Rank 'Em: Franchise (BLB History)

[Delandis]

HOORAH!!!

The best team to never win anything. Take that Colonial Dynasty!

[liquidcrash]

We're falling down the list quickly. A couple more seasons and we'll be at the bottom.

[Carlos]

HOORAH!!!

The best team to never win anything. Take that Colonial Dynasty!

You share one thing in common with only one other franchise in our 16 years: you and Maine have never had a 90+ loss season. 90 and 100 loss seasons are major factors in losing ground in these rankings.

So despite a lack of championship, you are extremely successful because you consistently field a competitive team.

We're falling down the list quickly. A couple more seasons and we'll be at the bottom.

It'll take a lot more bad seasons to do that from the numbers I see. In time you'll go from bad to poor and poor teams don't really lose a lot of ground.

The rankings reward teams for winning and punish teams for losing. Middle ground teams, the ones that simply play .500 baseball, don't take much of a hit. They sit right where they should be: in the middle.


That being said, I still need to work on some things for the Total Rankings. I still don't like that some teams are finishing tied. I can add some more factors that will definitely separate teams a bit more. Will take some extra work but the more I do now the less I have to do later after each season.

[Clay]

Not to take anything away from your equation, but it seems like you may undervalue Championships. Even if one made an argument that Cali and Los Alamos' were flukes (they weren't), I'd think they should be higher than teams like Hartford or Pawtucket.

[Carlos]

Not to take anything away from your equation, but it seems like you may undervalue Championships. Even if one made an argument that Cali and Los Alamos' were flukes (they weren't), I'd think they should be higher than teams like Hartford or Pawtucket.

I've done a lot to give championships more value, but I'm content with the way it is right now because it's more a reflection of what the franchise has done in its entire history.

If you take the last 16 years of MLB, would you say the Marlins or the Braves were the more successful franchise?

[Clay]

I've done a lot to give championships more value, but I'm content with the way it is right now because it's more a reflection of what the franchise has done in its entire history.

If you take the last 16 years of MLB, would you say the Marlins or the Braves were the more successful franchise?

I'd personally say the Marlins... but most would say the Braves. However, Cali to Hartford is not the Marlins to the Braves. I'm not arguing that Cali and LA should be at the top... I'm arguing that they should be higher.

[Pat]

BLB Total Rankings updated after the 1993 season.

1. Maine Guides
2. Washington Bats (Yankees)
3. Windy City Playboys
4T. Wilmington Wildcats
4T. Los Lunas Javelinas
6. Baltimore Bulldogs (+4)
6. Virginia Colonials (+5)
8. Philadelphia Freedom (-2)
9. Denver Bulls (-2)
10. Davenport Brawlers (-2)
11. Indianapolis Clowns* (+1)
12. Mississippi Storm*
13. Carolina Tobs (-5)
14. Hyundai Dinos
15T. New Orleans Dukes (Sin City Gamblers)
15T. Syracuse Slammers (+1)
15T. Pittsburgh Millers (+2)
15T. Pawtucket Patriots (+6)
19. Dallas Snappers (-3)
20T. Hartford Whalers
20T. Los Alamos Bandits (Mayhem) (+2)
22. California Kodiaks (Wildfire) (-3)
23. Batavia Muckdogs**
24. Morgantown Mohawks**

*Started play in 1982
**Started play in 1984


It's hard to see how a team like Batavia is improving just based on this because it goes season-by-season. But, as you can see with teams like Virginia, Baltimore and Pawtucket having huge jumps, the climb through the ranks happen so long as the team erases past failures with new successes.

My take:

Best from each league
1. Maine Guides - .615 - Twelve division titles, two wild cards, seven DL Crowns, six Brewmasters. The Guides are head and shoulders above all other BLB teams.
2. Washington Bats - .569 - Six division titles, two wild cards, two IL crowns, two Brewmasters. D.C. has finished .500 or better in all seasons but one. Eight playoff appearances, not including two one-game-playoff loses.

Almost elite grouping
3. Windy City - .536 - Six division titles, three wild cards, four IL crowns, one Brewmasters. Only finished 3rd or worse three times.
4. Virginia Colonials - .511 - Four division titles, one wild card, three IL crowns, two Brewmasters. If you scrap the first 10 years in the BLB, the Colonials are the best.

Great but still underrated
5. Los Lunas Javelinas - .516 - Five division titles, two DL crowns, one Brewmasters. Only DL team (besides Maine) to win the DL more than once and have a .500+ record.
6. Wilmington Wildcats - .517 - Five division titles, one wild card, one IL crown, one Brewmasters. If you asked this question five years ago, Wilmington is higher. A lot of newer owners probably don't know, but the Wildcats were an early powerhouse.
7. Carolina Tobs - .507 - Two division titles, two IL crown, one Brewmasters. Yes, only two playoff appearances, however, they have finished one game back four separate times and in a different season, they won 103 games and missed the playoffs (pre-WC).

.500ish but we got credentials
8. Indianapolis Clowns* - .496 - Four division titles, three DL crowns. A sub .500 winning percentage and they are a top 10 franchise? You bet your clown loving ass they are. An expansion team that struggled the first three seasons but since they are one of the leagues best. They are the BLBs Buffalo Bills.
9. Philadelphia Freedom - .501 - Five division titles, one wild card, one IL crown. Normally competitive and played in some tough divisions.
10. Mississippi Storm* - .492 - Four division titles, one DL crown. Like Indy, they are new but after the early struggles, they are a great team.

