The 10 Most Interesting MLB Teams of the 1980's

[@grodinsky]

this is top quality. please keep making videos!

[@WhatHappenedtoBaseball]

Solid first vid! Looking forward to seeing what you produce

[@mannyfrencha5736]

83 White Sox🤔. These days they're referred to as the White SUX!

[@codycrossman5791]

Dude, I love this! It's so good 🤘

[@paulweston8408]

Great video! The summer of 1984 was so much fun for me and my dad watching Cubs baseball most afternoons. They were one game from the World Series but sadly lost three straight in San Diego to end the NLC. To this day, I feel like they could have beat the Tigers.

[@byff2323]

The '89 Royals are exactly why wild card teams had to be introduced. After the A's, the Royals were the 2nd best team in baseball that year and had to sit home.

[@KittyPurrfect100]

1985 Cardinals 314 stolen bases! 1987 Blue Jays in Exhibition Stadium, 2nd place in AL East. 1986 Phillies were the only team with a winning record vs the brawling, swashbuckling Mets! Billy Martin for the Hall of Fame! Pine Tar game, 1983. ‘85 Yankees. Reason why Rickey stole 130 sb’s in 1982.

[@GTcook15]

I wasn't old enuf to remember 84 but 89 was magical as a Cubs fan

[@elmascavidal1797]

The best team of the 80’s was the 86’ Mets 🔵🟠⚪️🟠🔵

[@kibitznec700]

What about the 1980 and 1981 A's. They were very weird as the had starting pitchers that completed the games they started. An oddity in this era baseball, as in a single game usually more than 5 pitchers are used per team to complete a game.

[@erickennedy8534]

Great video !! 84 Cubs , 82 Brewers , and 88 A"S!! 86 Mets best team ever in baseball , cocaine stop them from greatness.

[@eddiez1247]

Instant sub after watching this. Great use of video, cards, card styles in some of your graphics and great information as well. I appreciated the research and showing of BRef as well. Its like you are tapping into my mind on a day off as I scroll thru pages and enjoy my card collection. Very well done indeed.

[@big8dog887]

Let's not ding the '84 Cubs too much for Mel Hall, they traded him away for Rick Sutcliffe.

[@jameslighterGTR]

Great video, nice work and terrific channel!

[@horacegreely4396]

What about the 86 or 80 astros? Especially the 86 astros. Mike Scott panicked The mets so much that The author for the book "the bad guys won" couldn't stop talking about it. He's worth his own video Him and Charlie Kerfeld.

[@gamewinningrbi]

Yeah, good points. I almost had the 86 Astros on here. Mike Scott looming in game 7 of the NLCS was a big deal.

[@eddiez1247]

I love being in before 100 on creators and you are going to have thousands before Halloween. KZbin sucks sometimes but its algorithm knows how to suggest new channels based on my history. I'm thankful you were on my home page today.

[@gamewinningrbi]

Thank you! Will be putting out a new video every week. Appreciate the support!

[@davecostello3095]

You said that 1981 was the last hurrah for the Big Red Machine. How about those 83 Phillies, known as the Wheez Kids. Went to the World Series with Pete Rose, Joe Morgan, and Tony Perez. We fired our manager, Pat Corrales, when we were in first place.

[@gamewinningrbi]

Totally. Wheeze kids could have easily been on this list.

[@sp-lc1fy]

The 30 for 30 on the 86 Mets is well worth watching. I am life long STL fan, the 80's Cardinals were fun to watch. I wish the current version would run more. Great Video.

[@gamewinningrbi]

I know the sabrmetric argument against trying to steal bases and it's totally logical. It's not really worth it to run a lot. But, those teams were so fun to watch.

[@christianwootton100]

84 Padres had both evangelists AND brawlers.

[@alanpeel1981]

George Brett's reason for having so few at bats in 1980 was because he broke a toe at his house while racing to watch Bill Buckner hit in a Cubs game on TV. The other ailment happened during the World Series, not the season.

[@andrewpadaetz5549]

When it comes to the 1980s, there's the '86 Mets and then everyone else.

