Posts: 5,185
Threads: 174
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
Presuming the Yankees close out the WS, I hate it, but there's no way they are not the team of the decade, by any measurable category:
2000-2009
9 Playoff Appearances - Rank: 1 (STL 2nd with 7)
8 Division Titles - Rank: 1 (ATL & STL 2nd with 6)
5 LCS Appearances - Rank: T1 (tied with STL)
4 WS Appearances - Rank: 1 (BOS, PHI, & STL 2nd with 2)
2 WS Titles (presuming 2009) - Rank: T1 (tied with BOS)
This is not some silly theory that's unsupported and deserves being mocked by photos of Xena. ![[Image: ITgoyeg.png]](http://i.imgur.com/ITgoyeg.png)
Posts: 11,761
Threads: 388
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=68050:date=Nov 3 2009, 08:12 AM:name=Kid)-->QUOTE (Kid @ Nov 3 2009, 08:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Presuming the Yankees close out the WS, I hate it, but there's no way they are not the team of the decade, by any measurable category:
2000-2009
9 Playoff Appearances - Rank: 1 (STL 2nd with 7)
8 Division Titles - Rank: 1 (ATL & STL 2nd with 6)
5 LCS Appearances - Rank: T1 (tied with STL)
4 WS Appearances - Rank: 1 (BOS, PHI, & STL 2nd with 2)
2 WS Titles (presuming 2009) - Rank: T1 (tied with BOS)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not the one who made up "team of the decade," but doesn't Boston get some sort of intangible points for ending their drought? They're right up there in every other category, too.
Posts: 3,165
Threads: 12
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation:
0
Whenever I feel glum, I turn to the <i>Fire Joe Morgan</i> archives for some good old fashioned Phil Rogers bashing.
One dick can poke an eye out. A hundred dicks can move mountains.
--Veryzer
Posts: 5,185
Threads: 174
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=68051:date=Nov 3 2009, 09:15 AM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Nov 3 2009, 09:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=68050:date=Nov 3 2009, 08:12 AM:name=Kid)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid @ Nov 3 2009, 08:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Presuming the Yankees close out the WS, I hate it, but there's no way they are not the team of the decade, by any measurable category:
2000-2009
9 Playoff Appearances - Rank: 1 (STL 2nd with 7)
8 Division Titles - Rank: 1 (ATL & STL 2nd with 6)
5 LCS Appearances - Rank: T1 (tied with STL)
4 WS Appearances - Rank: 1 (BOS, PHI, & STL 2nd with 2)
2 WS Titles (presuming 2009) - Rank: T1 (tied with BOS)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not the one who made up "team of the decade," but doesn't Boston get some sort of intangible points for ending their drought? They're right up there in every other category, too.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They had the biggest WS title of the decade, but they're way behind the Yankees over the decade.
Playoff Appearances - 9 vs. 6
Division Titles - 8 vs. 1
LCS Appearances - 5 vs. 4
WS Appearances - 4 vs. 2
WS Titles - 2 vs. 2 (presuming 2009 for NYY)
This is not some silly theory that's unsupported and deserves being mocked by photos of Xena.
Posts: 11,761
Threads: 388
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=68068:date=Nov 3 2009, 10:47 AM:name=Kid)-->QUOTE (Kid @ Nov 3 2009, 10:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=68051:date=Nov 3 2009, 09:15 AM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Nov 3 2009, 09:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=68050:date=Nov 3 2009, 08:12 AM:name=Kid)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid @ Nov 3 2009, 08:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Presuming the Yankees close out the WS, I hate it, but there's no way they are not the team of the decade, by any measurable category:
2000-2009
9 Playoff Appearances - Rank: 1 (STL 2nd with 7)
8 Division Titles - Rank: 1 (ATL & STL 2nd with 6)
5 LCS Appearances - Rank: T1 (tied with STL)
4 WS Appearances - Rank: 1 (BOS, PHI, & STL 2nd with 2)
2 WS Titles (presuming 2009) - Rank: T1 (tied with BOS)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not the one who made up "team of the decade," but doesn't Boston get some sort of intangible points for ending their drought? They're right up there in every other category, too.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They had the biggest WS title of the decade, but they're way behind the Yankees over the decade.
