PDA

View Full Version : Sporting News ranks every team from this decade


WhiteSoxJunkie
03-02-2009, 11:28 PM
In the Sporting News baseball preview issue, they rank every team from this decade, both overall 1-30 and by individual season 1-270. Their rankings are based on won-loss record, run differential, and playoff success. Here are the rankings by team.

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

Before anyone starts crying east coast bias, the Yankees and Red Sox had the two best won-loss records and are the only teams to have a winning season every year.

Here are the ten best individual teams:

1. 01 Mariners
2. 05 Cardinals
3. 06 Mets
4. 04 Cardinals
5. 07 Red Sox
6. 04 Red Sox
7. 08 Cubs
8. 01 Diamondbacks
9. 00 Giants
10. 03 Braves

They list some other rankings including World Series winners. The White Sox are ranked 6th among them, and 18th overall. Here is the list based on the teams overall ranking from 1-270:

5. 07 Red Sox
6. 04 Red Sox
8. 01 Diamondbacks
11. 08 Phillies
13. 02 Angels
18. 05 White Sox
45. 03 Marlins
51. 00 Yankees
59. 06 Cardinals

I'll give them the 07 Red Sox being the best World Series champion team, but I cannot for the life of me put the 05 White Sox 6th among the champions. I would put them 3rd at the lowest behind the 07 Red Sox and maybe the 02 Angels.

And finally, here are the bottom 10 teams:

270. 03 Tigers
269. 04 Diamondbacks
268. 05 Royals
267. 01 Pirates
266. 06 Royals
265. 08 Mariners
264. 02 Brewers
263. 04 Royals
262. 08 Nationals
261. 06 Rays

DSpivack
03-03-2009, 12:01 AM
Meaningless filler. The fact that any team that hasn't won a World Series is ranked above the White Sox is a joke. Also, the 05 Sox should definitely be higher, both in the champions list and the best teams of the decade list. They lead wire-to-wire and swept the World Series.

Nellie_Fox
03-03-2009, 01:28 AM
2000 is the last year of the last decade, not the first year of this decade. This decade goes from 2001-2010.

MISoxfan
03-03-2009, 01:44 AM
I wasn't aware that the '05 Cardinals were better than the '05 White Sox.

SOXfnNlansing
03-03-2009, 01:52 AM
NL Central: 5 of 6 teams are in the bottom 21: That speaks volumes to me win that weak division. 1WSC

AL East: 3 in the top 18; #1 and #2 with multiple WSC's

AL West: 3 in top 14; 2 in top 6 with 1WSC

AL Central: 3 in top 13; 2 in top 8 with 1WSC

NL West: 4 in top 20

NL East: 3 in top 15

With what I know about baseball, the AL East have the best teams because of $$; NL Central has the most teams and the worst teams. AL Central and AL West are similar. As this 'ranking' demonstrates, there is not much to show about the NL besides a fluke year the Cardinals had. Phillies were good last season, but not great. I think it's pretty accurate. I'd flip flop the cubs and D-backs simply because the D-backs won a WSC.

cub killer
03-03-2009, 01:58 AM
That list was the biggest piece of **** I've ever seen in my life

WhiteSoxFan84
03-03-2009, 03:22 AM
2000 is the last year of the last decade, not the first year of this decade. This decade goes from 2001-2010.

Exactly. And even if we are (for WHATEVER reason) counting 2000-2009, that ten-year span isn't over yet. ***? :scratch:

hawkjt
03-03-2009, 03:45 AM
The A's? give me a break...they never made a world series right?

jabrch
03-03-2009, 07:58 AM
That list was the biggest piece of **** I've ever seen in my life


Try reading ESPN Power Rankings...

cws05champ
03-03-2009, 08:03 AM
I just can't fathom how you can not put the 2005 White sox in the top 10 of all the individual teams. A team that wins 99 games, wire-to-wire in 1st place, 11-1 in the post season including 4 straight complete games and a World Series sweep.

Complete Drivel...

