User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 2.0369 seconds
40 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
2 and 3 can be debated between the Cardinals and Red Sox, but the Phillies even with a win, don't enter the discussion.
But if you want to call it vacant, like the 80s were, that's OK too.
I'm pretty sure we've covered this.
2 and 3 can be debated between the Cardinals and Red Sox, but the Phillies even with a win, don't enter the discussion.
2 and 3 don't need to be debated, IMO. The Cardinals are clearly behind the Red Sox, no matter what. If the Yankees win this year, then there's no debate about 1 either.
Now, if the Yankees don't win the WS, then it all depends on how you weight the Red Sox advantage in WS titles and style points (e.g. the comeback and breakthrough in '04) vs. the Yankees advantage in Pennants and Division Titles. This is debatable.
why? It sucks for the Red Sox, but I think division titles have more meaning than making the wild card. That is why I say it can be debated.
Cardinals 6 division titles, 7 post season appearances(with one being a tied division title) 913 wins. 5 first round post season wins, 2 second round wins, 1 world series win.
Red Sox 1 division title 6 post season appearances. 920 wins. 4 first round wins, 2 second round wins, 2 world series wins.
sorry I'm not seeing an obvious difference here.
30) Pittsburgh
29) Montreal/Washington
28) Kansas City
27) Baltimore
26) Cincinnati
Discuss.
only to a blind man, the Yankees own the ####### Red Sox this decade, the Red Sox won one g-d division against them, they do not get to enter the discussion against the Yankees. Not remotely
965 wins vs 920
8 division titles to 1.
4 world series appearances to 2.
1 win vs 2 doesn't make up the massive differences. I mean you can't be serious claiming the Red Sox enter the discussion.
why? It sucks for the Red Sox, but I think division titles have more meaning than making the wild card. That is why I say it can be debated.
Cardinals 6 division titles, 7 post season appearances(with one being a tied division title) 913 wins. 5 first round post season wins, 2 second round wins, 1 world series win.
Red Sox 1 division title 6 post season appearances. 920 wins. 4 first round wins, 2 second round wins, 2 world series wins.
sorry I'm not seeing an obvious difference here.
I think the obvious difference is that the Red Sox play in the AL. Furthermore they play in the AL east. The Cardinals play in the NL and furthermore they play in the NL central. The Cardinals got a division title one year with 83 wins and had a losing recod the next year and had a 3rd or 4th place finish 3 times in this decade. The Red Sox never had a losing season, never had a cheap entrance into the playoffs, and only finished 3rd once this decade. Throw in two titles to one and it should be pretty obvious that the Red Sox have more reasons to be called the TotD than the Cardinals.
don't argue with that, but so what, this isn't name the truly best team based upon circumstances, it's team of the decade. I would never claim that for the entire decade the Cardinals are the better team, and I accept that the Red Sox had the misfortune of playing in the toughest division in baseball, but so what?
disagree about the cheap entrance into the playoffs, people look at the record and don't realize that the Cardinals effectively won the division two weeks earlier. Cardinals had one losing season for the decade. Posted 2 100 win seasons(vs Bostons 0, yes arbitrary win total, but one that sticks in peoples head), had 6 90 win vs 7 for Boston. There is definately debate room here. This isn't the massive blowout that the Yankees own on the Red Sox and pretty much every other team in baseball for this discussion. This is debateable area. This is a perception debate, not a stats only debate.
Both the country and the Mets thought 2009 was the year things would turn back around to the level before the decade began, but a lot of things have gone wrong, but expected and unexpected, and now they're wondering if they're screwed for at least 3 more years.
As for the Cards effectively winning that division two weeks earlier that patently false. After game 158 they were only up by a half game and if Houston had won their final game (game 161) it would have forced a one game playoff. The Cards barely won the division on the final day of the year and they did so with 83 wins. The AL East has never been that pathetic in this decade, and probably throughout the divisional format as well.
But this brings up the question: Braves. 1990s. What is the exchange rate of DIvision Titles for WS championships? The problem here is that everything is relative (this is partly tongue in cheek):
For the Yankees, ONLY a WS championship will truly satisfy them. It'd be like 1000 points for a WS title, 100 points for a WS appearance, everything else is so small it's almost non-existant.
But Mets fans, they consider their WS victories as major life events, after the last few seasons just winning the NL East would probably send them into a frenzy equal to the Yankees are simply about making the world series.
Pirates fans would consider a .500 season worthy of a parade.
Orioles fans would consider Angelos selling the team worthy of a Holiday.
Whoa, whoa, whoa - let's not get too into hypotheticals here.
