Back in my hardcore scoundrelic days I once pulled a “Book-of-the-Decade Club” scamboozle…this is different.
Tomorrow not only marks the last month of the current season but the final month of the decade (except, of course, for the postseason in October).
As we wind down the first ten years of the 21st century, which clubs have the best shot of being crowned the “Team of the Decade?” While looking at anything in terms of decades is heavily influenced by the start and stop dates, it can still be a fun exercise nonetheless.
Although there are, at most, only a handful of candidates that can lay claim to the Team of the Decade, there is no clear-cut winner at this time. Interestingly, six World Series champions during the decade of 2000-2009 are in line to make the playoffs this season. As a result, there are five teams that could win a second World Series title and a sixth team that could win its third world championship.
If the Red Sox (2004 and 2007) win a third World Series title this October, then there will be no debate as to the Team of the Decade. However, if the New York Yankees (2000) or St. Louis Cardinals (2006) win the championship this year, then it would be difficult not to anoint the Yanks or Cards as the Team of the Decade.
A case could possibly be made on behalf of the Anaheim/Los Angeles Angels (2002) should the current AL West leader capture its second World Series title of the decade. At best, the Angels’ margin of victory would be ever so slim over the Red Sox if the Halos were to win it all this year.
Although the Philadelphia Phillies (2008) and Chicago White Sox (2005) could win a second championship this decade, it would be impossible for either club to leapfrog Boston for this honor as neither team would have as many wins or playoff appearances as the Red Sox.
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.
As a Red Sox fan, I feel the absence of division titles really does limit their claim to TotD. They'd really need to win the WS again (or at the very least, reach it) this year to have a real ironclad grip on the meaningless distinction.
If they go all the way, sure. If they win the pennant but lose the World Series? No.
But only if you insist that your baseball decade must correspond with your mathematical one. But seeing as baseball playing didn't begin with Year 1, or any 1-ending year, there's really no point in insisting that the best of the 1980s or 2000s in baseball has to run from 01-10, other than stubborness.
I'm pretty sure the Romans were the team of that decade.
I'm not sure what you mean by "mathematical one". The calendar decade ends, as GGC said, on 12/31/10. Any other decade is of course arbitrary, but the reference to "the" decade implies the calendar one.
If the Red Sox win a 3rd WS then maybe ... but otherwise the team of the decade is the Yanks.
I think you confuse "the calendar one" with "the pop culture one."
We could literally be discussing any ten year period. Rich is clearly discussing the team of the aughts, not the team of the 200th decade. It's a fairly standard convention that we refer to decades by their tenths digits. Centuries go either way. You wouldn't say that the 1900s ended on December 31, 2000, even though that's when the 20th Century ended.
I'd agree with this if he'd used the phrase "team of the Oughts" or whatever. He also referred to this current year as the "first of the 21st Century".
It isn't a big deal, but it struck me as odd phrasing.
Do more divisional titles really make up for fewer World Series wins? It's hardly like the Sox were good for just the two years (so far) of their championships: they've regularly won plenty of regular season games as well. It strikes me as odd to label a team a Team of the Decade when there's another team that's 1) won games at close to the same rate as the Yankees all decade long, and 2) has more titles.
This is actually an honest question and not snark. These days one has to make that qualification. Sigh.
What if the Cards win, would they have a better claim? The Phils? Weren't the Phils receiving Revenue Sharing funds in this decade?
In Atlanta, apparently yes.
Right. Isn't it equally significant (or equally insignificant) to be the best team of a consecutive 10-year period that does not happen to run from '00 to '09?
Why don't we analyze the best performances from, say, 1997-2006? Because no one cares? Then why do we care about 2000-2009?
EDIT: What SOSH said @ 8.
