PDA

View Full Version : Top 10 MLB playoff disappointments of the decade


moochpuppy
12-23-2009, 08:54 AM
10. 2003 Atlanta Braves 101-61 - lost 3-2 to Cubs in NLDS
9. 2005 St. Louis Cardinals 100-62 - lost 4-2 to Astros in NLCS
8. 2003 Oakland A's 96-66 - lost 3-2 to Red Sox in ALDS
7. 2008 Chicago Cubs 97-64 - lost 3-0 to Dodgers in NLDS
6. 2005 Anaheim Angels 95-67 - lost 4-1 to White Sox in ALCS
5. 2003 Boston Red Sox 95-67 - lost 4-3 to Yankees in ALCS
4. 2006 New York Mets 97-65 - lost 4-3 to Cardinals in NLCS
3. 2004 New York Yankees 101-61 - lost 4-3 to Red Sox in ALCS
2. 2003 Chicago Cubs 88-74 - lost 4-3 to Marlins in NLCS
1. 2001 Seattle Mariners 115-47 - lost 4-1 to Yankees in ALCS

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/post/The-top-10-playoff-disappointments-of-the-2000s;_ylt=AtfzbXsyPQTTB6cxlmP9WFURvLYF?urn=mlb,20 9661

beasly213
12-23-2009, 09:05 AM
10. 2003 Atlanta Braves 101-61 - lost 3-2 to Cubs in NLDS
9. 2005 St. Louis Cardinals 100-62 - lost 4-2 to Astros in NLCS
8. 2003 Oakland A's 96-66 - lost 3-2 to Red Sox in ALDS
7. 2008 Chicago Cubs 97-64 - lost 3-0 to Dodgers in NLDS
6. 2005 Anaheim Angels 95-67 - lost 4-1 to White Sox in ALCS
5. 2003 Boston Red Sox 95-67 - lost 4-3 to Yankees in ALCS
4. 2006 New York Mets 97-65 - lost 4-3 to Cardinals in NLCS
3. 2004 New York Yankees 101-61 - lost 4-3 to Red Sox in ALCS
2. 2003 Chicago Cubs 88-74 - lost 4-3 to Marlins in NLCS
1. 2001 Seattle Mariners 115-47 - lost 4-1 to Yankees in ALCS

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/post/The-top-10-playoff-disappointments-of-the-2000s;_ylt=AtfzbXsyPQTTB6cxlmP9WFURvLYF?urn=mlb,20 9661

I think the 08 Cubs should be higher on this list. They won 97 games and didn't wing a single game in the playoffs. At least the 03 Cubs and 01 Mariners won a playoff series.

JohnnyInnsbrook
12-23-2009, 09:14 AM
10. 2003 Atlanta Braves 101-61 - lost 3-2 to Cubs in NLDS
9. 2005 St. Louis Cardinals 100-62 - lost 4-2 to Astros in NLCS
8. 2003 Oakland A's 96-66 - lost 3-2 to Red Sox in ALDS
7. 2008 Chicago Cubs 97-64 - lost 3-0 to Dodgers in NLDS
6. 2005 Anaheim Angels 95-67 - lost 4-1 to White Sox in ALCS
5. 2003 Boston Red Sox 95-67 - lost 4-3 to Yankees in ALCS
4. 2006 New York Mets 97-65 - lost 4-3 to Cardinals in NLCS
3. 2004 New York Yankees 101-61 - lost 4-3 to Red Sox in ALCS
2. 2003 Chicago Cubs 88-74 - lost 4-3 to Marlins in NLCS
1. 2001 Seattle Mariners 115-47 - lost 4-1 to Yankees in ALCS

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/post/The-top-10-playoff-disappointments-of-the-2000s;_ylt=AtfzbXsyPQTTB6cxlmP9WFURvLYF?urn=mlb,20 9661

Anaheim Angels 95-67 - White Sox 99-63... Why is it a disappointment that the
Sox beat the Angels when the Sox had the best record in baseball for most of the year, had a better record then the Angels, and were one game away from sweeping the playoffs?

Hitmen77
12-23-2009, 10:13 AM
I think the 08 Cubs should be higher on this list. They won 97 games and didn't wing a single game in the playoffs. At least the 03 Cubs and 01 Mariners won a playoff series.