[@BruceWalther-s2l]

Whoa. I didn't realize Tom Herr stole 31 bases , too, as many as Ozzie. Van Slyke was One of my favorite players. You could just see the all around game developing. Great defensive player, too. McGee! No wonder he received serious MVP votes/consideration. C'mon narrator dude! He freakin stole 110 bases and scored over 100 runs. Although correct. Coleman Struckout too much. 320 OBP not very good. He didn't really last that long and we know why. Did I mention I've been an Indians/Guardians fan since I was 7 and those 80's Cardinals teams were very likable. I was a fan of The Wizard. The Cards gave me a reason to watch the post season. And imagine Omar Vizquel became my favorite player All-Time, surely inspired by his modern day (in the 90's) Ozzie Smith comparison. Omar seems to be getting snubbed for HOF. Aparicio and O Smith got in without hesitation and Omar was the same kind of player for the 90's what they were for 70's (Aparicio) and 80's (Ozzie). Vizquel has over 2800 hits. 8 straight GG. Did anyone ever see him catch a popup into short LF? Omar's back would remain facing homeplate. He would not turn to look at the ball and would catch the ball, glove above his head like a player does when he is coming IN on a short fly ball. Never seen that done before Omar or since. Simply amazing how unorthodox that is but Vizquel caught those short flys effortlessly.

[@gamewinningrbi]

Yeah, Tommy Herr was also the most efficient base stealer on that team. Was only caught 3 times. Although I'm guessing this is mostly due to him stealing second on the back end of a double steal with Coleman or Mcgee stealing third

[@clarenceboddicker1162]

The 86 angels and Red Sox, I thought would be on the list. What team was an out away from winning the World Series and the other was an out and away from winning American league pennant and both ended up having tragic end to their season as well as several players whose careers were never quite the same. I could understand maybe excluding the 86 Red Sox just because of all the ink that has been spilled about them, but that angels team was really special.

[@gamewinningrbi]

Yes, and the tragic story of Donnie Moore, but that's a real bummer.

[@raypratt-bw9ib]

86 Red Sox had a bunch of cool players ,far better and more entertaining then tge 85 Yankees??

[@gamewinningrbi]

Yeah, 86 Red Sox were a very cool team. Almost had them on here and probably should have had them on here. Still think the 85 yankees are a fun, underrated team.

[@tchristop]

86 Sox were an amazing team and better than the 86 Mets… The WS was theirs until a series of unfortunate events occurred. Total black swan event!

[@DaDitka]

Great video, hope you make more. Concerning Bo Jackson, someone put it this way- if Bo Jackson was a thief, he could steal the crown jewels from under your nose, but he would get caught on the way out the door trying to steal a candy bar. He really was a hit and miss player. I'm not convinced he would have been a HoF player if he remains healthy, but your analogy to Joe Carter is actually a good one. As for the 1986 Mets, they had the same feel as football's 1985 Chicago Bears (I'm a Bears fan and distinctly remember that team. They were NUTS). Like the Mets, the Bears had all the signs of putting together a dynasty, but it never worked out. Look at the parallels someday. Take care and have a good one!

[@gamewinningrbi]

Thanks and I'll be putting out videos every week. Love that Bo Jackson analogy. Never thought about the Mets/Bears similarities but that makes a lot of sense.

[@larrybailey7669]

81 Dodgers

[@bruce4303]

great use of Manhunter there - I did not see that coming!

[@gamewinningrbi]

Nice, wasn't sure if that reference was too out there.

[@bruce4303]

@@gamewinningrbi Naw dude - I was so happy to NOT see the Leeds family on that screen!!

[@corycatterall3688]

You forgot to mention that the 84 Cubs, despite having the best record in the NL, they DID NOT get home field advantage in the NLCS because the league wanted night games. So they had the first 2 games in Chicago and final 3 in San Diego. TRAVISTY!!!

[@gamewinningrbi]

Great point. That was pretty crazy.

[@DaDitka]

That's not totally accurate. In the 1980s, the division winner who had home field advantage alternated each year. In 1984, it was already set that the NL West winner would play the first two on the road and the last three at home. So it wouldn't have mattered if the Cubs or the Mets had won the NL East, they would not have had the home field. Where you ARE correct is that in 1984, the NL was scheduled to have home field advantage in the World Series. It alternated back and forth just as the divisions did for the playoffs. If the Cubs would have beaten the Padres that year, then the talk was that MLB would either give the AL the home field (robbing the Cubs), or that the Cubs would have to play their home games either in County Stadium in Milwaukee, or in Comiskey Park in Chicago (again, robbing the Cubs but in a different direction). THAT would have been a travesty. I lived in the north-central IL area at that time, going to school at a small farm town who were predominantly Cubs fans, and that season was just crazy for the fans (I am a White Sox fan but I'll admit I jumped on the bandwagon that year, watching the games on WGN regularly). I will still contend to this day that the 1984 Cubs saved Wrigley Field, for it was that year when it became super-cool to hang out in the Wrigleyville area. It was a really fun year.