WS titles is all the Red Sox have over the Yankees. The Red Sox have 1 more world title. The Yankees have won 1 more pennant, 5 more division titles (not counting this year), 3 more playoff appearances (not counting this year), and won 37 more regular season games as of today. Seems to me that as of now, the Yankees body of work trumps the Red Sox.
ok, i agree with that, but it kinda depends on who they lose to if they lose the WS. if its either bos or nyy, then ya they aren't the team of the decade. otherwise its close. go cards.
Carter was still in charge. I was only 12 at the time but, IIRC, lapels were still wide.
When I saw the headline I thought we were talking all-star team. Off the top:
C-IRod? Posada?
1B-Pujols
2B-Kent
SS-Pasta Diving
3B-ARod
LF-Bonds
CF-Berkman?
RF-Vlad
DH-Manny or Giambi
Do you really not know why we care about 2000-2009 more than another random set of 10 years?
Division titles were quite important until they started letting runners up compete in the post-season tournament and call themselves "champions."
And Atlanta would also like to have a word with you about the team of the decade third baseman too.
::ducks::
Or of an argument about whether Italian women are hotter than Ethiopian women. (/ducks underneath a hail of bullets)
I wouldn't be so sure about that - I'd make Germania at least an honorable mention based on Teutoburg Forest 9 A.D. Three of Rome's 28 total legions went in and none came back. It's been termed as the Roman Empire's greatest defeat.
Amongst noteworthy defeats of Evil Empires, Germania vs. Rome ranks right up there with 2004 Red Sox vs Yankees.
Who's eligible next year?
Moyer
Griffey
Big Unit
Vizquel
Smoltz
Anyone else?
EDIT: perhaps I should say "The Sixties"
1) Mets started with optimism (WS in 2000, even if that wasn't in "this decade"), this was a new millenium
2) They floundered around for awhile
3) Wasted a ####-ton of money
4) Find a lot of their followers pointing fingers at everyone in charge
5) Picked fights with the wrong people (Adam Rubin, Iraq)
6) Got ripped off in a Ponzi scheme and watched their spending power completely crumble
How is that not exactly how we're going to remember this decade from a historical perspective?
Edit: I see that I basically just expanded upon Sam H's thesis
Put another way, there was as much a 0 A.D. as there was a 1 A.D., which is to say that neither was recognized as such when they happened, but we can easily point to them now. Which is all we (should) care about.
Very true and your argument has merit and is well supported, however as a Sox fan at this point I would much rather have our 2 world series titles over your 1. As far as I am concerned if you aren't holding the trophy at the end, then you are a loser just like everyone else. But in saying that, yes NY has a better claim to this random distinction at this point.
As for the "decade" distinction, we all know the "correct" version, however as Sam pointed our sensibilities do lean towards staring with the '00 and finishing with the '09.
Heck I'm not sure I rate the Red Sox ahead of my own team, the Cardinals. If the Cardinals win the World Series I think they have an argument (unless they beat the Yankees--then I have to give it back to the Yankees) For the Cardinals to claim ahead of the Yankees though, they really have to finish this season with 97 or so wins.
I don't think that the Angels should enter this discussion to be honest,
You should see the fight about the vote about who wins in a battle between River Tam and Batman over on io9.
But, the answer to your question is still "no".
Hey mate, who you calling a nerd? C'mon over here and I'll....well I'll bamboozle you with my extensive use of the queen's english!
50's - Honeymooners
60's - Dick Van Dyke? Andy Griffith?
70's - MASH
80's - Cheers
90's - Seinfeld
00's - No clue
If the White Sox can rebound and finish over .500, they will have eight out of ten, and one of the other two was 81-81. As a Sox fan, I've always thought that the Sox were the AL version of the Phillies, in that they usually suck and nobody except their fans cares about them, but their fans will kill you if you're an outsider who says they usually suck.
50's - Honeymooners
60's - Dick Van Dyke? Andy Griffith?
70's - MASH
80's - Cheers
90's - Seinfeld
00's - No clue
I might choose Mary Tyler Moore over MASH for the 1970s and The Simpsons over Seinfeld in the 1990s. Otherwise, defensible selections.