MY own anecdotal evidence backs this up as well. I know a guy who thinks if the Yanks don't win the WS then that season was pointless and they might as well have had a losing record. Winning 105 games and losing in game 7 of the series equals winning 70 games and finishing last to him. Surreal.
Jayson, it is NOT time to choose the team of the decade. As pointed out upthread, the decade ends at the end of next year, but write this damned column two weeks from today instead.
Given that, the Yankees have not yet won a WS title this decade.
That applies both to the five-year term and to any ceremonial purification of Romans that may be going on right now.
In my brain the millenium changed at the stroke of midnight on December 31, 1999, but decades don't change until the end of the year that ends with zero. It doesn't make sense, but that is what feels right to me.
Using 00-09 'decades' as cultural periods (rather than for counting purposes) is totally valid, and gives pedants something to be snooty about. Win-win.
Agreed with McCoy on the Cards/Red Sox front. I'm not sure why the importance of division titles is "debatable"--they've been watered down three times over with reorganization, unbalanced schedule and the wild card, and now there's six "winners" each year (out of an arbitrary four-six teams). Getting into the postseason is important; but when teams don't care whether they get there as a Division Winner or Wild Card, I'm not sure why we should.
Jayson, it is NOT time to choose the team of the decade. As pointed out upthread, the decade ends at the end of next year, but write this damned column two weeks from today instead.
I'd find this argument more persuasive if MLB was founded in Year 1. But since MLB's history doesn't run concurrently with the calendar, then I'm not sure why the Team of the Decade argument can't follow the numbers in the title. You can just as easily argue that the Team of the Decade is the one that performs the best from ___6 to ____5.
If they win this year and next, they are clearly the team of the decade. If the Phillies win this year and next, they are clearly the team of the decade. If they Yankees win this year and the Phillies, Cardinals or Red Sox win next year, I think next year's winner could make a strong case (an open-and-shut case if it's the Red Sox).
It's not pedantic to point that out; it's wrong. You can start counting a decade (a ten-year period) whenever you want to. In 1999, in 2000, or 10 minutes after lunch.
It depends on how you feel about the National Association.
Just great. I've been exposed as a pedant and an ignoramus.
Yup. Just as you could choose 1901 (when the AL was elevated) or 1903 (when the World Series began). The point is, there's no reason we have to start with Year 1 in such an exercise.
I'm interested in your Post-Lunch Decade, and the Teams of it. Very Interested.
If someone were talking about "the first decade of the 21st century," then yes, 2010 would still be part of that decade. But in practice that is a very inconvenient way to group decades, not to mention wordy.
So what? The Red Sox still made the playoffs about as often, won more games in a tougher league and division, and won more World Series. Only someone with your name would try to make this argument.
Unfortuntately, four pennants and four titles does the trick nicely.
So... you're being pedantic about something that just "feels right". That seems odd.
If someone were talking about "the first decade of the 21st century," then yes, 2010 would still be part of that decade. But in practice that is a very inconvenient way to group decades, not to mention wordy.
This is a problem that pedants run into. At what point does something that once was wrong become acceptable usage? Pedants seem to think "never", but they always seem to base it on what was correct and proper when they were taught. If the phrase "the '90's" means the years 1990-1999 to 98% of the population*, than that's the definition of the phrase. The 2% don't like it, but... too bad.
*I have no idea what the percentage is, but it's very high.
So I have a different spin on the question. I'd answer it as follows:
Team of the Decade: the 2004 Red Sox, hands down, number one.
As for numbers 2-5, discuss.
3. 2001 Diamondbacks (assuming you can have two teams from the same year).
4. 2009 Yankees
5. 2005 White Sox
A Wild Card team? Dubious.
Oh, yeah, you're right, the World Series doesn't count.
(Not to say that I agree with the choice....but come on.)
Well a true pedant would point out that "the 90s" tautologically refers to the years with a "9" in the tens place, thus spanning the years 1990-1999. Those extra 2% who are assuming that "the 90s" is a synonym for "last decade of the 20th century" are wrong and thus very lazy pedants.
I didn't say that, but the 2004 Red Sox weren't the best championship team of the aughts.
Exactly. The 1900s are 1900-1999. The 20th century is 1901-2000. This shouldn't be hard to figure out but people make it so.
BTW: My 2-5 (and I'd agree with Toby's choice at the top) isn't necessarily the five best teams of the decade, but the five teams that are the most representative or memorable from the decade.
That's pretty vague. You mean "the teams that ESPN paid the most attention to"? Because in that case I'd agree.
Well, if you're using that requirement, then at least one Giants team has to be on the list (either 2000 or 2002). The Barry Bonds/Jeff Kent duo/rivalry, and the neverending steroid rumours surrounding those teams make them about as representative and memorable of the decade as anyone.
