MLB team of the decade

Home The Cardinal Nation Forums Open Forum MLB team of the decade

This topic contains 11 replies, has 6 voices, and was last updated by Avatar mspaid 1 day, 13 hours ago.

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #113500
    Brian Walton
    Brian Walton
    Keymaster

    Paid - Annual

    The author picks the Astros, but a BA writer likes the Cardinals. No obvious and clear answer.

    #113506
    Brian Walton
    Brian Walton
    Keymaster

    Paid - Annual

    #113572
    bicyclemike
    bicyclemike
    Moderator

    Paid - Annual

    Cool to see teams like the Royals, Rangers, Nationals and Astros ahead of the Yankees and Cubs. If only the Red Sox were down a few pegs……

    #113577
    Avatar
    gscottar
    Participant

    Paid - Annual

    It would be hard not to pick the Giants as the team of the decade considering their 3 titles.

    #113850
    Avatar
    Cardinals27
    Participant

    Paid - Annual

    Shouldn’t you deduct points for 90 and 100+ loss seasons?

    #113865
    bicyclemike
    bicyclemike
    Moderator

    Paid - Annual

    Astros are only the team of the second half of the decade. Personally I rank World Series wins high whenever gauging great teams. A great regular season team that loses the World Series knocks it down a few notches. A good case in point with the Cardinals is the 2004 team.

    So the Giants are a solid choice for team of the decade. But a good case can be made for others.

    And as has been pointed out, and debated some on Twitter as well, what about poor seasons? This ranking is based solely on how high you fly. But including every season with the bad seasons watering down the good is another way to look at it. But if you want to do that, you probably just use total decade wins, then maybe add bonus points for World Series appearances and World Championships.

    #113868
    stlcard25
    stlcard25
    Participant

    Paid - Annual

    Personally, I take less stock in the crapshoot playoff results than others. Getting hot for a couple of weeks doesn’t make you a great team any more than losing to said hot team makes you a mediocre one. 2004’s Cards were a great example. They had potentially 5 Hall of Fame caliber players in that lineup, three of whom had MVP caliber seasons. The pitching staff was led much of the year by a surefire Cardinals Hall of Famer. The bullpen was very good. They beat a fantastic Astros team in the NLCS. The Red Sox that year had Schilling and Pedro, who was on the decline at that point, and known PED cheats Ortiz and Ramirez. If the Cards and Sox had played 162 times that year the Cards would have won 90 games, IMO.

    Anyway, the point being…the Giants got the 3 titles and that’s important but as an entire book of work, I’d put the Dodgers and Cards right there with them. At least they weren’t tanking like the Red Sox and Astros.

    #113904
    Avatar
    gscottar
    Participant

    Paid - Annual

    If we are going to discount the postseason then the Yankees, Dodgers, and Cards were the the three best teams of the decade but I am still going with the Giants. Winning one world series in a decade might be a fluke but winning three is not a fluke. They had a great core for a few years and a HOF manager.

    #113907
    stlcard25
    stlcard25
    Participant

    Paid - Annual

    I’m not discounting the postseason. You take your chances with the postseason every year and sometimes it works out better for you than others. The 2004 and 2005 Cards teams were far better than 2006, but 2006 won the title. The 2013 team was better than the 2011 team but the 2011 flag is flying. Anyway, the point isn’t that winning a World Series is meaningless…but to me it’s more of a tiebreaker than the shut and closed case.

    On a slight side note, I’ve always been a small playoff guy. I dislike the Wild Card and don’t even like having three divisions. If it were up to me it would be two divisions, no interleague, division winners only in the Championship Series and then the World Series. This new system rewards middling play and fans just eat up the narrative that the “best” team won because they got hot for three weeks in a thirty week season.

    #113910
    Avatar
    Cardinals27
    Participant

    Paid - Annual

    It would be interesting to have a chart like this for the 2000’s. We would add 1 more World Series, 1 pennant, and 6 more division titles, including 2 100 win seasons. That’s a pretty awesome run!!

    #114713
    Brian Walton
    Brian Walton
    Keymaster

    Paid - Annual

    The Cardinals may not be the team of the decade, but they are clearly the “Team of the Central Division” since its creation in 1994.

    “The Cardinals now have as many NL Central Division titles as the four other current teams combined.”

    #114719
    Avatar
    mspaid
    Participant

    Team of the Decade

    First Place
    Three World Series Titles
    Giants
    Second Place
    Two World Series Titles
    Red Sox
    Third Place
    One World Series Title
    Cardinals, Royals, Cubs, Astros, Nationals

    Those are teams of the decade in their proper places.

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

First-hand news and commentary on the St. Louis Cardinalsâ„¢ and their minor league system for 20 years