TommyJohn
03-03-2009, 08:35 AM
That list is freaking garbage. OK, I am offended that the 05 White Sox aren't in the Top Ten, I will admit. But how the HELL do you put the 2001 Mariners at number 1? They didn't win anything! How do you rank a team that won nothing over teams that won it all? Give me a break.

oeo
03-03-2009, 09:18 AM
That list is freaking garbage. OK, I am offended that the 05 White Sox aren't in the Top Ten, I will admit. But how the HELL do you put the 2001 Mariners at number 1? They didn't win anything! How do you rank a team that won nothing over teams that won it all? Give me a break.

Seems to me that playoff success took the back burner in their little "formula." How else are the 2008 Cubs one of the Top 10 teams? They were swept out of the playoffs by a 84 win team, for crying out loud.

TommyJohn
03-03-2009, 09:54 AM
Seems to me that playoff success took the back burner in their little "formula." How else are the 2008 Cubs one of the Top 10 teams? They were swept out of the playoffs by a 84 win team, for crying out loud.

If that's the case, where are the 2000 White Sox? They went 95-67. Best record in the AL that year, clinched home field advantage throughout the playoffs! Now if that wasn't a great team, tell me what was!

asindc
03-03-2009, 10:04 AM
If that's the case, where are the 2000 White Sox? They went 95-67. Best record in the AL that year, clinched home field advantage throughout the playoffs! Now if that wasn't a great team, tell me what was!

Agreed. I usually don't howl in protest at every media slight, but this does provide ample ammo to those who do. The 2005 Sox only 6th among WS winners? Complete BS!

areilly
03-03-2009, 10:47 AM
Agreed. I usually don't howl in protest at every media slight, but this does provide ample ammo to those who do. The 2005 Sox only 6th among WS winners? Complete BS!

Maybe the OP can shed a little light on what TSN used for their equation. The best I can guess is that since the '05 Cardinals hit the 100-win mark, they have an edge in regular season rankings, and the '05 Sox were docked points for beating an 89-win NL team in the World Series. Had they faced the Cardinals, for example, maybe they'd have ranked higher on the strength of that.


Also, lists like this one are stupid.

spawn
03-03-2009, 10:59 AM
Maybe the OP can shed a little light on what TSN used for their equation. The best I can guess is that since the '05 Cardinals hit the 100-win mark, they have an edge in regular season rankings, and the '05 Sox were docked points for beating an 89-win NL team in the World Series. Had they faced the Cardinals, for example, maybe they'd have ranked higher on the strength of that.
If they were docked for that, then shouldn't they get points for beating the defending WS champion Red Sox who won 95 games, and the Angels, who also won 95 games. Also, shouldn't the '05 Cardinal have been docked points for losing to the same 89-win NL team the Sox beat? I just don't see how you can have a team listed as one of the ten best individually if they didn't even win a playoff series, or make it to the WS.

Also, lists like this one are stupid.
Word.

FedEx227
03-03-2009, 11:06 AM
The A's? give me a break...they never made a world series right?

That list is freaking garbage. OK, I am offended that the 05 White Sox aren't in the Top Ten, I will admit. But how the HELL do you put the 2001 Mariners at number 1? They didn't win anything! How do you rank a team that won nothing over teams that won it all? Give me a break.

Maybe the OP can shed a little light on what TSN used for their equation. The best I can guess is that since the '05 Cardinals hit the 100-win mark, they have an edge in regular season rankings, and the '05 Sox were docked points for beating an 89-win NL team in the World Series. Had they faced the Cardinals, for example, maybe they'd have ranked higher on the strength of that.


Also, lists like this one are stupid.

In the Sporting News baseball preview issue, they rank every team from this decade, both overall 1-30 and by individual season 1-270. Their rankings are based on won-loss record, run differential, and playoff success. Here are the rankings by team.

The 2001 Mariners IIRC had a huge run differential, as did some of the A's teams of the decade, but let's continue freaking out over an arbitrary list.

areilly
03-03-2009, 11:07 AM
I just don't see how you can have a team listed as one of the ten best individually if they didn't even win a playoff series, or make it to the WS.