[@gamewinningrbi]

@@DaDitka Thanks for that correction. Great breakdown!

[@corycatterall3688]

@@DaDitka wow. Did not know that. Thank you!

[@corycatterall3688]

@DaDitka every time I would hear Red Sox fans cry about Buckner...I'd say, well we had the Leon Durham error. Not in the World Series but an equal critical error. And I LOVED The Bull.

[@lifestories1446]

Why only 30 seconds on the 1982 brewers and 5 minutes on each other team? What do you have against the 82 Brewers that you slighted them so hard on time. Maybe you should find something else to do if your bias is so strong it impacts a documentary.

[@erickennedy8534]

84 Panders got snub

[@humanbeing2420]

Another interesting thing about the 1984 Tigers is that they had two players (Chet Lemon and Kirk Gibson) each of whose father was a Hall of Fame pitcher named Bob who played their entire career for only one team.

[@kibitznec700]

WTF you taking bout. Estas hablando incoherencias.

[@trevorsherlock5905]

None of the 80’s Blue Jays teams on this list.

[@gamewinningrbi]

Yeah, I really wanted to put the 85 Blue Jays on here. Had them in earlier iterations, but had to make some difficult choices. 80's Blue Jays had some of the best baseball name guys. Rance Mulliniks, Garth Iorg, Lloyd Moseby. Really cool team in 85.

[@Manolin23]

Did you seriously just rank Lou Whitaker above Ryne Sandberg? Lol, try again.

[@gamewinningrbi]

The claim was that Whitaker was slightly better than Sandberg during the 1980's. Obviously that comparison hurts Sandberg since he didn’t start playing full time until 1982. But even if you only look at the two of them from 82 to 89, Whitaker slightly edges out Sandberg in WAR. Overall careers, you can give the edge to Sandberg because Lou was a bit of a compiler that hung around for 19 years and never had seasons as massive as Sandberg did in 84 and 90-92. Sandberg leads Whitaker in JAWS slightly because of this.

[@Manolin23]

@gamewinningrbi if you are simply using WAR to determine who is better then you are doing a disservice to both players and are doing an evaluation at the most basic level. The difference between Whitaker and Sandburg is the difference between quantity and quality. Whitaker was a fine player for many years but as you said, he was a compiler and at no point in his career was he the player that Sandberg was. Do a deeper dive then simply looking at career WAR. Whitaker had as many as 160 hits in a season only 5 times in his career. Sandberg was clearly the best 2nd baseman in baseball for most of a decade and there was a time when he might have been considered among the 2 or 3 best players in tbe world. Whitaker was none of those things. He was a very good player that played for a long time and compiled a lot of numbers. He was good, not great. The reason Whitaker fell off the H.O.F. ballot so quickly is because no one that watched him play ever thought they were watching a hall of famer. It is only now with modern analytics that people have looked back and have decided that he was some kind of all time top 10 second baseman when in reality he's more like a top 20 or 25. But to try and claim that he was a better player then Sandberg is just silly and easily debunked, tbh.

[@gamewinningrbi]

@@Manolin23 Hey, I agree with you that Sandberg is the slightly better player when considering peak and longevity. But, I don't think the difference is that big at all. And there is something to be said for longevity and consistency. Also, the 160 hits fact is not all that significant considering that Whitaker walked a lot more and had a much better OBP than Sandberg for his career. They're both great players, but I don't think it's like comparing Joe Morgan to, like, Bobby Grich where one is clearly head and tails above the other (I would argue that Grich has an HOF case as well...)