The '03 Cubs are the only team with less than 90 wins to make that list. The only reason they should be on that list is because of their epic collapse after the "Bartman" play (that and because after hearing Cub fans incessantly shoot their mouths that their team was going all the way, everyone was shocked when it didn't happen:tongue:).

The 2001 Mariners definitely should top that list. That team won an incredible 116 games and failed to make to the World Series. Seattle is one of only 3 teams never to win a pennant and the had a golden opportunity that year.

Hitmen77
12-23-2009, 10:16 AM
Anaheim Angels 95-67 - White Sox 99-63... Why is it a disappointment that the
Sox beat the Angels when the Sox had the best record in baseball for most of the year, had a better record then the Angels, and were one game away from sweeping the playoffs?

Because that meant that the White Sox won the pennant - which was a huge disappointment to the national media.


......hmmm, maybe that shouldn't be in teal.:redneck

Johnny Mostil
12-23-2009, 10:23 AM
The '03 Cubs are the only team with less than 90 wins to make that list. The only reason they should be on that list is because of their epic collapse after the "Bartman" play (that and because after hearing Cub fans incessantly shoot their mouths that their team was going all the way, everyone was shocked when it didn't happen:tongue:).


Yep. Marlins actually had the better record, no?

Lip Man 1
12-23-2009, 11:03 AM
I'm surprised the 2000 Sox aren't on that list.

Now remember I'm talking from a national media standpoint. All they saw was that the Sox won 95 games, had the best record in the league and got swept out of the playoffs.

Sox fans understand the reality of not having a starting pitching staff that was healthy when October rolled around.

Lip

chisoxfanatic
12-23-2009, 11:32 AM
I think the Cubs' being swept by the Dodgers was worse than what happened in 2003 from an expectations standpoint. I'm sure noone expected them to make it to the NLCS in 2003, but everyone was printing their tickets to the World Series in 2008.

TheOldRoman
12-23-2009, 11:39 AM
10. 2003 Atlanta Braves 101-61 - lost 3-2 to Cubs in NLDS
9. 2005 St. Louis Cardinals 100-62 - lost 4-2 to Astros in NLCS
8. 2003 Oakland A's 96-66 - lost 3-2 to Red Sox in ALDS
7. 2008 Chicago Cubs 97-64 - lost 3-0 to Dodgers in NLDS
6. 2005 Anaheim Angels 95-67 - lost 4-1 to White Sox in ALCS
5. 2003 Boston Red Sox 95-67 - lost 4-3 to Yankees in ALCS
4. 2006 New York Mets 97-65 - lost 4-3 to Cardinals in NLCS
3. 2004 New York Yankees 101-61 - lost 4-3 to Red Sox in ALCS
2. 2003 Chicago Cubs 88-74 - lost 4-3 to Marlins in NLCS
1. 2001 Seattle Mariners 115-47 - lost 4-1 to Yankees in ALCS

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/post/The-top-10-playoff-disappointments-of-the-2000s;_ylt=AtfzbXsyPQTTB6cxlmP9WFURvLYF?urn=mlb,20 9661:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolle yes:

Since when is losing to a much better team considered a dissapointment? This removes any relevance from this article.

PatK
12-23-2009, 11:51 AM
I'm surprised the 2000 Sox aren't on that list.

Now remember I'm talking from a national media standpoint. All they saw was that the Sox won 95 games, had the best record in the league and got swept out of the playoffs.

Sox fans understand the reality of not having a starting pitching staff that was healthy when October rolled around.

Lip

Same here. That team rolled to the playoffs and then got swept.

october23sp
12-23-2009, 12:07 PM
If a team that the 2005 Sox beat had a playoff disappointment I would say it was the Red Sox who got blasted 3-0 after their World Championship.

DSpivack
12-23-2009, 12:14 PM
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Since when is losing to a much better team considered a dissapointment? This removes any relevance from this article.

I don't think the article has much relevance to begin with, besides an interesting but pointless discussion like this one [that, and Seattle won 116, not 115, games, tying the 1906 Cubs' record for most wins in a season; interestingly enough, neither team won a title].