Stark -> Phillies is becoming worse than Gammons -> Boston.
My ToTd:
1. Yanks (regardless of this series)
2. Sox
3. Cards
4. Angels
5. -------
but people will use 1900s and 20th century interchangeably. not that i'm espousing anything. just sayin.
That's certainly understandable - they have 98% overlap.
Fine JRE, so take the White Sox off my list.
Come on, the 2004 Sox were a huge story no matter how much you guys are tired of me and my ilk. As for the rest: the 01 Mariners (116 wins, Ichiro mania, After Arod, Griff and Johnson); the 2001 Diamondbacks (one of two best world series of decade, two larger than life starting pitchers carrying them, overcoming Mariano, Sept. 11 backdrop); 2009 Yankees (new stadium, opening the wallet for three big FA signings, Arod's steroid backdrop); 05 white Sox (wire to wire, most dominating postseason run of the decade; Ozzie; ending long drought and beating Cubs to the punch in the process).
If you've got other teams you think belong there instead, make a legitimate argument, instead of one that would fit nicely under Halofan's handle.
Well, if you're using that requirement, then at least one Giants team has to be on the list (either 2000 or 2002).
Not on mine, but freel free to include them on yours.
Since it's a thread about pedantry :-) isn't it 99% overlap. They have 99 years in common, 1901-1999, and each add one more, not in common.
Well, I'm not really interested in "story". My list would be boring - I'd just take the teams with the most regular season wins and give them a bonus if they won the championship.
So exactly what was the point of, "You mean "the teams that ESPN paid the most attention to"? Because in that case I'd agree?"
Again, don't stoop to Halofan's level.
Why not just add regular season victories and postseason victories?
Because there's really no basis for the hype that team is still given, other than Boston's proximity to ESPN's headquarters.
If you want to say that the 2004 postseason was the most interesting postseason of the aughts, I would agree. But to go from there to the team of the decade is a big leap.
That might work, although I'd give maybe a five-win bonus for winning it all.
Which they won once in ten years. Kick-ass team of the decade there. And the Yankees have been most notable in the oughts for their failure to make it to the World Series year after year despite having a huge payroll advantage over everyone else. Nothing any team did has been impressive over the whole decade, I agree with those who say there has been no team of the decade for the last 10 years.
? The Yankees made the World Series more times during the decade than any other team. In fact, they made the World Series more times during this decade than they did during the 90s.
Teams that have won 4 or more pennants during a decade:
2000-2009 NYY
1990-1999 Atl
1970-1979 Cin
1960-1969 NYY
1950-1959 Brk/LA
1950-1959 NYY
1940-1949 NYY
1940-1949 StL Cards
1930-1939 NYY
1920-1929 NYY
1920-1929 NYG
1910-1919 NYG
1910-1919 Red Sox
1910-1919 Phi A's
1900-1909 Pit
1890-1899 Beaneaters
1880-1889 White Stockings
Well yeah, I too, say there is no TotD but in summing up the merits of the teams it is pretty clear that the Cards have less of an argument than the Red Sox and Yankees which is what my post was referring too.
As for numbers 2-5, discuss.
World Series winners only, from an October perspective and not a regular season one:
2007 Red Sox Won everything in a tough league and swept a red hot team in the Series
2004 Red Sox Did everything but win the division, and swept the best overall NL team of the decade
2000 Yankees Got better and better as the postseason progressed
2001 Diamondbacks World Series run differential: 37-14
2005 White Sox / 2003 Marlins
If the Yanks win the Series, they'd jump to the top. If the Phillies win, they'd go up to #2.
A more balanced perspective of regular season + postseason
2007 Red Sox
2001 Mariners
2004 Red Sox
2004 Cardinals
2003 Yankees
And again, if the Yanks win, they're the new #1 of the decade. If the Yankees lose a close Series, they're # 4. And if the Phillies win, they're the new #3.
For me, it's people calling mounted soldiers "Calvary".
Of course Chicago won the pennant 4 times from 1901-1910, so for the sake of the Cubs I'm willing to be pendantic just this one time.
If I was in some outpost in the wild west "calvary" might be a pet peeve but the word so seldom comes up.
Guilty. I also say "Pome" for "Poem."
I do, however, say eT cetera.
Well, it's used frequently nowadays as an idiom, as in "...and Girardi calls for the calvary. Here comes Rivera...", so yeah, it's grating.
Sorry Bob, me and many posts above disagree. As a Sox fan it pains me to admit this, but NY must be considered the team of the decade. This 4th WS appearance put them over the top regardless of the outcome. If the Sox had made it 3 appearances, then I'd say for sure they are #1. The 8 division titles are too much to just overlook.
but people will use 1900s and 20th century interchangeably. not that i'm espousing anything. just sayin.