Somebody must have missed the debate about whether ZIP Codes represent physical polygons.
Gordon
Sheffield
Did Kent Mercker retire or was he just not signed by anyone? What about Rudy Seanez?
And by ratings Friends was the sitcom of the 90s. Scrubs probably holds the title for the 00s.
Scrubs is good, but nothing can touch South Park for the 00's...nothing.
The Sixties began on Feburary 1, 1960, with the first Greensboro sit-in, and ended on the day in December, 1972, when the last draftee was sworn into the Army. That sit-in got the ball rolling, and the end of the draft stopped it.
Looks it up on google....no, it started in 1997.
Are you going by some official numbers? Because eyeballing the #s on Wikipedia they look comparable, especially when some of Friends' big numbers came in the final seasons from 2000-2004.
Of course we are, we are baseball nerds after all! Actually I didn't consider ratings when I threw South Park out there for the 00's. I just think its better than Scrubs, and would imagine some sympathy amongst the posters here.
60's - Dick Van Dyke? Andy Griffith?
70's - MASH
80's - Cheers
90's - Seinfeld
00's - No clue
For this decade I would say Everybody Loves Raymond by popularity, by quality I would go with Arrested Development or 30 Rock. Add Sex and the City and Entourage for HBO shows.
But, winning more world series and being close in the rest still seems like a win to me. Otherwise, you get the "Buffalo Bills team of the decade" problem. If you have teams equal in titles, the other stuff clearly breaks the tie, though.
"Honeymooners" was very high peak, no career length, as it was only one season (39 episiodes) as a sitcom. "I Love Lucy" would no doubt be the popular choice for the 50's, but personally I would prefer "You'll Never Get Rich" (a.k.a. "The Phil Silvers Show").
DB
Red Sox Fans,
Doesn't it just grind your nads that even with all of the great things that have happened to your club this decade, Theo, the farm system, Monster seats, bloody sock, beating the curse, etc. that the Yanks are right there for TOtD? I mean, this is supposed to be your decade, no? A WS win this year for the Yanks makes it sort of hard to argue that things have changed at all.
Yanks for TotD!!1!
1910-1919: Red Sox
1920-1929: Yankees
1930-1939: Yankees
1940-1949: Yankees
1950-1959: Yankees
1960-1969: Cardinals
1970-1979: Reds
1980-1989: Dodgers?
1990-1999: Yankees
2000-2009: Yankees as of right now
I had to look up the Cards' records for the sixties. They had only one losing record in the period, that in 1965. The Yankees won each of the first five pennants, but then everything went to pot in the next five seasons.
Like the Yankees in the 1960s, the A's in the 1970s were a dominant force - for part of the decade.
The 1980s don't really have a team. The Dodgers were the only ones with more than one World Series victory, and they made the playoffs four times and missed them once when they lost a one-game playoff.
If the Braves had won either of the World Series against the Twins or the Blue Jays, or if they had won it in 1993, or if they had won it in 1997, I'd have picked them. The Yankees could have kept their two victories over the Braves and their 3-2 edge in championships won, and I'd have given it to the Braves because of their excellence throughout the period. A 3-1 edge, though, is too great to overlook.
I can overlook the Red Sox's (Sox'?) edge in championships because it's only by one, and the Yankees, like the '90s Braves, have made the playoffs every year in this period save for one. Although Boston has performed better in the postseason, it missed the playoffs in 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2006, and it missed them in large part because of the Yankees.
The weakest of these is either the 1980s Dodgers or the 2000s Yankees. I don't have a problem with my selection of the Dodgers, but the Yankees-over-Red Sox selection for the current ten-year period is certainly debatable.
The team won two World Series in a span of four seasons. They're right there with the Yankees. Things have absolutely changed.
