Most successful franchise of the 2000s

maddash · Post by **maddash** » March 20 07, 11:22 am

I thought it would be fun to talk a bit about the most successful franchises of the 2000s so far, and who will take the top honor when the decade reaches a completion.

I think it's safe to say that the Yankees hold the title for the AL and the over all title for all of MLB so far. The Cardinals probably hold the title for the NL, although you could make a case for the Braves depending on your views of the post season. Let's look at the numbers:

Yankees-
7 straight Division Titles
3 AL Pennants
1 World Series
679-451 (.600) Record

Cardinals-
5 Division Titles (6 if you count the WC in '01 as a Co-Title)
2 NL Pennants
1 World Series
653-475 (.579) Record

Braves-
6 straight Division Titles
650-482 (.574) Record

Going by the trophy case, the Cards have the NL pretty well locked up, but are still a bit behind the Yankees. By my estimation, it'll take another WS Title by the Cards take over the top title for the decade (with the assumption that the Yanks don't take another title as well). I've considered a few Wild Card teams, like the Red Sox and the Angeles (supposing they pick up another title), and I'm guessing they could make a late decade surge, but I think it's down to the Cardinals or Braves to steal the title from the Yankees.

Thoughts?

/and yeah, this thread is pretty much an excuse for us to give the Cardinals a big pat on the back/

G. Keenan · Post by **G. Keenan** » March 20 07, 11:33 am

The Cardinals are unquestionably the most successful NL team of the 2000s.

I agree that the Yankees hold the MLB title.

Nothing wrong with a pat on the back. They have given us an incredible run of baseball since 2000.

Asmodai · Post by **Asmodai** » March 20 07, 11:36 am

Oakland has consistently been near the top more than any other team outside the Yankees. 4 division titles. 664-469 (.586 WPCT)

myersli · Post by **myersli** » March 20 07, 11:59 am

You can take it a step further and look at divisions. Since 2000, below are the # of teams each NL division put in the LCS:

East: 3
West: 2
Central: 7

Oh yeah, and the NL Central is consistently a weak division, didn't you know?

Centreville · Post by **Centreville** » March 20 07, 12:04 pm

The Houston Astros aren't far behind. 1 more WS appearance and a win would put them on the list..

Popeye_Card · Post by **Popeye_Card** » March 20 07, 12:12 pm

Centreville wrote:The Houston Astros aren't far behind. 1 more WS appearance and a win would put them on the list..

They've been consistently good, but they've also been consistently a 2nd place team. The one division they did win they technically shared.

Now if we expanded this to most success over the last 10 years, the Astros, Braves, and Cards would all be running neck-and-neck.

--P--

Centreville · Post by **Centreville** » March 20 07, 12:14 pm

Very good points, Popeye. So much for the NL Central being weak...

Jocephus · Post by **Jocephus** » March 20 07, 12:14 pm

WE ARE SO SMART! S-M-R-T!!...OOPS, I MEAN, S-M-A-R-T!

JL21 · Post by **JL21** » March 20 07, 12:16 pm

Centreville wrote:The Houston Astros aren't far behind. 1 more WS appearance and a win would put them on the list..

They're kind of the Red Sox of the NL, albeit minus the WS title. Lots of post-season appearances, not too many division titles.

mcgee51taguchi99 · Post by **mcgee51taguchi99** » March 20 07, 12:25 pm

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?