PDA

View Full Version : Team of the Decade?



SirKodiak
10-13-2009, 06:25 PM
Contenders for Team of the Decade (http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/stories.nsf/cardinals/story/DF4BBC86B5C158568625764700808D71?OpenDocument) wrote 10/07/2009

NEW YORK YANKEES

The record — 965-651

The highlights

1 World Series championship


3 American League pennants

8 AL East titles

1 Wild-card berth

The lowlights — Had American League's fourth-best record in 2008 at 89-73 but missed the playoffs for the first time since 1993.

The payroll — $1.67 billion.

The stat — Closer Mariano Rivera has not had a save opportunity in their last eight postseason games.

The case for — Another championship would strengthen the argument for the Yankees, but to do that they must break the powerful Curse of Alex Rodriguez. Seattle lost all four postseason series in which Rodriguez appeared. Since Rodriguez joined the Yankees in 2004, they are 1-4 in postseason series with a .333 winning percentage for 21 games. Rodriguez has been noticeable for his failures in that span. He has hit .245 with four homers and nine RBIs in 94 at-bats overall and .100 for 20 at-bats with runners in scoring position. Rodriguez will again carry the burden of having to produce, or watch the Yankees perish.


BOSTON RED SOX

The record — 920-709

The highlights

2 World Series championships

2 American League pennants

1 AL East title

5 Wild-card berths

The lowlights — On Aug. 15, 2001, the Red Sox were 65-53 and trailed the Yankees by five games in the AL East and Oakland by one game in the wild-card race. That was not good enough for general manager Dan Duquette. He fired manager Jimy Williams, replacing him with pitching coach Joe Kerrigan. The Red Sox went 17-26 under Kerrigan and missed the playoffs.

The payroll — $1.17 billion.

The stat — In this decade, the Red Sox are 13-3 for postseason games in which a loss would end their season.

The case for — The Red Sox, who had a winning record in every season during the decade, would end all debate on the subject by winning a third World Series championship. That would make Boston the third franchise since the 1960s to win three World Series in a single decade. The others were the Yankees in the 1990s and Oakland in the 1970s. The black mark against the Red Sox is they finished ahead of the Yankees in the regular season only twice during this decade, in 2007 and 2008.


LOS ANGELES ANGELS

The record — 900-720

The highlights

1 World Series championship

1 American League pennant

5 AL West titles

1 Wild-card berth

The lowlights — The Angels of 2001 could not keep up with a pair of high-powered 100-win teams out of the AL West — Oakland and Seattle — and faded badly. The Angels lost 30 of their final 40 games to finish at 75-87, their worst record of the decade.

The payroll — $883.7 million

The stat — The Angels have lost 10 of their last 11 postseason games. In that span, they have scored a total of 25 runs.

The case for — The Angels closed the decade with a rush, winning the AL West title in five of the last six seasons. Since the surge began in 2004, the Angels are 567-405, in the same neighborhood as the Yankees at 579-393. Boston has kept the Angels from having a more impressive postseason résumé. In this decade, the Angels have lost three postseason series against Boston, going 1-9 in games. The Angels are 4-1 in all other postseason series by a margin of 15-11.


PHILADELPHIA PHILLIES

The record — 850-769

The highlights

1 World Series championship

1 National League pennant

3 National League East titles

The lowlights — The Phillies started the decade at the bottom, going 65-97 in 2000 to tie the Chicago Cubs for the worst record in the majors. Because of the format in place at the time, the Phillies received only the fourth overall pick in the 2001 draft. With slugging infielder Mark Teixeira available, the Phillies selected his neighbor: righthander Gavin Floyd of Severna Park, Md.

The payroll — $795.1 million

The stat — The Phillies have won at least 85 games in seven consecutive seasons, the longest current streak in the NL. The Cardinals are second with two consecutive 85-win seasons.

The case for — For the Phillies to stake a realistic claim to the title, they must repeat as World Series champions. Cincinnati's "Big Red Machine" is the last NL club to win consecutive World Series, in 1975-76. The Phillies could earn style points with decisive series wins. They were 11-3 in the postseason last season. Boston went 22-6 in winning the World Series in 2004 and '06.


ST. LOUIS CARDINALS

The record — 913-707

The highlights

1 World Series championship

2 National League pennants

6 NL Central titles

1 Wild-card berth

The lowlights — A year after their World Series triumph, the Cardinals stumbled badly in 2007 and had their only losing record (78-84) of the decade. They joined the Angels (2002-03), Florida (2003-04), the Chicago White Sox (2005-06) and Tampa Bay (2008-09) as world champions who did not make it to the playoffs in the following season.

The payroll — $831.6 million

The stat — The Cardinals have won eight postseason series in the decade, most among NL teams, and tying them with Boston and the Yankees for the major-league lead.

The case for — The Cardinals need three things to happen: No. 1: Win the World Series. The Cardinals would join Boston as the only multiple winners in the decade. No. 2: Have Boston eliminated in the AL playoffs. The Red Sox would finish the decade with fewer World Series appearances than the Cardinals. No. 3: Have the Yankees eliminated in the AL playoffs. They would finish with as many World Series appearances (3) as the Cardinals but one fewer championship for the decade.