That said, I took the list to mean best teams of the decade that didn't win the World Series. That we beat one of the teams on the list only makes the 2005 White Sox look better.

An 88-win team, though, doesn't belong at #2, I would put the 2003 Braves much higher than #10.

TDog
12-23-2009, 12:16 PM
I think the 08 Cubs should be higher on this list. They won 97 games and didn't wing a single game in the playoffs. At least the 03 Cubs and 01 Mariners won a playoff series.

Maybe I got this impression because I was in California, but while people spent the 2008 regular season talking about how the Cubs were gong to win the World Series (the 2005 White Sox having proved it was easy and really not a big deal), it was as if no one expected the Cubs to win a single postseason game in 2008.

TheOldRoman
12-23-2009, 12:49 PM
That said, I took the list to mean best teams of the decade that didn't win the World Series. That we beat one of the teams on the list only makes the 2005 White Sox look better.Could be. I didn't open up the article, and they might explain it more inside. However, I don't think anything was all that special about that Angels team.

If this list is about the best teams to not win a series, I am eagerly awaiting the lists from the likes of Erik Kusillias and Colin Cowherd of the worst teams to win a World Series this decade. You know who they would put #1.:rolleyes:

TDog
12-23-2009, 01:20 PM
Could be. I didn't open up the article, and they might explain it more inside. However, I don't think anything was all that special about that Angels team.

If this list is about the best teams to not win a series, I am eagerly awaiting the lists from the likes of Erik Kusillias and Colin Cowherd of the worst teams to win a World Series this decade. You know who they would put #1.:rolleyes:

The 83-win 2006 NL Central champ St. Louis Cardinals? A team that didn't even win their own division and didn't even belong in the postseason?

The candidates for such a list run longer than the list of teams that steamrolled through the postseason with 11-1 records after leading their league in wins.

oeo
12-23-2009, 01:27 PM
If a team that the 2005 Sox beat had a playoff disappointment I would say it was the Red Sox who got blasted 3-0 after their World Championship.

The 2005 Red Sox were a much different team than the 2004 Red Sox. We faced a rotation of Matt Clement, David Wells, and Tim Wakefield (who was far and away their best pitcher that year while still being very mediocre). That team wasn't going anywhere.

cws05champ
12-23-2009, 01:36 PM
The 2005 Red Sox were a much different team than the 2004 Red Sox. We faced a rotation of Matt Clement, David Wells, and Tim Wakefield (who was far and away their best pitcher that year while still being very mediocre). That team wasn't going anywhere.
At yet I remember 9 out the 10 talking heads at ESPN picked Boston in 4 or 5 games. The only one who picked the White Sox was Peter Gammons...why? Pitching. Nuff said.

Also. I don't think the 05 Red Sox were a disappointment because they had won the year before and the fans were still drunk from the experience the year before. I was in a Red Sox bar down here in FL watching game 3 against them and they were pretty resigned to losing and fairly complimentary of the White Sox after the series instead of bitter. We got a lot of Good lucks, whereas before it would not have been that way.

Oblong
12-23-2009, 02:38 PM
As a non Sox fan that inclusion really jumps out at me. Going into the series I thought the Angels would win but it certainly wasn't a shock they didn't.

thedudeabides
12-23-2009, 03:05 PM
Where are the 2007 Indians? Beat the Yankees 3-1 in the first round and then are up 3-1 on the Red Sox and were at home with Sabathia on the Hill, and Carmona to follow(who was having an amazing year).

That had to be as dissapointing to Indians fans as it was to Cub fans in 2003. This would have been near the top of the list for me.

I don't think the Braves 2003 team should be on there. It obviously wasn't very meaningful to their fans, as they let the Cubs fans just take over the park.

chisoxfanatic
12-23-2009, 03:10 PM
Where are the 2007 Indians? Beat the Yankees 3-1 in the first round and then are up 3-1 on the Red Sox and were at home with Sabathia on the Hill, and Carmona to follow(who was having an amazing year).
That was included in the list. The original poster just omitted it from his/her list when typing out the original post. It was #3b.

Truth be told, that was the first and only time I have ever pulled for the Tribe. I was that sick of the whole Red Sox Nation crap.

thedudeabides
12-23-2009, 03:20 PM
That was included in the list. The original poster just omitted it from his/her list when typing out the original post. It was #3b.

