The Baseball Analysts: Team of the Decade?

Team of the Decade?

By Rich Lederer

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.

Let's take a look at the pertinent facts involved in designating the Team of the Decade. We'll start off ranking clubs by wins (2009 totals through Sunday, August 30).

Num	TEAM	2009	2008	2007	2006	2005	2004	2003	2002	2001	2000	TOTAL
1	NYY	82	89	94	97	95	101	101	103	95	87	944
2	BOS	76	95	96	86	95	98	95	93	82	85	901
3	STL	77	86	78	83	100	105	85	97	93	95	899
4	LAA	77	100	94	89	95	92	78	99	75	82	881
5	ATL	68	72	84	79	90	96	101	101	88	95	874
6	OAK	57	75	76	93	88	91	96	103	102	91	872
7	LAD	78	84	82	88	71	93	85	92	86	86	845
8	CWS	64	89	72	90	99	83	86	81	83	95	842
9	MIN	65	88	79	96	83	91	90	94	85	69	840
10	SF	72	72	71	76	75	91	100	95	90	97	839
11	PHI	75	92	89	85	88	86	86	80	86	65	832
12	SEA	68	61	88	78	69	63	93	93	116	91	820
13	HOU	62	86	73	82	89	92	87	84	93	72	820
14	CLE	58	81	97	78	93	80	68	74	91	90	810
15	NYM	59	89	88	97	83	71	66	75	82	94	804
16	ARI	59	82	90	76	77	51	84	98	92	85	794
17	FLA	68	84	71	78	83	83	91	79	76	79	792
18	CHC	65	97	85	66	79	89	88	67	88	65	789
19	TOR	58	86	83	87	80	67	86	78	80	83	788
20	TEX	72	79	75	80	79	89	71	72	73	71	761
21	COL	72	74	90	76	67	68	74	73	73	82	749
22	SD	56	63	89	88	82	87	63	66	79	76	749
23	CIN	56	74	72	80	73	76	69	78	66	85	729
24	MIL	64	90	83	75	81	67	68	56	68	73	725
25	DET	69	74	88	95	71	72	43	55	66	79	712
26	WAS	46	59	73	71	81	67	83	83	68	67	698
27	BAL	54	68	69	70	74	78	71	67	63	74	688
28	TB	70	97	66	61	67	70	63	55	62	69	680
29	PIT	53	67	68	67	67	72	75	72	62	69	672
30	KC	50	75	69	62	56	58	83	62	65	77	657

As shown, the Yankees lead by a fairly sizable margin over their division rivals. The gap works out to an average of more than four wins per season. In addition, the Bronx Bombers are the only team with three 100-win seasons thus far and the lone club projected to reach triple digits in victories in 2009.

The Cardinals, Atlanta Braves, and Oakland A's have each had two 100-win seasons this decade. Each of the top six clubs have had five 90-win seasons. It's easy for fans with short memories to forget the Braves and A's but take a look at how successful they were from 2000 through 2005 (ATL) or 2006 (OAK).

The San Francisco Giants are the only other team to win 90 games in a single season five times. Of note, the Giants performed their feat five years in a row (2000-2004) but have not won more than 76 since then (although the club is on pace to win 89 this year).

For what it's worth, the Seattle Mariners started the decade on fire, winning at least 90 games in each of the first four years (with a MLB decade-high of 116 in 2001).

At the other end of the spectrum, check out the Kansas City Royals, Pittsburgh Pirates, and Baltimore Orioles. All three teams are fighting for the dubious honor of the "Worst Team of the Decade." None of these clubs have made the postseason and only the Royals have had a winning season (2003) during the opening decade of the century.

Next, we'll take a close look at the World Series, pennant, and division champs, as well as the wild card winners year-by-year.