200tang
10-13-2009, 06:29 PM
Yankees

Jeffy25
10-13-2009, 06:39 PM
red sox, than yankees, than cards, than angels than phillis

CatKnight
10-13-2009, 06:41 PM
Of the teams listed, I can't see a good argument for the Yanks.

Despite ALL their advantages....they're not dominating anymore. They're not even always making the playoffs.

Much will depend on the playoffs, of course, but as it stands I'm leaning towards the Red Sox or Cardinals (my vote). Philly, LA or NYY would need to win the Series to even plink onto my radar.

haveacigar
10-13-2009, 06:42 PM
Red Sox. 2 titles > everyone else.

Jeffy25
10-13-2009, 06:43 PM
Of the teams listed, I can't see a good argument for the Yanks.

Despite ALL their advantages....they're not dominating anymore. They're not even always making the playoffs.

Much will depend on the playoffs, of course, but as it stands I'm leaning towards the Red Sox or Cardinals (my vote). Philly, LA or NYY would need to win the Series to even plink onto my radar.

well seeing how 3 of the 4 remaining teams that have to win the series are still in, it makes possible since it could happen

HoustonGM
10-13-2009, 06:45 PM
Red Sox. 2 titles > everyone else.
The Yankees and Phillies both have a shot at two titles. I voted the Yankees but that's tentative. If they don't win this year, i'll have to reexamine.

KowboyKoop
10-13-2009, 06:53 PM
The poll closes before the WS is over.

FAIL....






































and

































Reported

TheNamelessPoet
10-13-2009, 06:58 PM
The poll closes before the WS is over.

FAIL....

thats so people dont pick AFTER it has been played. we can argue that one AFTERWARDS

SirKodiak
10-13-2009, 07:21 PM
Year Team Won Lost W-L% Finish Playoffs RF RA
2009 BOS 95 67 0.586 2 Lost LDS (3-0) 872 736
2008 BOS 95 67 0.586 2 Lost ALCS (4-3) 845 694
2007 BOS 96 66 0.593 1 Won WS (4-0) 867 657
2006 BOS 86 76 0.531 3 ~ 820 825
2005 BOS 95 67 0.586 2 Lost LDS (3-0) 910 805
2004 BOS 98 64 0.605 2 Won WS (4-0) 949 768
2003 BOS 95 67 0.586 2 Lost ALCS (4-3) 961 809
2002 BOS 93 69 0.574 2 ~ 859 665
2001 BOS 82 79 0.509 2 ~ 772 745
2000 BOS 85 77 0.525 2 ~ 792 745

Year Team Won Lost W-L% Finish Playoffs RF RA
2009 LAA 97 65 0.599 1 Won LDS (3-0) 883 761
2008 LAA 100 62 0.617 1 Lost LDS (3-1) 765 697
2007 LAA 94 68 0.58 1 Lost LDS (3-0) 822 731
2006 LAA 89 73 0.549 2 ~ 766 732
2005 LAA 95 67 0.586 1 Lost ALCS (4-1) 761 643
2004 LAA 92 70 0.568 1 Lost LDS (3-0) 836 734
2003 LAA 77 85 0.475 3 ~ 736 743
2002 LAA 99 63 0.611 2 Won WS (4-3) 851 644
2001 LAA 75 87 0.463 3 ~ 691 730
2000 LAA 82 80 0.506 3 ~ 864 869

Year Team Won Lost W-L% Finish Playoffs RF RA
2009 NYY 103 59 0.636 1 Won LDS (3-0) 915 753
2008 NYY 89 73 0.549 3 ~ 789 727
2007 NYY 94 68 0.58 2 Lost LDS (3-1) 968 777
2006 NYY 97 65 0.599 1 Lost LDS (3-1) 930 767
2005 NYY 95 67 0.586 1 Lost LDS (3-2) 886 789
2004 NYY 101 61 0.623 1 Lost ALCS (4-3) 897 808
2003 NYY 101 61 0.623 1 Lost WS (4-2) 877 716
2002 NYY 103 58 0.64 1 Lost LDS (3-1) 897 697
2001 NYY 95 65 0.594 1 Lost WS (4-3) 804 713
2000 NYY 87 74 0.54 1 Won WS (4-1) 871 814

Year Team Won Lost W-L% Finish Playoffs RF RA
2009 PHI 93 69 0.574 1 Leads LDS (2-1) 820 709
2008 PHI 92 70 0.568 1 Won WS (4-1) 799 680
2007 PHI 89 73 0.549 1 Lost LDS (3-0) 892 821
2006 PHI 85 77 0.525 2 ~ 865 812
2005 PHI 88 74 0.543 2 ~ 807 726
2004 PHI 86 76 0.531 2 ~ 840 781
2003 PHI 86 76 0.531 3 ~ 791 697
2002 PHI 80 81 0.497 3 ~ 710 724
2001 PHI 86 76 0.531 2 ~ 746 719
2000 PHI 65 97 0.401 5 ~ 708 830

