GatewayRedbirds.com

A Message Board Dedicated to Discussing St. Louis Cardinals Baseball!
It is currently September 16 19, 6:36 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: March 20 07, 12:45 pm 
Offline
Sunshine, lollipops and rainbows
User avatar

Joined: February 25 07, 7:26 pm
Posts: 1458
Location: VA
mcgee51taguchi99 wrote:
Centreville wrote:
The Houston Astros aren't far behind. 1 more WS appearance and a win would put them on the list..
Is it me, or does a team that finally made it to their 1st WS in franchise history recently just not compare here at all?

I never said anything about history of the Astros, just 1 more appearance in this decade.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: March 20 07, 12:45 pm 
Offline
Red Lobster for the seafood lover in you

Joined: May 1 06, 2:41 pm
Posts: 50681
I think it's a fair question with a right answer. That answer is the Yankees in the AL, and the Cardinals in the NL.

The Astros have certainly had some good teams, but to put them anymore than an annoyance to the Cardinals of the last 7 years would be overstating their run. Overall record, Division titles, NL Pennants, WS Championships are all a clean sweep for the Cardinals.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: March 20 07, 12:45 pm 
Offline
Perennial All-Star
User avatar

Joined: January 20 07, 1:57 am
Posts: 4103
Location: redbirdsnation
haltz wrote:
No, no debate! I'm sorry, I should have used an emoticon too I guess, I'm still sitting here chuckling.


:thumbup: It cool!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: March 20 07, 1:02 pm 
Offline
Veteran Player

Joined: September 11 06, 3:24 pm
Posts: 622
mcgee51taguchi99 wrote:
Centreville wrote:
The Houston Astros aren't far behind. 1 more WS appearance and a win would put them on the list..
Is it me, or does a team that finally made it to their 1st WS in franchise history recently just not compare here at all?


How does "franchise history" relate to a thread on the 2000's?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: March 20 07, 1:14 pm 
Offline
Veteran Player

Joined: July 27 06, 6:18 pm
Posts: 1176
Would it be fair to say that the NL (Comedy Central) has been the best in the NL since 2000?

Pennant WS win? WC Advance to NLCS
2000 Mets N Mets Y
2001 D'Backs Y Cardinals N
2002 Giants N Giants Y
2003 Fish Y Fish Y
2004 Cards N Astros Y
2005 Stros N Astros Y
2006 Cards Y Dodgers N

It's even at 1 for WS wins amonth the divisions.... so lets look further....


Scoring a point for WS wins, and Pennant wins

East 3
Central 4
West 3

One could also argue wild card winner division deserves another point:

East 5
Central 7
West 5

One could argue even further that if that WC advanced to the NLCS, they deserve yet another point:

East 7
Central 9
West 6

The central IMO has been the class of the NL in the 2000's no matter how you analyze it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: March 20 07, 1:16 pm 
Offline
Red Lobster for the seafood lover in you

Joined: May 1 06, 2:41 pm
Posts: 50681
taxman wrote:
mcgee51taguchi99 wrote:
Centreville wrote:
The Houston Astros aren't far behind. 1 more WS appearance and a win would put them on the list..
Is it me, or does a team that finally made it to their 1st WS in franchise history recently just not compare here at all?


How does "franchise history" relate to a thread on the 2000's?


It doesn't, no more than how a team with fewer wins, fewer division titles, fewer NL pennants, and fewer World Series wins relate when discussing greatest teams of the 2000's.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: March 20 07, 1:28 pm 
Offline
GRB's most intelligent & humble poster
User avatar

Joined: April 17 06, 11:25 am
Posts: 27128
card_fan_in_chi wrote:
Would it be fair to say that the NL (Comedy Central) has been the best in the NL since 2000?

Pennant WS win? WC Advance to NLCS
2000 Mets N Mets Y
2001 D'Backs Y Cardinals N
2002 Giants N Giants Y
2003 Fish Y Fish Y
2004 Cards N Astros Y
2005 Stros N Astros Y
2006 Cards Y Dodgers N

It's even at 1 for WS wins amonth the divisions.... so lets look further....