	2008	2007	2006	2005	2004	2003	2002	2001	2000
WS CHAMP	PHI	BOS	STL	CWS	BOS	FLA	LAA	ARI	NYY
LOSER	TB	COL	DET	HOU	STL	NYY	SF	NYY	NYM
AL EAST	TB	BOS	NYY	NYY	NYY	NYY	NYY	NYY	NYY
AL CENT	CWS	CLE	MIN	CWS	MIN	MIN	MIN	CLE	CWS
AL WEST	LAA	LAA	OAK	LAA	LAA	OAK	OAK	SEA	OAK
AL WILD	BOS	NYY	DET	BOS	BOS	BOS	LAA	OAK	SEA
NL EAST	PHI	PHI	NYM	ATL	ATL	ATL	ATL	ATL	ATL
NL CENT	CHC	CHC	STL	STL	STL	CHC	STL	HOU	STL
NL WEST	LAD	ARI	SD	SD	LAD	SF	ARI	ARI	SF
NL WILD	MIL	COL	LAD	HOU	HOU	FLA	SF	STL	NYM

As discussed in the opening, the Red Sox are the only team to have captured two World Series titles thus far. The Yankees, Angels, White Sox, Cardinals, and Phillies (and possibly the Florida Marlins if they qualify for the postseason this year) could win a second championship as well.

NYY (3), BOS and STL (2 each) are the only clubs to appear in more than one World Series this decade. The Red Sox are 2-for-2 while the Yankees and Cardinals have each lost at least one World Series.

The Yankees have won seven division titles, the Braves have six, the Cardinals five, and the Angels, A's, and the Minnesota Twins four each. Boston's four wild cards rank first this decade.

All in all, the Yankees lead the majors with eight postseason appearances during the first nine years of the century. New York is followed by the Cardinals and Braves (6 each) and the Red Sox, Angels, and A's (5 each).

Here is a summary of the qualifications of the leading candidates to become the Team of the Decade.

If Los Angeles wins it all this year, the case for the Angels will be as follows:

2 World Series championships
2 pennants
3 LCS appearances
5 Division titles (including 2009)

If St. Louis wins it all this year, the case for the Cardinals will be:

2 World Series championships
3 pennants
6 LCS appearances
6 Division titles (including 2009)

If New York wins, the case for the Yankees will be:

2 World Series championships
4 pennants
5 LCS appearances
8 Division titles (including 2009)

If Boston wins, the case for the Red Sox will be:

3 World Series championships
3 pennants
5 LCS appearances
1 Division title
5 Wild Cards (including 2009)

It says here that whichever of these four teams wins it all this year, such club will be the Team of the Decade (although, in fairness to Boston, the Angels might have to put a "Co-" in front of their honor). If none of them wins it, then the Red Sox, by virtue of the two World Series championships in 2004 and 2007, will lay claim to the title.

Thanks to Brian Gunn for providing the inspiration to this piece.

Comments

This is a pet peeve of mine, so don't take it personally. Decades run from 1 to 0, not 0 to 9. There was no year 0, so the first decade of the common era ran from 1 to 10. The decade won't be over until next year.

We get confused about this because of the way we measure age. We measure age by the number of years we've completed. If we measured age like we count years, I'd be in my 50th year, not 49 years old.

Posted by: David Pinto at August 31, 2009 5:31 AM

Hate to point this out, as a Sox fan, but Tampa won the East last year, and the Sox were the wild card. I don't know how much that would change your calculations.

Posted by: bullfrog at August 31, 2009 6:10 AM

@David: Thanks for the link at Baseball Musings. I understand the technical nature of counting years, decades, and centuries. Maybe labeling the period 2000-2009 as a decade is wrong from that standpoint, but I think of these 10 years no differently than the Roaring 20s (1920-29) or the '80s (1980-89) or '90s (1990-99). Unfortunately, society has not come up with a descriptive or easy to say name for the 2000s (?) or the '00s (?).

@bullfrog: Thank you for pointing out that mistake. I picked up my wild cards from baseball-reference.com and I now see that this site has BOS and TB both asterisked as wild cards. I have since corrected it. Re your second comment, I don't think this matter changes my perception of the Red Sox or the Team of the Decade.

Posted by: Rich Lederer at August 31, 2009 7:21 AM

Good organizing of facts, however I take exception with your conclusion.

"If none of them wins it, then the Red Sox, by virtue of the two World Series championships in 2004 and 2007, will lay claim to the title."