Um, no, not in the slightest. And as Sweatpants notes, this was really a decade without a truly dominant team like other 10-year stretches (which is likely to continue to happen going forward in the age of expanded playoffs).
Doesn't it just grind your nads that even with all of the great things that have happened to your club this decade, Theo, the farm system, Monster seats, bloody sock, beating the curse, etc. that the Yanks are right there for TOtD? I mean, this is supposed to be your decade, no?
Not really, no. 2004 and 2007 were just glorious and if we can get another one in 2009, then I'd be thinking, hey look we won 3 titles in 6 years....pretty effing cool. Big spending teams will always manage to buy 90 or so wins a year(barring injuries Mets fans), so I don't put much stock in that. Winning championships and going deep in the playoffs are all that really matters IMHO.
Yeah, and of course in many of those pennant-winning seasons the Yankees ran away with it; they were just clearly the dominant team in the league. But the maddening issue for their competitors was that in the many other seasons in which the Yankees weren't clearly the dominant team in the league, in which the pennant was a close call, in which two or even three teams could have viably taken it, the Yankees took it, every time. Every time. No exceptions, over a 30-something-year period.
Very, very remarkable.
Yankees have been steady this decade (which has a season and a month or so to go). However, they have zero championships this decade or century (same as the Indians or Orioles). If they win the WS this year and next then they have a clear claim on the TotD. Otherwise they aren't in the conversation. If the Red Sox win their third of this decade this season or next then it is no doubt they are the TotD. If The Yankees don't win both years or the Red Sox don't win either year the the title is up for grabs. The Cardinals, Angels, and a couple other teams could have a strong finish and make an argument.
But the maddening issue for their competitors was that in the many other seasons in which the Yankees weren't clearly the dominant team in the league, in which the pennant was a close call, in which two or even three teams could have viably taken it, the Yankees took it, every time. Every time. No exceptions, over a 30-something-year period.
Very, very remarkable.
Indeed. And from the advent of divisional play, the Yankees have finished second by five or less games three times, and won their division by that margin eight times.
Tiger Woods has always said that in this respect, the Yankees were his role model. (smile)
In seeming about as fun as a railroad spike, he's succeeded, then. And yet, even HE has a sense of humor. He needs to tighten up. ;-)
I might not remember this correctly, but I think that New York finished a close second in 1935 (yes, I know that the original comment mentioned 1936-1969) and a close third in both 1940 and 1948.
Edit:
3 back in 1935.
3 back in 1940.
2.5 back in 1948.
I really do not. Tell me why this particular 10-year period is more significant than 1999-2008, 1998- 2007, etc.
I'm a programmer. I absolutely count 0 to 9.
As has been said, a decade is arbitrary, and if you want to call a decade "the 1980's" then you have a nice easy set of 10 years that conveniently start with 198_. It makes no sense to do anything else.
Yeah, fair enough. I overstated; both 1940 and 1948 would fairly qualify as seasons in which the Yankees were a viable close contender, and failed to grab the flag. And I suppose 1954 could be construed as such as well, but it would take some persuading to get me there.
But the larger point stands tall: there were many seasons in which the Yankees could quite reasonably have finished a close second or third, but they won the damn flag instead. I'd submit 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1955, 1962, and 1964.
and Pirates and Royals! What a group to belong to!
As a Red Sox fan and because of the very wise statement above, I know think decades should go from xx01-xx00.
The Royals or Pirates?
Edit:
3 back in 1935.
3 back in 1940.
2.5 back in 1948.
In 1935 they were eliminated with six games to play and were 10 games back on September 7th. They just had their best month of the season in September to make it look close. I'd argue it would be a little generous to call 1940 a Yankee pennant race as well - they were 4.5 back with 9 to play and never spent a day of the season in first place. It's a pennant race in the sense they were there and could have conceivably won it, but they were always a little bit behind the Tigers and Indians because at no point after September 2nd were they above 3rd place.