Year Team Won Lost W-L% Finish Playoffs RF RA
2009 STL 91 71 0.562 1 Lost LDS (3-0) 730 640
2008 STL 86 76 0.531 4 ~ 779 725
2007 STL 78 84 0.481 3 ~ 725 829
2006 STL 83 78 0.516 1 Won WS (4-1) 781 762
2005 STL 100 62 0.617 1 Lost NLCS (4-2) 805 634
2004 STL 105 57 0.648 1 Lost WS (4-0) 855 659
2003 STL 85 77 0.525 3 ~ 876 796
2002 STL 97 65 0.599 1 Lost NLCS (4-1) 787 648
2001 STL 93 69 0.574 2 Lost LDS (3-2) 814 684
2000 STL 95 67 0.586 1 Lost NLCS (4-1) 887 771

Rongar
10-13-2009, 07:36 PM
Admirable research and exposition, SirK...kudos!

boomboom
10-13-2009, 09:53 PM
Year 2000, is considered last decade. 2009 is part of this decade..We are only in Year 9.

For this decade with the playoffs not finished, it would be the Red Sox.

SirKodiak
10-13-2009, 10:11 PM
Team of the Aughts, make you happy?

boomboom
10-13-2009, 10:19 PM
Team of the Aughts, make you happy?
whatever floats your boat. The Yankees haven't won anything this decade...yet

JamesMogul
10-13-2009, 10:23 PM
Yankees and Cards

KowboyKoop
10-13-2009, 11:00 PM
thats so people dont pick AFTER it has been played. we can argue that one AFTERWARDS

.......we should be picking it after it is over. You don't pick the team of the decade before the decade is over........

rschusta24
10-14-2009, 11:16 AM
The main goal for all baseball teams is to win the World Series, everything else does not matter, obviously we will have to see what happens to the Yankees and Phillies this year and then there can be an argument. Otherwise, regular season stats and standings, could mean less to me. It is all about how many World Series you have won, so you can guess what my vote is currently, until this post-season is over, I will gladly re-evaluate my opinion.

FloydtheBarber
10-14-2009, 11:19 AM
Yankees, the post season is a tota crapshoot

rschusta24
10-14-2009, 11:27 AM
Yankees, the post season is a tota crapshoot

And I am not sure why so many people have voted for the Yankees anyways. They lost a world series this decade. Shouldn't that be like a -1. Especially since it was against the Diamondbacks. The purple team!

HoustonGM
10-14-2009, 12:18 PM
And I am not sure why so many people have voted for the Yankees anyways. They lost a world series this decade. Shouldn't that be like a -1. Especially since it was against the Diamondbacks. The purple team!
How is losing the World Series a negative that wouldn't get held against them had they not made the World Series? That doesn't make much sense.

filihok
10-14-2009, 12:21 PM
Gotta go Yankees, Red Sox, Cards here

Yankees dominated the AL East for most of the decade. Red Sox were their biggest competition, and the Cards have been solid

dps
10-14-2009, 12:55 PM
.......we should be picking it after it is over. You don't pick the team of the decade before the decade is over........

Agree. I'm voting Yankees, but the postseason results this year might change that .

nwuhockey
10-14-2009, 06:02 PM
White sox

rschusta24
10-16-2009, 05:12 PM
How is losing the World Series a negative that wouldn't get held against them had they not made the World Series? That doesn't make much sense.

You think too seriously.

200tang
10-16-2009, 05:49 PM
You think too seriously.

:confused: his point stands, how is losing a WS a negative? To be honest, it's just common sense that getting to a WS is a good thing; it hardly requires serious thinking.

Clay Dreslough
10-19-2009, 08:14 PM
When the Florida Marlins win it all in 2010, can I vote for them?

ewing6
10-19-2009, 08:17 PM
When the Florida Marlins win it all in 2010, can I vote for them?

why not

SirKodiak
10-19-2009, 08:48 PM
When the Florida Marlins win it all in 2010, can I vote for them?


why not

This poll closes before then :p

gosensgo101
10-19-2009, 08:51 PM
This poll closes before then :pClay can change that. :p

5DiMaggio
10-20-2009, 03:19 PM
And I am not sure why so many people have voted for the Yankees anyways. They lost a world series this decade. Shouldn't that be like a -1. Especially since it was against the Diamondbacks. The purple team!

they lost 2 this decade.

Clay Dreslough
10-20-2009, 04:01 PM
they lost 2 this decade.And the 2004 ALCS was like losing 2 more World Series.

200tang
10-20-2009, 04:09 PM
angels is better than boston they made comeback because of steroid users

of course.

haveacigar
10-20-2009, 04:32 PM
i meant to say boston used steriods not angels

I know man. Dave Roberts really needs to put down the needle and stop embarrassing the game. Same with Pokey Reese and Gabe Kapler. Bastards.

haveacigar
10-20-2009, 05:21 PM
first time u not biased against me

I'm still very biased against you.