done in mlb.
The 1929 Philadelphia Athletics may have been the greatest. Pitching and defense, coupled with excellent offense is my choice. They had four Hall of Famers.
I hadn't known the reason why Spahn didn't get the start in Game 7 until now.Had it been today,they would have postponed the Game,not doing so in 1957 because Eisenhower wasn't running for re-election.
I believe this was the only MLB team to have 3 players in their prime who are at least, still among the all-time top 5 at their position by any and all yardsticks. They were, of course, Hank Aaron (RF), Warren Spahn (LHP) and Eddie Mathews (3B). In addition to these greats this team also had a great catcher in Del Crandall (11x AS), a great No. 2 starter in Lew Burdette (won 17+ 6 straight X and WS MVP) and muliple all-stars in regulars Red Schoendienst (2B), Johnny Logan (SS), Joe Adcock (1B) and Bob Buhl (RHP). Between 1956 & 1959 the Braves came within 3 wins of winning 4 straight pennants (1 GB in '56 & lost 3 game play-off in '59).
BTW, this great Braves team was damaged by an awful and needless trade in 1954. That was the trading of 24 YO LHP Johnny Antonelli to the Giants for 30 YO Bobby Thomson. Antonelli was one of the first "bonus baby" signings at age 18 in 1948 and after spending 2 yrs in the military came out in 1953, went 12-12 with a 3.18 ERA in '53 showing very good promise which he fulfilled during the next 6 seasons. The 4 man rotation of Spahn (LH), Burdette (RH), Antonelli (LH) & Buhl (RH) would have been the difference between winning 4 straight pennants (and likely beating the NYY 3X because of the great LH pitching) & barely (by a combined 3 Gs) missing 2 of the pennants during the stretch of 1956-59. 1954 was, of course, Aaron's rookie season in which Thomson only played 43 games. This was one of the most impactful trades in NL history.
I didn't know that. I thought only the Phillies made stupid trades like that. Was John Quinn the GM who made that trade ? He came to Philly later and was horrible.
@@nobodyaskedbut It surprises me he was the GM who put that 1957 Braves team together. I remember him as one of the very worst of all the GM's, the Phillies ever had.
@@ccdogpark Remember this was before the draft and he just got lucky Mathews chose them because Elliott was at the end of his career. They also, got lucky with Aaron because he could have gone to the Dodgers or Giants with Robinson & Irvin both at the end, and Spahn & Crandall (only NL C in 11 AS Gs not in the HOF) were already there. When you have a group like that driving both offense & defense it's very difficult even for Quinn not to have a strong team. When Fred Haney's incompetence is also factored in one can see how undermined by managemment this great roster of players was.
The 1957 Braves team was very good but not the best ever. I play the Strat-o-matic Baseball game that is so realistic it's scary sometimes. I have mostly contender teams of 1960-1969 from the era of growing up a Cards fan in St. Louis and several contender teams of the 1970s through 1982. I also have their offered 1927 and 1950 Yankees, 1934 and 1946 Cards, 1954 Giants and Indians, and 1953 Dodgers. I would say the 1927 and 1961 Yankees and those Philly A'S teams of the late 1920s and early 1930s of Lefty Grove is the most overlooked great team. Spahn, Buhl, and Burdette were very good but greater pitching is needed to go with their hitting to be in the best of the best discussion.
I forgot to add that I actually play the 1957 Braves in Strat-o-matic against the best of the best teams in my collection. They are a very good team that I see compare close to the Giants teams of 1962 to 1965. The Giants of 1962 missed a world series win by the thin margin of a Richardson snagged liner by Willie Mc Covery in game 7 versus the Yankees. The Braves were very good from 1956 through 1959 and if they had won four consecutive pennants and 3 world series wins even I would give them discussion.
1927 Yankees and 1998 Yankees are the very best TEAMS ever ..... you can say this and say that .... but W/L Record, crushing opposing teams, great Defense, Offense, Pitching & Hitting, Steals, Double Plays at key times and more .......... every little thing matters and The Yankees 27 W.S. Championships 5 in row, 4 out of 5 (1990s & 2k) just cannot be ignored. jj
While I believe 9 times out of 10 the best teams made the World Series when all it took was to have the best record in your league, I bet some teams with LONG droughts probably would have ended them sooner if there was a playoff format earlier than 1969. Think of all the talented teams with great records forgotten because the only team that had a postseason was your league champion.
It was a hell of a team and certainly overlooked historically. But I can't see his argument that they were the best team ever. He seems to rely entirely on having three players in Bill James top 40 of Win Shares. That's fine, but hardly enough to make them the best ever. Their regular season record was good but not amazing. They beat the Yankees in 7 games. This just doesn't make any sense to me.
Atlanta Braves won 14 consecutive division titles. Which surpases Milwaulkees 13 consecutive winning seasons. Both only won 1 WS. Also it took Braves 7 games to beat Yankees. Most "great teams" dominate their WS opponents. 1927-28 Yankees 8-0. 1976 Reds in 4-0 1998 Yankees 4-0. etc etc.
OBJECTION: 1984 Detroit Tigers. The Tigers won 35 of their first 40 games. They went through the American League like a hot knife through butter AND destroyed the San Diego Padres in the World Series! Now top that!!
Ken Lucas-Ok. 2001 Mariners. They went 116-46, 12 games better than the '84 Tigers, even if they DID lose the ALCS to the hated Yankees. But they got their comeuppance, losing the 2001 World Series to the Arizona Diamondbacks.
@@ice-iu3vv The Yankees have several runs of consecutive years as WS winners. The Red Sox, Philadelphia A's, Oakland A's and NY Giants had runs where they won 3 out of 4 or 3 out of 5 WS. There are several others that won two in a row. While the late 50s Braves was a fine group the fact that they only won one title in their era pales when compared to the above mentioned clubs. Using individual player rankings is silly to evaluate teams. Team results is what you use to evaluate the best teams of all time.
@@davidjenkins2627 "using individual player rankings is silly to evaluate teams" objection your honor citing facts not in evidence. it IS done by many of us, including baseball authors, managers, fans, well, everyone except you. further, while i agree that multi-year performance is very important, the most common way of looking at the issue is to look at one year peaks. anyway, i started by agreeing with you more or less, and like many people in baseball comments sections, you think you are right even when the issue is a matter of opinion and the other person in the conversation is being more reasonable. while you have some point about the 57 braves, you are completely incorrect in the final 2 sentences of your response. 1-no it isnt and 2-that is an incomplete statement. and youre not one to share the "good point fella" at all are you? just correct about all of it and the rest of us are silly ? just go away now mr. unreasonable im done. if you do choose to respond, im not gonna just shut up and give you any undeserved last word. buh bye.
@@davidjenkins2627 and again you dont make any sense. not sure ive shown that im "sensitive" some how, just that youre full of crap, and full of yourself, which are much the same thing apparently. keep the replies coming if you wish, im here all week. to review, you began with an inaccurate comment, but i partially went along with you. then you made nothing but false statements in your comment that looking at the quality of the players on a team, is a silly way of determining the quality of the team. so i pointed out that youre a real know-it-all for someone who knows so little, and suggested that you go away. this made me sensitive.(smirks). and 4th you didnt go away when i plainly stated that you get no last words with me. so... keep typing moron. i have the time, and the inclination to continue.