Playoff Appearances - 9 vs. 6
Division Titles - 8 vs. 1
LCS Appearances - 5 vs. 4
WS Appearances - 4 vs. 2
WS Titles - 2 vs. 2 (presuming 2009 for NYY)
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, if we're strictly going by the numbers, then yes -- the Yankees have it locked up. I'm still taking the Red Sox, though.
Posts: 4,684
Threads: 78
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
the yankees are the team of the millenium.
Wang.
Posts: 11,761
Threads: 388
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=68106:date=Nov 3 2009, 02:35 PM:name=veryzer)-->QUOTE (veryzer @ Nov 3 2009, 02:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->the yankees are the team of the millenium.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True. Fuck them.
Posts: 14,097
Threads: 90
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
I think the Cubs are the team of the millennium. No other team accomplished what we have.
Posts: 2,894
Threads: 72
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
As kid's stats prove, the Yanks have been the team of the oughts. However, if the Phils end up winning the WS, Boston fans will claim the prize.
I submit the Royals as the <i>worst</i> team of the decade. I believe they have the most losses, zero playoff appearances, and the worst future outlook. Other teams may be close, but none of them just gave the shockingly inept Drayton Lane a 4-year extension.
There's nothing better than to realize that the good things about youth don't end with youth itself. It's a matter of realizing that life can be renewed every day you get out of bed without baggage. It's tough to get there, but it's better than the dark thoughts. -Lance
Posts: 3,011
Threads: 81
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=68112:date=Nov 3 2009, 03:42 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Nov 3 2009, 03:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->As kid's stats prove, the Yanks have been the team of the oughts. However, if the Phils end up winning the WS, Boston fans will claim the prize.
I submit the Royals as the <i>worst</i> team of the decade. I believe they have the most losses, zero playoff appearances, and the worst future outlook. Other teams may be close, but none of them just gave the shockingly inept Drayton Lane a 4-year extension.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Pirates have to be close on some of these stats. Didn't the Royals have a winning season. Once?
I wish that I believed in Fate. I wish I didn't sleep so late. I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders.
Posts: 3,804
Threads: 111
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=68115:date=Nov 3 2009, 04:02 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Nov 3 2009, 04:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=68112:date=Nov 3 2009, 03:42 PM:name=KBwsb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KBwsb @ Nov 3 2009, 03:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->As kid's stats prove, the Yanks have been the team of the oughts. However, if the Phils end up winning the WS, Boston fans will claim the prize.
I submit the Royals as the <i>worst</i> team of the decade. I believe they have the most losses, zero playoff appearances, and the worst future outlook. Other teams may be close, but none of them just gave the shockingly inept Drayton Lane a 4-year extension.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Pirates have to be close on some of these stats. Didn't the Royals have a winning season. Once?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They almost made the playoffs with Sweeney about 5 years ago.
Posts: 3,804
Threads: 111
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
2003, they won 83 games and lost the division in the last month of the season. The Pirates have been worse.
Posts: 3,676
Threads: 119
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
So it appears that using the total number of wins/losses to choose the worst team in the decade, why not use the most wins during the regular season to select the best team of the decade?
A Red Sox fan informed me that the Yankees would win based on that criteria. I thought it would have been the Angels but I've been told otherwise.
Posts: 1,720
Threads: 41
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=68125:date=Nov 3 2009, 05:49 PM:name=1060Ivy)-->QUOTE (1060Ivy @ Nov 3 2009, 05:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->So it appears that using the total number of wins/losses to choose the worst team in the decade, why not use the most wins during the regular season to select the best team of the decade?
A Red Sox fan informed me that the Yankees would win based on that criteria. I thought it would have been the Angels but I've been told otherwise.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why would you think Angels over the Yankees? I am not going to look it up, but have the Yankees won less than 90 games in ANY season this decade?
Posts: 4,641
Threads: 210
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=68107:date=Nov 3 2009, 03:46 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Nov 3 2009, 03:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=68106:date=Nov 3 2009, 02:35 PM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Nov 3 2009, 02:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->the yankees are the team of the millenium.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True. Fuck them.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You mean the team of the moneyenium.
Blam, snap, kapow!
|