People drink appletinis and eat asparagus. People are dumb.
But I don't think it's pedantic to note when the decade ends, after the 2010 season.
It's easy to understand why people would hypercorrect the idea of a decade based on the established practice of counting centuries and millennia, but it then follows that you should start referring to the "201st Decade". In the meantime, note that those terms, absent a qualifying count and capitalization, simply refer to a period of x years, and that people overwhelmingly use "decade" to refer to periods of ten years beginning with the ---0 year and ending with the ---9 year. There is no definition of "the decade" as you are using it.
PS: It's a trap!
I get the appletini bit, but what's wrong with aparagus?! It can be delicious. Or is the combination of the two? Then, yeah, that's dumb.
This is the last time I'm saying this: Steve Phillips did not trade Scott Kazmir. Technically speaking, Jim Duquette did that.
what is your definition of title... as far as I'm concerned the red sox have one title, and two world series titles, the cardinals have 6 titles and one world series titles.. I can't imagine a universe where the red sox have more titles than the cardinals, when you are talking about a team that won exactly one division in the decade... don't care about the level of competition for this argument... one freaking title.... really? you want to claim a team of the decade based upon one division title... god you red sox fans are delusional. it's bad enough you are pompous asses when it comes to brady and football, but seriously win a division more than once a decade.....
there is a ####### reason everyone hates red sox fans, and you just exhibit part of..... notice the damn wordl almost in your thread.... if you read everything I wrote I said it was a g-d debate.... and some idiot decided to actually claim that the red sox are 1. clearly ahead of the Cardinals... and two..way more silly that they might have an argument on par with the Yankees....sorry but not even a republican, fox news pundit can come up with a stupid enough reason to put the red sox first... but heck Joe C can think it's debateable(it's not, the yankees have won regardless of the result of this world series, to claim differently is just idiotic)
Of course I say budder instead of butter, but who among us is perfect?
well clearly not you.
That depends on the criteria you use to evaluete success in the fan's perspective. If I want to use fan's satisfaction as my measure then maybe the yankees are not number one.
huh.... I'm sorry, but I'm gettiing attacked with typical boston fan stupidity, I just don't get this comment.
four ####### world series appearances.... next best team(cardinals, phillies and some wild card team called boston are the only other teams that have even two appearances... so i'm not sure I''m understanding the debate about the team of the decade... fans perspective means jack #### to be honest)
By this logic, the Yanks can never be the team of any decade since we're never satisfied. It's never enough, whatever it is.
Anyway, I agree with you in that the Yankees are the team of the decade. But I don't think their fans feel good about this decade yet.
Exactly! Isn't that awesome for the rest of the world??
Let's check the history books...
Yes! The Pirates gained a moral victory, thereby exceeding their fans' expectations for this decade, when they took a series sometime during one of the regular seasons against the Cardinals. So the Pirates: Team of the Decade.
I'll go first.
1b-Albert Pujols
Let's fill out the roster.
CF - Carlos Beltran, or Jim Edmonds?
There's a question about where one wants to put A-Rod.
Goddammit CFB. I hate this ########. McCoy isn't a Red Sox fan. He just happens to think that additional World Series victories trump the Cards' substantial edge in division titles. I don't happen to agree with him in this case (and I am a Red Sox fan), but it's not exactly some one-of-a-kind opinion. Argue the position he's taking, not some non-existent motivation he has for taking it.
Wrong again chuckles. I am not a Red Sox fan and you really are showing your fanboyishness.
Don't care about the level of competition? Of course you should care about the level of competition or do you go around saying some high school basketball team that hasn't lost a basketball game in 5 years is the best team in basketball? Really, before you go throwing around fanboy insults you should keep your own fanboyishness in check. It looks much better if you do.
Nobody on this planet besides maybe, um, a Card's fanboy would think the Cardinals were a better team in the aughts than the Red Sox.
Well, I don't think it is just the World Series title. Like I said in my initial post about this I happen to think it is because the Red Sox have done just as well or better (in terms of wins and WS titles) while playing in a tougher league and division than the Cards all while never having a losing season and only finishing third once in the decade. While the Cards playing in a much much easier division have managed to have a losing season, finish third or worse a bunch of times, and happened to have one of their titles gained while winning 83 games. Then throw in the fact that the 2004 Red Sox swept the Cards in the series and well, that is just scones to the tea.
Fair enough. It wasn't really my intention to pin you down to a single reason, just that whatever your reasons, it had nothing to do with any fanboyishness.
This reflects my personal feelings, as well.
My instinct is to classify A-Rod as a SS for exactly the opposite reasons to [95].
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main