Scoring a point for WS wins, and Pennant wins

East 3
Central 4
West 3

One could also argue wild card winner division deserves another point:

East 5
Central 7
West 5

One could argue even further that if that WC advanced to the NLCS, they deserve yet another point:

East 7
Central 9
West 6

The central IMO has been the class of the NL in the 2000's no matter how you analyze it.


As far as the top teams in the division, yes. Mostly based on the strength of the Cards and Astros each year.

But I think people think of the Central being "weak" because of the perrenial weakness of the Pirates, Brewers, and sometimes Cubs and Reds. The thing is, every division has a couple good teams, a couple OK teams, and a bad one. The NL Central just has an extra team, and that extra team just happens to be bad. I really don't think the Central is that much better or worse than any other division over the last several years.

The point is, whoever is winning that division isn't winning because they get to "beat up" on the weak division. They beat most teams in the NL, and they go on in the postseason to do likewise.

The NL Central was the last division in baseball to win the World Series though, barely losing out to the AL Central.

--P--


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: March 20 07, 1:54 pm 
Offline
is eerily well-versed on Project Runway and irony

Joined: June 26 06, 3:07 pm
Posts: 8521
To further speak on the NL Central, it's been one of those divisions that's extremely top heavy. Take out the Cardinals and Astros and you have 4 team that have played over .500 this decade - the '04,'03, and '01 Cubs, and the '00 Reds (The Brewers broke even '05, but have yet to earn a winning record). 4 teams over 7 seasons to break .500 [minus the Cards/Astros]... that's a pretty bad division if you ask me.

The good news is that (to some extent) the repeated post season success of the Cardinals and Astros have helped to remove the stigma that we're just two above average teams that beat up on a bunch of really weak teams. I mean, that's true, but the Cards and Astros are also much more than that. I think out post season success (while a small sample size) has helped prove that the Cardinals in particular have been a great team despite the generally weak competition in the NL Central.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: March 20 07, 2:24 pm 
Offline
GRB's most intelligent & humble poster
User avatar

Joined: April 17 06, 11:25 am
Posts: 27128
maddash wrote:
To further speak on the NL Central, it's been one of those divisions that's extremely top heavy. Take out the Cardinals and Astros and you have 4 team that have played over .500 this decade - the '04,'03, and '01 Cubs, and the '00 Reds (The Brewers broke even '05, but have yet to earn a winning record). 4 teams over 7 seasons to break .500 [minus the Cards/Astros]... that's a pretty bad division if you ask me.


But compare that to the AL East. They've only had 3 other teams besides the Red Sox and Yankees finish above .500 (Toronto 3 times). AL West, 5 teams (Mariners 4, Rangers 1) outside of the top 2 (A's and Angels). AL Central, 4 teams (Indians 3, Detroit 1) outside of the White Sox and Twins.

The NL divisions have had a bit more parity. But the NL Central hangs with any of the AL divisions based on your metric. Yes, they have an extra team to count, but when that extra team is the Brewers or Pirates (take your pick), that doesn't really help.

--P--


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: March 20 07, 5:00 pm 
Offline
Perennial All-Star
User avatar

Joined: May 25 06, 2:47 pm
Posts: 3645
Location: Crying/injoyin watching tha Crew in tha Playoffs!!!
taxman wrote:
mcgee51taguchi99 wrote:
Centreville wrote:
The Houston Astros aren't far behind. 1 more WS appearance and a win would put them on the list..
Is it me, or does a team that finally made it to their 1st WS in franchise history recently just not compare here at all?


How does "franchise history" relate to a thread on the 2000's?
Well, to start, 2000-2006 relates. I may not have worded it like everyone wants, so I'll change it:

Is it me, or does a team that finally made it to their 1st WS beyond the year 2000 recently just not compare here at all?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CardsofSTL, Felix The Cat, Mary1966, obucard, PA_Hiker and 27 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group