Winners without post-season success
11. Davenport Brawlers - .510 - Six division titles. I was surprised to see they had won the division six times. The only team with more is Maine, WC and DC also have six.
12. Baltimore Bulldogs - .529 - Four division titles. Usually competitive but nothing to show for it.
13. Denver Bulls - .518 - Three division titles, two wild card. Like Baltimore, if Denver had any success in the playoffs, they would receive a huge bump.

Losers with post-season success
14. Los Alamos Bandits - .472 - Two division titles, one IL crown, one Brewmasters. They have fielded a couple of competitive teams but just a couple.
15. California Kodiaks - .430 - Three division titles, two IL crowns, one Brewmasters. A lot like Los Alamos, but California was terrible for a long time.
16. New Orleans Dukes - .465 - Three division titles, two DL crowns. They haven't won a Brewmasters but this franchise has done well when they get to the post-season.
17. Pawtucket Patriots - .471 - Two division titles, one wild card, one DL crown. Of course, on the rise, but they were irrelevant for a long time.

Been really good...and really bad...
18. Hyundai Dinos - .484 - Three division titles. The first handful of years in the BLB, Hyundai was a pretty damn good team. Seems so long ago...
19. Pittsburgh Millers - .486 - Two division titles, one wild card. They have a 114 win team, a 103 win team, but also a 114, 108 and 101 loss team as well.

Best of the rest
20. Dallas Snappers - .477 - Two division titles, one wild card. See below.
21. Syracuse Slammers - .485 - Two division titles. Again, see below.
22. Hartford Whalers - .486 - Three wild card. These three teams are very comparable. Usually competitive but never contenders.
23. Batavia Muckdogs** - .478 - One wild card. Competitive since entrance, only one playoff, but that near .500 record for an expansion team is nothing to disregard.

Yeah, they are new, but....
24. Morgantown Mohawks** - .400 - Nothing. To their defense, they play in a division with the Bats (#2), Colonials (#4) and Wildcats (#6).

[Carlos]

I'd personally say the Marlins... but most would say the Braves. However, Cali to Hartford is not the Marlins to the Braves. I'm not arguing that Cali and LA should be at the top... I'm arguing that they should be higher.

I guess you can say this list agrees with the Braves supporters.

I disagree Cali and LA should be higher just because of one championship. One title doesn't erase years of very bad seasons when the total rankings of a team's play is taken into account.

If the list were measuring best championship teams then I'd agree. My list doesn't do that. It's ranking franchises.


Sent from my mobile device.

[Pat]

I disagree Cali and LA should be higher just because of one championship. One title doesn't erase years of very bad seasons when the total rankings of a team's play is taken into account.

California has to be higher than 22nd. They have a Brewmaster's and two IL crowns. For a five year stretch, they were one of the BLB's best teams. They also have a couple other seasons of being at least competitive. Sure, they have lost 100+ games five times but what has Hartford (20th), Dallas (19th), Syracuse (15th), done to set themselves apart?

[liquidcrash]

California gets dragged down by 9 seasons with 90+ losses, 5 with 100+ losses and 7 last place finishes, all most in the league. I agree they should probably be higher, but they've been really bad for a couple stretches.

[Pat]

California gets dragged down by 9 seasons with 90+ losses, 5 with 100+ losses and 7 last place finishes, all most in the league. I agree they should probably be higher, but they've been really bad for a couple stretches.

California has two IL crowns. Only other teams to do so, Washington, Windy City, Carolina and Virginia.

California has three division titles. More than Morgantown, Batavia, Hartford, Syracuse, Dallas, Pittsburgh, Pawtucket, Los Alamos and Carolina.

California is one of only nine teams to win the Brewmasters.

That's enough to keep them out of that bottom grouping, IMO.

[Carlos]

Cali doesn't have to be anywhere. They go wherever I want them in my list. You made your list already.


Sent from my mobile device.

[Delandis]

Not to take anything away from teams like Cali or Virginia, but honestly, its almost hard to not be good after being terrible for a long stretch. If you have so many poor finishes (especially in the BLB where high draft picks are almost locks to be good players) the ability to become great after years of futility is much higher than always being competitive. I'm not saying its easy to win a championship, but being bad for a while has to be taken into consideration along with the fact that they won a championship.

[Pat]

Not to take anything away from teams like Cali or Virginia, but honestly, its almost hard to not be good after being terrible for a long stretch. If you have so many poor finishes (especially in the BLB where high draft picks are almost locks to be good players) the ability to become great after years of futility is much higher than always being competitive. I'm not saying its easy to win a championship, but being bad for a while has to be taken into consideration along with the fact that they won a championship.

That's a good point....makes Washington look even better with just one sub-500 season, 72-90.

[Clay]

Not to take anything away from teams like Cali or Virginia, but honestly, its almost hard to not be good after being terrible for a long stretch. If you have so many poor finishes (especially in the BLB where high draft picks are almost locks to be good players) the ability to become great after years of futility is much higher than always being competitive. I'm not saying its easy to win a championship, but being bad for a while has to be taken into consideration along with the fact that they won a championship.

I disagree. I think its way easier to stay good than to build from bad. As I've said a million times, I think being good helps prospect develop and mediocre players play above their heads in winning orgs. I think bad teams bust more picks. Call it chicken and eggs (team is bad because it misses pick vs misses pick because they're bad).