Truth be told, that was the first and only time I have ever pulled for the Tribe. I was that sick of the whole Red Sox Nation crap.

Thanks for pointing that out. It was hard for me to imagine how that could be left off. I agree, I remember actually rooting for the Tribe, but please keep that between us.:wink:

soxinem1
12-23-2009, 03:20 PM
I think the 08 Cubs should be higher on this list. They won 97 games and didn't wing a single game in the playoffs. At least the 03 Cubs and 01 Mariners won a playoff series.

True, but both of them barely won these playoff series.

I always felt ATL hotdogged through the 2003 NLDS, and SEA struggled mightily against a CLE team that was not in their class in 2001.

Overall, though, this list is very accurate, though that 2000 White Sox team was pretty lame too, BTW.

StillMissOzzie
12-23-2009, 06:18 PM
No love for the 2007 Cubs either? Not only did they get swept 3-0 by the D-Backs, who in turn were swept by the Rockies 4-0, who in turn were swept by the Red Sox 4-0.

Getting to be a habit that the best the Cubs can muster just isn't all that good.

SMO
:gulp:

TheOldRoman
12-23-2009, 06:30 PM
The 83-win 2006 NL Central champ St. Louis Cardinals? A team that didn't even win their own division and didn't even belong in the postseason?

The candidates for such a list run longer than the list of teams that steamrolled through the postseason with 11-1 records after leading their league in wins.Of course, the Cards would be he logical choice. However, the whining about the Sox coming from those two ESPN morons has been well chronicled on here. The entire season the Sox were a joke and a fluke, and they were irrelevant. Right after the Sox won it all, those clowns started beaming about it being the lowest rated WS ever (at that time). I believe the day after the championship Cowherd went on a rant that the Sox were the worst champ of his lifetime. Something along the lines of having no power and four #3 starters.

I would also add the 06 Tigers to the disappointment list. Not because they were a juggernaut, but because of losing to the Cardinals in grand fashion.

doublem23
12-23-2009, 11:18 PM
Sox fans understand the reality of not having a starting pitching staff that was healthy when October rolled around.

Lip

What the hell are you talking about, Lip? The Sox's starting pitching was fine in the 2000 ALDS, Sirotka, Parque, and Baldwin allowed 7 ER in 17.2 IP for an ERA of 3.56... Overall, the pitching staff's ERA was under 4 for the series. The one, and only reason, the Sox lost to Seattle in 2000 was because their offense, the best in the AL, completely shut down all series. .185/.300/.326. That's not going to win any games.

The 2000 Sox aren't a "disappointment" because anyone paying attention to them probably saw that the Sox won the division in 2000 based on their hot start, but for most of the 2nd half, they were, at best, average.

WhiteSox5187
12-23-2009, 11:27 PM
What the hell are you talking about, Lip? The Sox's starting pitching was fine in the 2000 ALDS, Sirotka, Parque, and Baldwin allowed 7 ER in 17.2 IP for an ERA of 3.56... Overall, the pitching staff's ERA was under 4 for the series. The one, and only reason, the Sox lost to Seattle in 2000 was because their offense, the best in the AL, completely shut down all series. .185/.300/.326. That's not going to win any games.

The 2000 Sox aren't a "disappointment" because anyone paying attention to them probably saw that the Sox won the division in 2000 based on their hot start, but for most of the 2nd half, they were, at best, average.

I think he means that our pitching was in tatters by the time September rolled around and most people were picking Seattle.

oeo
12-24-2009, 12:57 AM
No love for the 2007 Cubs either? Not only did they get swept 3-0 by the D-Backs, who in turn were swept by the Rockies 4-0, who in turn were swept by the Red Sox 4-0.

Getting to be a habit that the best the Cubs can muster just isn't all that good.

SMO
:gulp:

The 2007 Cubs sucked. They won only 85 games and their division sucked. Not to mention, the NL as a whole was really, really bad.

areilly
12-24-2009, 01:34 AM
Because that meant that the White Sox won the pennant - which was a huge disappointment to the national media.


......hmmm, maybe that shouldn't be in teal.:redneck


A conspiracy. Obviously.