1948 is a legit pennant race, although there is a strangeness to it in that the Yankees were never in first place alone at any point in the season.
The only other example in the dynasty era was 1924, where they did get in a knockdown fistfight with the Nationals, who only clinched on the last day of the season, though they had spent most of September in first place.
So really what history tells us is even more amazing: At no point in the Dynasty era did the Yankees blow a pennant. They either won, had seasons where another team ran away with it, or had "pennant races" where they were not really up to the challenge. There was no season where people sat around in October and talked about how the Yankees blew it.
Yeah, fair enough. I overstated; both 1940 and 1948 would fairly qualify as seasons in which the Yankees were a viable close contender, and failed to grab the flag. And I suppose 1954 could be construed as such as well, but it would take some persuading to get me there.
Not really. That year the Yanks were in first place for about three hours in between games of a doubleheader in mid-July, and even though they made it close through the end of August, they were effectively eliminated by September 12 when the Indians swept them in a doubleheader and knocked them 8 1/2 games behind.
But the larger point stands tall: there were many seasons in which the Yankees could quite reasonably have finished a close second or third, but they won the damn flag instead. I'd submit 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1955, 1962, and 1964.
In 1960 they were tied with the Orioles on September 14th, and then won their last 15 games to pull away. But after the Labor Day weekend they were 2 games behind and actually being written off in some quarters.
In 1961 they'd been nip and tuck with Detroit all year, usually only a game or two ahead, and were only a game and a half ahead when the Tigers came into the Stadium on September 1st. But then the Yanks swept that series and won 13 straight while the Tigers were losing 8 in a row. In both of these years you had a white hot pennant race for many months, and then the other team blinked. And it could have gone either way in both cases.
3-1 WS advantage or not, I have a hard time assigning "team of the decade" honors to a team that didn't make the playoffs until 1995 and had to squeak in with the wild card then.
I'd go with Oakland in the '80s.
True, they had a period (after Martin shredded his starters' arms) of suck, but Billyball sure started the decade off with a bang; and LaRussa made one hell of a team -- as good, if not better, than the early '70s dynasty -- in the last few years of the decade.
I know, they had 5 consecutive losing seasons (but the Dodgers had 4 in 6 years), but their peak was much higher than the Dodgers' (despite '88).
3-1 WS advantage or not, I have a hard time assigning "team of the decade" honors to a team that didn't make the playoffs until 1995 and had to squeak in with the wild card then.
Well, Sam, how's about if we just say that the Braves were the Confederacy's Team of the Decade and leave it at that?
If forced, I'd pick Whitey's Cards, for reaching a WS in the early, middle and later years of the decade.
In reality, the 80s were most accurately defined by the fact there was no team of the decade.
I think we can safely say the Braves were baseball's Team of the Decade. The Yankees might have been the team of the decade in whatever sport it is they play in AL parks.
In October, I think they call that Brave bashing, but I'd have to check with Minnesota and Toronto to be sure. (Gosh, how pathetic was Cleveland?)
That's cute. Call me when any team in either the baseball or professional softball league does anything remotely as impressive as 14 straight.
Also, honest calculations give the Braves 2.5 WS trophies for the 90s. They win the '91 series if the Twins don't turn the fans around while they're at bat in the Metrodome. They split the '96 title due to umpire interference on a routine fly ball that gave the Yankees game five of that series.
Call me when the Braves have done it, as long as we're doing honest calucations.
Please list for me the divisional champions of the NL West, 1991-93 and the NL East 1994-2005. Thx!
Go to DeludedFanboyReference.com (I know you spend a lot of time there). If you click on the page that lists the Braves' title in 1991 and co-world series victory in 1996, you'll find a link to the Expos' 1994 division championship. You can't miss it.
In no small part because claiming they didn't make the playoffs until 1995 ignores their incredibly strong 1994 team.
The post-1995 accomplishments can't be that easily ignored.
Is this what they mean by "fantasy baseball"?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main