[@Manolin23]

@gamewinningrbi I would disagree. Sandberg IS clearly heads and tails better. It's not that close, take a deeper look or I can provide the facts for you. The 160 hits fact is significant in comparison to what Sandberg did. Sandberg was simultaneously the best offensive and best defensive second baseman in baseball for many years. Whitaker was a good productive player but he was no where near that. He does get points for his longevity which is impressive, and perhaps he does deserve more H.O.F. consideration but he was not in the class of Sandberg. Sorry, he just wasn't THAT good. He was reliable and productive but Sandberg was excellent. It's an interesting case study because MANY of their career numbers, not just WAR, are extremely similar, but statistical context is crucial in player evaluation. You can't simply rely on looking at WAR as if it were a literal number and basing your conclusions around that, otherwise you may come to faulty conclusions such as thinking that Ryne Sandberg was only a slightly better player then Lou Whitaker.

[@Manolin23]

@gamewinningrbi look, Sandberg was a better hitter, defender and baserunner then Whitaker ever was. Also, not for nothing, but take a look at their post season numbers as well. Anyways, I appreciate the discussion. Here is something that I wrote on the matter a few years ago. I hope you check it out! A case study of Ryne Sandberg, Lou Whitaker and quality versus quantity. They were two of the top second baseman not just of their time but of all time. Their career totals are remarkably similar across the board. Total hits, doubles, triples, homeruns, runs scored, and runs driven in are all nearly identical. Their career slash lines, WAR, OPS+, are all within hairs of each other. But was their value really as similar as a glance at the stats sheets would have you believe? Lou Whitaker played for 19 seasons and was a regular for 17 of them. Except for some time at the end he played most games most years. Now to be a regular in the big leagues for 17 years is a hell of an accomplishment and that alone could be argument for HOF enshrinement, however I'm not concerning myself here with who should be in the HOF as much as who was the better player between the two. Sweet Lou was the Rookie of the Year in 1978. He was a 4 time Silver Slugger Award winner, won 3 Gold Gloves, made 5 All Star teams and won the World Series on a great Tigers squad in 1984. All of those accolades (other then ROY) occurred from 1983 to 1987, his ages 26-30 seasons, when he was truly among the best players and second baseman in the league. Over his career he hit about 15-20 homeruns a season, 25-30 doubles and drove in 70 runs a year or so. He had had one year with 200 hits, 4 seasons of 160 hits (all between 83’-87’) and then a bunch of years with 110-140 hits. He received MVP votes in 1 season (1983 when he finished 8th). That’s a lot of productive years, not so many elite ones. Whitaker’s and Sandberg’s career totals are very similar, yet Whitaker had 700 more plate appearances and 3 more seasons as a regular then Sandberg did. He did walk quite a bit more then Ryno (1197 to 761), struck out less and he remained a fine hitter up until his retirement (though with less and less at bats per season his last several years). Again, his longevity and consistency are arguments in his favor but do they make up for the gap in quality between he and Sandberg? Ryne Sandberg took a few years as a regular before he hit his stride. His first 2 seasons he had an OPS under .700 before he blossomed. On the back end of his career, he faltered. He has 4 seasons that definitely hurt his overall career splits and aren't necessarily reflective of the player that he truly was. But from 1984 thru 1993, his ages 24-32 seasons, he was clearly the best second baseman in baseball. He went to the All Star game every one of those seasons, he won the Silver Slugger Award 7 out of 9 years and 8 out of 9 Gold Gloves. Over his career he received MVP votes in 6 seasons (Won it in 1984), went to 10 All Star games (in a row) and won 9 Gold Gloves (in a row). From 84’ to 93’ Sandberg was one of the best players in the league. He scored 100 runs 6 times. He got between 160-200 hits every year, he hit 20-40 homers and 25-30 doubles every season. He had a season with 40 homers, a season with 19 (!) triples and a season of 54 stolen bases. He was the best defensive second baseman in baseball (and among the very best of all time defensively). His OPS was typically in the mid to high .800's with a high of .913 in 1990. He was a great, aggressive baserunner who stole bases at a high rate averaging 20-40 steals a season. There was a time (84’-85’) when he might have been considered the best player in the world or at least among the top 2 or 3. Also, in his two post seasons over 47 plate appearances, facing superior pitching, Ryno slashed .385/.457/.641 with an OPS of 1.098, for whatever weight you’d like to give that. In comparison, over 61 post season plate appearances Whitaker slashed .204/.350/.306 with an OPS of .656. Lou Whitaker was steady and productive for his entire career, but at no point was he the player that Ryne Sandberg was in his prime. Lou was a very good player for a long time. Sandberg was elite.