Hitmen77
12-24-2009, 08:29 AM
A conspiracy. Obviously.

We need a tin-foil hat smilie.:wink:

Lip Man 1
12-24-2009, 11:30 AM
Sox 5187:

You are correct.

Baldwin missed over a month in the second half and threw game #3 of the ALDS on sheer guts. Eldred pitched three innings since he originally got hurt in July. Sirotka and Parque both hurt their arms the final month and according to Manager Gandhi after the fact, would not have been available to pitch anymore had the Sox somehow extended the series to a 4th or 5th game.

Yet Ron Schueler decided pitching wasn't needed at the trade deadline.

Lip

soxinem1
12-24-2009, 11:40 AM
Sox 5187:

You are correct.

Baldwin missed over a month in the second half and threw game #3 of the ALDS on sheer guts. Eldred pitched three innings since he originally got hurt in July. Sirotka and Parque both hurt their arms the final month and according to Manager Gandhi after the fact, would not have been available to pitch anymore had the Sox somehow extended the series to a 4th or 5th game.

Yet Ron Schueler decided pitching wasn't needed at the trade deadline.

Lip

Exactly. Manuel was talking about using Sean Lowe as a starter towards the end of the year. The staff was literally on fumes.

That team might have won 95 games, but they limped down the stretch. The big lead was evaporated down to five games. CLE was flying down the finish line, as they traded for pitching when Scheuler was trading for a catcher.

They clinched the AL Central by losing a game that they blew a comfortable lead in. I remember MIN celebrating their victory on a game-ending HR, and the White Sox celebrating on the mound at the same time.

At least none of the games were blow outs, considering they left their bats in the clubhouse for that series.

TommyJohn
12-24-2009, 12:24 PM
:moron

The 2000 White Sox getting swept in Seattle!!! One of my fondest memories of my time as the most famous Chicago sports personality around. Fluke! Fluke! Fluke! White Sox are a fluke! Fluke! Fluke!

doublem23
12-24-2009, 05:40 PM
Sox 5187:

You are correct.

Baldwin missed over a month in the second half and threw game #3 of the ALDS on sheer guts. Eldred pitched three innings since he originally got hurt in July. Sirotka and Parque both hurt their arms the final month and according to Manager Gandhi after the fact, would not have been available to pitch anymore had the Sox somehow extended the series to a 4th or 5th game.

Yet Ron Schueler decided pitching wasn't needed at the trade deadline.

Lip

This is all hearsay and hullabaloo, the fact of the matter is, if you actually look at the box scores and stats from that series is that the Sox pitched well enough to win, considering their offense scored 978 runs in 2000 (that would be over 6 per game) absolutely closed shop in the ALDS and scored 7 runs over 3 games. 7 god damn runs. I don't care if you're trotting out Cy Young, Walter Johnson, and Big Ed Walsh, you're getting swept if you can only score 7 runs in 3 games.

Maybe the Sox didn't have the arms to carry them any further in the 2000 play-offs, but to say they didn't pitch well enough to beat Seattle is a disgusting insult to those three guys who gutted it out on the mound and pitched three great games in what would end up being the biggest stage of their careers. Maybe you need a reminder that baseball isn't played by beat writers and AP reporters and that it actually takes place on a field.

TDog
12-24-2009, 06:27 PM
This is all hearsay and hullabaloo, the fact of the matter is, if you actually look at the box scores and stats from that series is that the Sox pitched well enough to win, considering their offense scored 978 runs in 2000 (that would be over 6 per game) absolutely closed shop in the ALDS and scored 7 runs over 3 games. 7 god damn runs. I don't care if you're trotting out Cy Young, Walter Johnson, and Big Ed Walsh, you're getting swept if you can only score 7 runs in 3 games.

Maybe the Sox didn't have the arms to carry them any further in the 2000 play-offs, but to say they didn't pitch well enough to beat Seattle is a disgusting insult to those three guys who gutted it out on the mound and pitched three great games in what would end up being the biggest stage of their careers. Maybe you need a reminder that baseball isn't played by beat writers and AP reporters and that it actually takes place on a field.

