• Welcome Guest
St. Louis Cardinals

Welcome to the St. Louis Cardinals.
Before posting, please review our Message Board Guidelines

    • Best and Worst of the Decade
  • To:All
  • Nov-2
  • ortaout85

Best team of the decade has to be the Yankees.

Champs 1X, probably 2X appeared in 4WS Total wins 1026

Also in discussion...Boston 2X Champs 2WS Total wins 955 (2nd)
and.....St. Louis 1X Champs 2WS Total wins 949 (3rd)
Phillies have 870 Total wins behind Angels, Atlanta, Oakland, and White Sox

Worst team is a decision between KC fewest wins 673 no playoffs 1 season above .500 (83wins)
and Pittsburgh 681 wins no playoffs and no winning seasons...I'll go with Pittsburgh!

  • Reply to this Message
  • Nov-3
  • jaynovahawk07

Between Kansas City and Pittsburgh it is very close. They were both miserable this decade.

Which team is exiting the decade on a more promising note?

The Royals have Grienke and Butler. The Pirates have McCutchon.

I'll go with the Pirates as the worst team of the decade.

  • Reply to this Message
  • Nov-3
  • RealFacts

I'm going with KC because they spend more than 3x as much as the Pirates.

EDIT: They are seriously paying Jose Guillen 11 million a year. He's never come close to deserving that in his whole career.


Edited Nov-3   by  RealFacts
  • Reply to this Message
  • Nov-3
  • jaynovahawk07
Good point. The Royals are pretty freaking bad. I can't stand their fans.
  • Reply to this Message
  • Nov-3
  • jimmywood

Hi, ortaout,

Here's an interesting list compiled by TSN (not factoring in 2009). Not sure of the exact criteria here, but it's worth posting for those who haven't seen it:

BEST TEAMS OF THE DECADE

1. 2001 Mariners (116-46)
2. 2005 Cardinals (100-62)
3. 2006 Mets (97-65)
4. 2004 Cardinals (105-57)
5. 2007 Red Sox (96-66)
6. 2004 Red Sox (98-64)
7. 2008 Cubs (97-64)
8. 2001 Diamondbacks (92-70)
9. 2000 Giants (97-65)
10. 2003 Braves (101-61)

Also, they ranked the Yankees the Best Franchise and the Royals the Worst Franchise of the 00s. So, ha, KC. The Cardinals were 3rd, behind Boston.

  • Reply to this Message
  • Nov-3
  • jaynovahawk07

I agree with that list.

If the 2009 Yankees finish the Phillies off though, they deserve to be in the top 10. They had 103 regular season wins.

  • Reply to this Message
  • Nov-3
  • jimmywood

Hi, jaynova,

Here's what TSN lists as THE WORST TEAMS OF THE DECADE:

261. 2006 Rays (61-101)
262. 2008 Nationals (59-102)
263. 2004 Royals (58-104)
264. 2002 Brewers (56-106)
265. 2008 Mariners (61-101)
266. 2006 Royals (62-100)
267. 2001 Pirates (62-100)
268. 2005 Royals (56-106)
269. 2004 Diamondbacks (51-111)
270. 2003 Tigers (43-119)

One word: Abysmal. We can add the 2009 Nationals in there too; they went 59-103. BTW - that Tigers team is the 8th-worst in MLB history. So, ha, Detroit.

  • Reply to this Message
  • Nov-3
  • jack618

Interesting how none of the top 4 on the "BEST OF" list ended up winning the World Series.

It's hard to argue, though. The only major disagreement I have is that I believe the '04 Cardinals were a bit better than the '05 version.

  • Reply to this Message
  • Nov-3
  • jimmywood

Hi, jack,

I noticed the same thing. TSN based its rankings on win-loss records, average margin (runs scored minus runs allowed) and playoff results. For example, they rank the 2003 Yankees 15th among 270 individual teams over the nine-year span, ranking that club higher than the 2000 Yankees, who won the World Series but rank 51st overall.

There may be some other criteria used of which I'm unaware (probably reductive, however, the '05 team boasted both the NL's MVP and CY), but the average margin probably accounts for our '05 club out-ranking the '04 boys.

  • Reply to this Message
  • Nov-3
  • jaynovahawk07

You have to be one of the worst teams of the decade when three of the worst ten seasons in this decade belong to you.

The Royals are really that terrible.

  • Reply to this Message
  • Nov-3
  • SMObfan

Interesting information. I wonder why they ranked the 2005 Cardinals over the 2004 team? Both were very good, but I always thought the 2004 team was a little better. About the only reason I can come up with is they had Larry Walker for the whole season in 2005, and only for the last part of 2004. However, as I recall, Walker was hampered with injury for a good part of the 2005 season.

Both were great teams, and as Cardinal fans, we got more than a little bit spoiled. Lets hope the team can build on the improvement s made in the 2009 season, and start another run.

  • Reply to this Message
  • To:All
  • Nov-4
  • jimmywood

Hi, all,

Just to cap this off, here's the rundown on how TSN ranks all thirty franchises for the decade:

1. Yankees
2. Red Sox
3. Cardinals
4. Athletics
5. Braves
6. Angels
7. White Sox
8. Twins
9. Giants
10. Astros
11. Phillies
12. Dodgers
13. Indians
14. Mariners
15. Mets
16. Cubs
17. Diamondbacks
18. Blue Jays
19. Marlins
20. Padres
21. Rockies
22. Rangers
23. Brewers
24. Reds
25. Tigers
26. Nationals
27. Orioles
28. Pirates
29. Rays
30. Royals

You can factor in the '09 W/L records and adjust accordingly.

  • Reply to this Message
  • Nov-4
  • astatecard

Best of the decade- Cardinals winning a championship in the decade.

Worst of the decade- Cardinals hiring Mark McGwire to be the hitting coach. What are the thinking?

  • Reply to this Message
  • Nov-4
  • sirphobos
I agree with the top 3. I'd probably but the Angels 4th, and it's hard to justify the Rays being 2nd to last when they went to a World Series, even if they were miserable for most of the rest of the decade.

Edited Nov-4   by  sirphobos
  • Reply to this Message