As far as I can tell, they're looking at the first 162 games in a vacuum with no regard to what happened afterwards. Maybe the Sox' just-enough-to-win offense of that year didn't sit well with the voters. Or maybe they're just a bunch of jerks, I don't know.

TommyJohn
03-03-2009, 11:22 AM
In the Sporting News baseball preview issue, they rank every team from this decade, both overall 1-30 and by individual season 1-270. Their rankings are based on won-loss record, run differential, and playoff success. Here are the rankings by team.

The 2001 Mariners IIRC had a huge run differential, as did some of the A's teams of the decade, but let's continue freaking out over an arbitrary list.
Sure, I'm hip to be freaky.

TommyJohn
03-03-2009, 11:24 AM
If they were docked for that, then shouldn't they get points for beating the defending WS champion Red Sox who won 95 games, and the Angels, who also won 95 games. Also, shouldn't the '05 Cardinal have been docked points for losing to the same 89-win NL team the Sox beat? I just don't see how you can have a team listed as one of the ten best individually if they didn't even win a playoff series, or make it to the WS.

Word.

Excellent points. Highlights the arbitrariness of the list.

voodoochile
03-03-2009, 11:55 AM
I wasn't aware that the '05 Cardinals were better than the '05 White Sox.

I didn't know they were better than the Astros that year...:rolleyes:

ChiSoxFan81
03-03-2009, 01:35 PM
Ridiculous list that means nothing.
:whocares:

oeo
03-03-2009, 02:29 PM
If that's the case, where are the 2000 White Sox? They went 95-67. Best record in the AL that year, clinched home field advantage throughout the playoffs! Now if that wasn't a great team, tell me what was!

I'm guessing run differential played a part in that. Again, maybe playoff success was put into the equation, but I don't think it was as important as regular season record and run differential. Which is stupid, but whatcha gonna do?

All I know is the 2005 White Sox won 99 games, and went 11-1 in the postseason. If that's not a Top 5 performance of the decade, I don't know what is.

downstairs
03-03-2009, 02:50 PM
2000 is the last year of the last decade, not the first year of this decade. This decade goes from 2001-2010.

Well a "decade" is a period of 10 years, so 2005-2014 is a decade as well.

Also: 1990, for example, was the start of the decade we call "the '90s".

All valid IMHO.

LITTLE NELL
03-03-2009, 03:08 PM
The A's? give me a break...they never made a world series right?
Thats the first thing that hit me, what the hell?

EndemicSox
03-03-2009, 04:30 PM
The White Sox really get no respect, as Rodney Dangerfield would say. It gets tiring...but it's a stupid list, so I really shouldn't care. The '05 team was, without question, imo, one of the top 5 teams of the 2000's. Most knowledgeable fans of the game would agree.

spawn
03-03-2009, 04:36 PM
Hey, the A's and Cubs can have the list...I'm happy with the trophy.

WSox597
03-08-2009, 08:46 AM
The Cubs being considered as one of the best teams of 2008 is just nuts.

Best teams at any level, and in any sport, don't go 0-3 in the playoffs two years in a row.

ESPN is out of their minds. Once again, they pander to a large fan base, not reality.

kravdog
03-08-2009, 09:32 AM
Hey, the A's and Cubs can have the list...I'm happy with the trophy.

amen.

Tragg
03-08-2009, 11:43 AM
The Cubs being considered as one of the best teams of 2008 is just nuts.

Best teams at any level, and in any sport, don't go 0-3 in the playoffs two years in a row.


Don't you know -it's called bad luck. The 2008 Cubbies being vanquished in 3 straight games by a team that didn't make the world series, was just a bad week, bad luck.
The As teams managing 1 playoff series win? Playoff series' are crapshoots, sheer luck.
And the Indians? Why aren't they on this list? Everyone knows that the 2005 Indians were the best team in baseball; it was just "bad luck" that they went 4-13 against the Sox and were swept at home by the Sox AAA team the last weekend of the season.

Ziggy S
03-17-2009, 08:29 AM
Odin hates that Yankees