I agree with this. The White Sox pitched well enough to win the series. Considering the pitching they got, really, they should have won the series. The physical condition of the pitchers is irrelevant because they still pitched well enough that the Sox should have won. The problem, the reason that the Sox lost, was that Frank Thomas and Paul Konerko didn't come close to getting a hit in the series. Magglio Ordonez had a dismal series as well.

chisoxfanatic
12-24-2009, 11:17 PM
I agree with this. The White Sox pitched well enough to win the series. Considering the pitching they got, really, they should have won the series. The physical condition of the pitchers is irrelevant because they still pitched well enough that the Sox should have won. The problem, the reason that the Sox lost, was that Frank Thomas and Paul Konerko didn't come close to getting a hit in the series. Magglio Ordonez had a dismal series as well.
The only guys I remember having a decent series hitting wise were The Milkman, Manos, and Ray Ray. It WAS extremely sickening to see our big stars go silent when it came time to head to the big stage (you mentioned Paulie, Big Hurt, and Maggs already, but where the hell was El Caballo as well???). Like always, Raul Ibanez and Edgar Martinez killed us.

HomeFish
12-25-2009, 01:45 AM
2001 Mariners are not just playoff disappointment of the decade, possibly of all time.

Lip Man 1
12-25-2009, 10:26 AM
Double:

This is what I wrote:

"I'm surprised the 2000 Sox aren't on that list.

Now remember I'm talking from a national media standpoint. All they saw was that the Sox won 95 games, had the best record in the league and got swept out of the playoffs.

Sox fans understand the reality of not having a starting pitching staff that was healthy when October rolled around."

--------------------------------------

I don't understand what you are so upset about. Was the Sox starting staff healthy when they got to October?

Far from it.

Lip

Corlose 15
12-25-2009, 11:09 AM
Of course, the Cards would be he logical choice. However, the whining about the Sox coming from those two ESPN morons has been well chronicled on here. The entire season the Sox were a joke and a fluke, and they were irrelevant. Right after the Sox won it all, those clowns started beaming about it being the lowest rated WS ever (at that time). I believe the day after the championship Cowherd went on a rant that the Sox were the worst champ of his lifetime. Something along the lines of having no power and four #3 starters.

I would also add the 06 Tigers to the disappointment list. Not because they were a juggernaut, but because of losing to the Cardinals in grand fashion.

Cowherd also went on a rant when Konerko re-signed with the Sox about how he couldn't believe he would choose the South Side of Chicago over LA and how the Sox "only had 9 people"show up at their victory parade and it was the worst he'd ever seen".

Lip Man 1
12-25-2009, 12:15 PM
Cowherd makes sensationalistic statements like that because he is trying to attract attention to himself and his show.

I had a G.M. at a TV station I worked at who was the same way. He did it to get a larger audience for his commentaries that he did once a week at the end of the news.

Ignore him and the entire Eastern Sports Programming Network, I do.

Lip

Fenway
12-25-2009, 01:28 PM
If a team that the 2005 Sox beat had a playoff disappointment I would say it was the Red Sox who got blasted 3-0 after their World Championship.

Oh it stung - Matt Clement in Game 1 was ugly - David Wells blowing a 4 run lead for the only time in his career in Game 2 was uglier - and then bottom of 6th in Game 3

I would put the 2004 Yankees at top of the list. Leading the ALCS 3-0 with a one run lead in the bottom ofthe 9th in Game 4 and losing the pennant? Nothing tops that.

TDog
12-25-2009, 03:44 PM
2001 Mariners are not just playoff disappointment of the decade, possibly of all time.

Technically baseball playoffs are what the White Sox won in 2008 or what the Giants won in 1951. The Mariners were a postseason disappointment, though, and not nearly as disappointing as the 1954 Indians, who didn't win a World Series game, or the 1906 Cubs, who lost in the World Series to a team celebrated for its lack of hitting (but had substantially more October offensive success than the regular season offensive juggernaut White Sox).

RadioheadRocks
12-26-2009, 10:48 PM
Cowherd also went on a rant when Konerko re-signed with the Sox about how he couldn't believe he would choose the South Side of Chicago over LA and how the Sox "only had 9 people"show up at their victory parade and it was the worst he'd ever seen".


Pretty much anything out of Cowchip's mouth amounts to nothing more than verbal diarrhea... that's been pretty much established here and elsewhere.