You're giving far too much weight to just 2 WS wins. Does this mean that the 90's Blue Jays were superior to the Braves? How about the 80's Cards to the field? To some extent, the post-season is s small-sample size crapshoot. Determining the quality of a team is more properly measured by their performance over the course of a season.

Posted by: Joe Vogel at August 31, 2009 7:29 AM

Correction:

If New York wins, then it will have won 8 Division Titles including 2009, not 7.
2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2009

Perhaps I am a biased NY fan, but unless Boston or StL wins, I don't think anyone tops the Yankees. We all know how much luck is involved in short series in the postseason.

Given that, the Yankees missed the post season only once, are on the way to winning 8! Division Titiles in the toughest division in baseball, and have a dominating lead in wins.

On pace for a fourth 100-win season, and a decade low of 87 wins

Posted by: Steve at August 31, 2009 7:46 AM

@Joe: I believe my conclusion is correct but perhaps I should have listed Boston's other accomplishments in that sentence as it wasn't my intention to go by number of World Series titles only. However, I thought the summary above took care of that.

@Steve: Yes, NYY would have eight division titles including 2009. I got it right in the narrative but not in the summary. I have fixed the latter. Thanks. Yes, a case could be made for the Yankees for Team of the Decade. The club wins going away with a second World Series championship and possibly could lay claim to the honor, as you said, if any team other than the Red Sox or Cardinals wins it all this year.

Posted by: Rich Lederer at August 31, 2009 7:57 AM

Additionally, you may want to have an AL team and a NL team listed separately.

It goes without saying that the American League has been far superior to the NL over the last decade. Though the WS split is only 5-4 in favor of the AL thus far, the AL has dominated the NL in interleague play.

Though the All Star game is not the most telling statistic, the NL has not won one this decade (for added measure).

As a result, I think New York and Boston's 4 LCS appearances are far more impressive that St. Louis's 5.

Posted by: Steve at August 31, 2009 7:57 AM

I realize I said "it goes without saying," and then went on to "say" it and list reasons.

Forgive me, it's early.

Posted by: Steve at August 31, 2009 8:03 AM

Cardinals tied for the division championship in '01. They were seeded as the wild card because MLB agreed to waive the tie-breaker if it would only effect postseason seeding.

Incidentally, the majority of the Cardinals' LCS appearances (And all of the Yankees') happened in the first half of the decade, when there is no evidence that the AL was the superior league.

Posted by: cpebbles at August 31, 2009 8:43 AM

I never understood the need to do the XXX of the Decade before the decade was over. CNNSI.com had a feature a month or two ago about the NFL team of the decade, but they were going on the assumption that the Steelers would win the Super Bowl this next year. Really? That's your basis of a feature article? Writing articles like this seem like poor space filler to me. How about we decide the team of the decade AFTER the decade is over so we don't have to write 20 paragraphs on what-ifs. Oh, and the poster is correct above - the decade starts in the 1 year and ends in the 0 year. 2001-2010. Otherwise, you're just writing an article on the best teams of the past 10 years (which is, of course, valid, once the season is over).

Posted by: quotemeister at August 31, 2009 9:19 AM

I have to agree with David Pinto. The decade is between 2001 and 2010 and has another year to run. And this means the Yankees have won no WS titles this decade (yet), though they still have comfortable leads in wins and playoff appearances.

You could probably discuss the best team since the 1994 strike, though in that case the Yankees' lead would be even greater. The worst team would also pretty obviously be the Royals.

Posted by: Ed at August 31, 2009 9:24 AM

"The majority of the Cardinals' LCS appearances (And all of the Yankees') happened in the first half of the decade, when there is no evidence that the AL was the superior league."

cpebbles is right -- the AL's interleague record was 632-626 in the first half of the decade, a wash. (Although, yes, after that the AL has been markedly superior, which is one of the reasons I give the Yanks and Sox extra "degree of difficulty" points for their success.)

As for quotemeister's point -- "I never understood the need to do the XXX of the Decade before the decade was over" -- it boils down to stakes. If the Yanks, Red Sox, Cards, and Angels all make the postseason this year (and it looks like they will), then bigger bragging rights are on the line that go beyond this year. Seems pretty fun to know that.

