Team of the Century

[calsnowskier]

For the 20th century (1901-2000), there is no question who "The Team" was. 26 out of 96 championships makes the discussion moot.

However, in the first 14 seasons of the 21st century, who is the Team of the Century so far? I think it is really a discussion of 4 teams, but let's look at all teams that have even the slightest claim...

DiamondBacks - 1-0 in WS; 4 NL West Crowns
Angels - 1-0 in WS; 6 AL West Crowns; 1 Wild Card
Marlins - 1-0 in WS; 1 Wild Card
Red Sox - 3-0 in WS; 2 AL East Crowns; 5 Wild Cards
White Sox - 1-0 in WS; 2 AL Central Crowns
Cardinals - 2-2 in WS; 7 NL Central Crowns; 2 Wild Cards
Phillies - 1-1 in WS; 5 NL East Crowns
Yankees - 1-2 in WS; 9 AL East Crowns; 2 Wild Cards
Giants - 3-1 in WS; 3 NL West Crowns; 2 Wild Cards
Astros - 0-1 in WS; 1 NL Central Crowns; 2 Wild Cards
Tigers - 0-2 in WS; 4 AL Central Crowns; 1 Wild Card
Rockies - 0-1 in WS; 2 Wild Cards
Rays - 0-1 in WS; 2 AL East Crowns; 2 Wild Card
Rangers - 0-2 in WS; 2 AL West Crowns; 1 Wild Card
Royals - 0-1 in WS; 1 Wild Card

I think it is really between the Giants, Cardinals, Red Sox and Yankees. The Giants and Sox both have 3 rings, but the Yanks have owned the AL East division while the Cards have owned the NL Central. Atlanta has won the NL East 6 times, but they never made it to the dance, so you can't really include them in this discussion. The Cards have been to 8 NLCSs, and are 4-4 in them.

 

[tducey]

Definitely the Red Sox.

 

[Clayton]

Yankees and Cardinals have been the most consistent. Red Sox and Giants have had better peaks.

 

[Arizona_Sting]

I'd rank it--- Boston-SF-STL in that order.

 

[The Derski]

Just nitpicking but AZ has 5 Division titles not 4.

 

[Clayton]

I'd rank it--- Boston-SF-STL in that order.

Its pretty amazing how much all 3 teams have gotten done from the Wild Card spot. It makes it hard to compare to the older 'great' teams.

 

[calsnowskier]

Just nitpicking but AZ has 5 Division titles not 4.

???

2001
2002
2007
2011


Are you counting 1999?

 

[MilkSpiller22]

my formula- 25 PTS per WS win, 10 points per WS loss, 5 points per division win, 3 points for wild card winner, 1 point for WC loser( only 2 yrs so far of new WC rules)


Red sox-100
Yankees- 96
Cardinals- 111
Giants- 106

IMO the best team of the century so far is the Cardinals, then Giants, then Red sox, then Yankees

 

[The Derski]

???

2001
2002
2007
2011


Are you counting 1999?

Why wouldn't I? They won 100 games and came in first place? Am I missing something?

 

[The Derski]

I see you started at the new century. I'm an idiot carry on.

 

[calsnowskier]

my formula- 25 PTS per WS win, 10 points per WS loss, 5 points per division win, 3 points for wild card winner, 1 point for WC loser( only 2 yrs so far of new WC rules)


Red sox-100
Yankees- 96
Cardinals- 111
Giants- 106

IMO the best team of the century so far is the Cardinals, then Giants, then Red sox, then Yankees

Interesting breakdown. But why offer extra points for winning the WC game, but no extra points for winning the LDS? I doubt your rankings would change much with this tweak, seeing as the Cards have been a mainstay in the NLCS this century, but I think, moving forward, applying points for advancing may be a good idea.

 

[StanMarsh51]

Interesting breakdown. But why offer extra points for winning the WC game, but no extra points for winning the LDS? I doubt your rankings would change much with this tweak, seeing as the Cards have been a mainstay in the NLCS this century, but I think, moving forward, applying points for advancing may be a good idea.

My guess is that he meant LDS by 'division win.'

Also, I think some added point(s) for regular season achievements could be included in the mix (ie - seasons over .500 and/or seasons with 90+ wins), otherwise it in theory could help teams that aren't good in most years but when they are good do very well, as opposed to teams that are consistently good but may not win it all (or go as far) as much....the points for the playoffs would need to be increased so a lower a lower point value for the regular season records can be assigned.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Interesting breakdown. But why offer extra points for winning the WC game, but no extra points for winning the LDS? I doubt your rankings would change much with this tweak, seeing as the Cards have been a mainstay in the NLCS this century, but I think, moving forward, applying points for advancing may be a good idea.

I gave credit for the WC game only because i don't consider that the real playoffs... It is a one game sudden death to see who makes the playoffs...

I did not include any other playoff game because at the end who cares they were losers anyway... really what is the difference between being a first round loser or a second round loser...

It wouldn't be a big deal to add those, but i just think it is unnecessary, and too complicated...

All that is really important is the regular season and the WS...

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Oh,maybe i was unclear...

5 points for regular season division win

3 points for regular season WC

(NEW WC RULE)

1 point for WC
2 extra points if you win the WC 1 game series...

 

[calsnowskier]

Oh,maybe i was unclear...

5 points for regular season division win

3 points for regular season WC

(NEW WC RULE)

1 point for WC
2 extra points if you win the WC 1 game series...

This was what I thought you meant. I like your explanation.

Just trying to break it and make it unwieldy...

Maybe add points for awards like CY, MVP, etc... While it doesn't mean anything at the end of the day, it adds to chest pumping when you can claim 3 consecutive MVPs or 4 CYs in a row, or 4 ROYs.

 

[Clayton]

I think it would be the Cardinals by a very large margin if the Giants and Red Sox didn't both beat them twice in the playoffs. Sometimes guys like Bumgardner and Ortiz go off. Sometimes the Cardinals just ran into a better and/or healthier team. If we are talking strictly from a championship standpoint, you have to give it to the Giants and Red Sox.

But lets wait another year. Odds are that at least 2 of the Cards, Giants, Red Sox and Yankees will miss the playoffs.

 

[packerzrule]

Giants and Cardinals

 

[jete02fan]

I think it would be the Cardinals by a very large margin if the Giants and Red Sox didn't both beat them twice in the playoffs. Sometimes guys like Bumgardner and Ortiz go off. Sometimes the Cardinals just ran into a better and/or healthier team. If we are talking strictly from a championship standpoint, you have to give it to the Giants and Red Sox.

But lets wait another year. Odds are that at least 2 of the Cards, Giants, Red Sox and Yankees will miss the playoffs.

hard to ignore six titles in 11 seasons,with the Sox 3 for 3

 

[Clayton]

hard to ignore six titles in 11 seasons,with the Sox 3 for 3

If I was forced to give it to one team at this juncture then Id give it to the Red Sox because they have the most memorable championship team (the one that broke the ineptitude streak) and the 2nd most memorable individual performance (Ortiz). They also carry the same image that the Yankees do now as opposed to that underdog image they had previously.

 

[calsnowskier]

If I was forced to give it to one team at this juncture then Id give it to the Red Sox because they have the most memorable championship team (the one that broke the ineptitude streak) and the 2nd most memorable individual performance (Ortiz). They also carry the same image that the Yankees do now as opposed to that underdog image they had previously.

They had the 0-3 comeback as well.