As for Ed and Dave Pinto's point about the definition of a decade -- technically of course you're both correct, but that's not the colloquial use of the term. Who thinks the 1960's ended in 1970?

Posted by: Brian Gunn at August 31, 2009 9:49 AM

Assuming the Angels win it all this year, wouldn't you have to take into account that the Angels lost to the Red Sox in 2004, 2007, and 2008 in the playoffs? I would think that alone would keep the Angels from taking that top spot.

Posted by: BillyBeaneismyHero at August 31, 2009 9:53 AM

The modern decade indeed runs 0-9. 1920 is part of the twenties. 1990 is part of the 90s. Likewise, 2000 is part of the oughts. That's just how our modern system works. We can just say that year 0 was the year before they started counting years. It doesn't really matter.

Posted by: AndrewYF at August 31, 2009 10:17 AM

I am not an Angels fan in any respect. Nevertheless, if you throw the stats out and look at influence on baseball, the clear team of the decade is the Angels.

The "Angel Way" has become a winning formula for several teams besides the Angels including the last two WS losers: TB and COL. Their formula has also influenced teams like STL and BOS to make moves for more speed and defense in order to improve. The Angels typify what baseball has become over the last half of the decade.

This argument is similar to throwing out the Oakland A's as the team of the 1970s. Even though Oakland won three WS during the 1970s, the style of baseball played by Baltimore typified the era. Even though Orioles won only one series, their influence was felt throughout the league. In fact, their style was called the "Oriole Way."

Posted by: CP at August 31, 2009 12:17 PM

"...if you throw the stats out and look at influence on baseball, the clear team of the decade is the Angels."

Couldn't you make an equally compelling case, CP, that the '00s is the era of the sabermetric revolution, and therefore those early sabr adopters like the A's and Red Sox are the teams of the decade? Frankly I think of the Angels' philosophy as a bit of an anomaly this decade.

Posted by: Brian Gunn at August 31, 2009 12:39 PM

Should the Cardinals win this year and be given the label "Team of the Decade", I'd say that's appropriate as it would highlight how inflated the quality of a team looks when it comes from an inferior league. Though those above who point out the lack of league superiority early in the decade have a point.

I like what the Angels have done this decade, so I'd wholeheartedly approve their earning the title with a championship this year.

But I don't care what the NYYs do this year, they don't get it in my book. Given their financial superiority, and how they've been able to earn multiple "team of the decade" titles do to that superiority, don't they deserve some kind of handicap? Their win lead isn't overwhelming, and if they can't pace baseball in championships in the decade it isn't all that impressive, given their starting place.

Posted by: Peter at August 31, 2009 2:06 PM

Right on David Pinto. Sounds like the author could be a Skanks fan.

Posted by: John cuckti at August 31, 2009 4:25 PM

Take this with a grain of salt, Peter, b/c I'm a huge Cardinals fan and clearly biased -- but I'm having trouble following your logic.

As you yourself acknowledge, the Cards won 4 division titles and made it to 3 league championship series BEFORE there was a pronounced disparity between the leagues. That's more division titles than, say, the Red Sox have won this entire decade.

What's more, if you're going to discount the Yankees' success because of their financial superiority, don't you have to adjust the numbers in such a way that benefits the Cardinals? After all, the Cards have the 24th biggest market in MLB, and they've averaged the 10th highest payroll this decade -- far behind the Yanks, Red Sox, or Angels. In 2004, for example, the Yankees' payroll was 45% higher than the Red Sox... and the Red Sox payroll, in turn, was 53% higher than the Cardinals'.

Does this mean we should discount the results of the '04 World Series b/c of Boston's financial superiority? Of course not. Nor should we hold the Yankees' success against them for the same reason.

Posted by: Brian Gunn at August 31, 2009 4:31 PM

C'mon Pinto. You're smarter than that... Decades run from 0 to 9. By your logic the end of the millenium would be after year 2000 not 1999. That just isn't right. My pet peeve is guys that get it wrong, with the best of intentions, don't acknowledge they are wrong and ammend the thought process. You can concede and appologize at any time. As Judge Smails so eloquently said, "Well, we're waiting..."

Posted by: Wimbo at September 1, 2009 9:28 AM