Are Yankees Team Of The Decade?

From Rich Lederer:

Here is a summary of the qualifications of the leading candidates to become the Team of the Decade.

If Los Angeles wins it all this year, the case for the Angels will be as follows:
2 World Series championships
2 pennants
3 LCS appearances
5 Division titles (including 2009)

If St. Louis wins it all this year, the case for the Cardinals will be:
2 World Series championships
3 pennants
6 LCS appearances
7 Division titles (including 2009)

If New York wins, the case for the Yankees will be:
2 World Series championships
4 pennants
5 LCS appearances
7 Division titles (including 2009)

If Boston wins, the case for the Red Sox will be:
3 World Series championships
3 pennants
5 LCS appearances
2 Division titles
4 Wild Cards (including 2009)

At this point, the team of the decade is the Boston Red Sox, and nothing short of a title from the Yankees or Cardinals will change that. While the Yankees currently have more wins, division titles, and playoff appearances, this is an area where championships are the trump card, and the Red Sox hold that advantage. If the Yankees win it all this year, however, they will be the winningest club over the ten year period and will have as many titles as the BoSox. It would be hard to designate any other club as the team of the decade.

What do you think? Who is the team of the decade?

0 thoughts on “Are Yankees Team Of The Decade?

  1. Red Sox are the dominate team of the decade as it stands now and I hate it more than anything on this planet!

  2. You sure the decade starts in 2000 and not 2001? I would have thought it goes from 2001-2010. If so, then there’s really no discussion regardless of what happens this year.

    • Nah. There was a year zero, so to speak, if I remember correctly, which means decades start at 0.

      • There was no year zero. But there are also no offcial decades, either. We just have this peculiar numerical obsession with the number 0 (how many get a thrill when seeing the odometer roll over?). Of course this is also an arbitrary numbering system – we chose an essentially random event in history to start counting centuries after it occured, and even so likley got the date wrong. There is no particularly good reason to use this 10 year period over any other (the most recent Decade of the Yankees was 1994-2003). However, given the choice between accepting cultural convention or spending the rest of my life battling widespread numerical illiteracy, it is simply easier to surrender.

  3. OK, with my traditional rant over the arbitrary temporal divisions out of the way, I think its really hard to say one team dominated this decade. Boston stands out as the one that has most improved, most elevated its profile – bitch all you want, but the Nation was a brilliant marketing stroke, and I likely see more students in Red Sox gear than Mets gear in a NY school. The Yankees are the winningest team of the decade, and have the most playoff and World Series appearances, but that just makes them the equivilent of the 90s Braves. Until the Yankees, Cards or Angels wins the WS this year, the Sox are the only team with 2 titles to their name, and have to be considered the favorite.

    It’ll be a great argument if the Yanks win this year, though I think the right answer may be that the 00s was the Yankees-Red Sox decade, just as the 50s were the Yankees-Dodgers decade.

  4. Ask me again after this year, but for now I’m inclined to say the Boston Red Sox. The Yankees have had too many disappointments recently for me to call them the team of the decade. On the other hand, a 2009 win would make a pretty little bookend.

    • If you buy the premise that anything can happen in a short series, and that dumb luck plays a bigger role after reaching the playoffs than before, then one could argue the 8 playoff appearances between 2000-2008 should have resulted in 4 LCS appearances, 2 WS appearances, and 1 WS win. However, the Yanks performed a bit above that, with 5 LCS, 3 WS, and 1 WS win. I think we place too much emphasis on what was done last, and insist the Yanks had to be bad rather than credit our opponents for being good. That our biggest disappointment was a season in which they were 16 games over .500 and a losing record against only 4 teams is proof that the Yankees have been ridiculously good throughout this decade.

      • Who defined this decade of baseball? Are people really going to look back in 40 years and say “When I think of the 2000s, I think of the Yankees” – do they really associate 2000 and 2001 with the 2004-09 Yankees? No, they are seen as separate Yankee eras.

        The Red Sox formed as the team that we now know them as today in 2003. They made it to extra innings in Game 7 that year, and won the World Series after breaking the most-talked about curse in sports history. They went on a fantastic run of success, and slowly built a core team that still exists today on both the lineup card and in people’s minds. The team “feels” the same since 2003, even though Schilling and Pedro and Manny and Mark Bellhorn are all gone.

        The Yankees had the 90s. Hopefully, a 2009 victory will give us the next decade.

        • I think people in 40 years will have some hazy memories and the same objective data on victories and such that Rich used. They will look back on thedecade and see Yankee dominance if they win this year.

        • The column and convention define “the decade” as 2000-2009. If you read my earlier comment you’ll see I agree that its an illogical and arbitrary distinction. Nonetheless, these are the parameters for the debate.

          The Yankees decade is, as I said, clearly 1994-2003. 6 WS appearances, 4 wins, missing number 5 by just one out. And they were denied a playoff (if not series) appearance by the 19 strike. That’s a decade few teams can match (and the Yanks have had 5 of them).

          The Red Sox as we know them did indeed start in either 2002 or 2003, but that’s not giving them a decade, is it? And in that time they have only once finished first in their division. Play until 2012, and we may see the Sox reel off 4 more WS victories, or collapse completely.

          So, if we stick to the parameters given us, no matter how arbitrary, we must count the 2000-2001 Yankees as much as the 2009 Yankees, and in that time frame the one and only way in which the Red Sox are better than the Yanks are in a 2nd WS ring. It is a bit difficult to award the decade to the team based on one out in 2001.

          • Sorry, wasn’t able to edit it in time – obviously the Sox won the division twice. I was flip flopping them with the Rays in 2008.

            BTW – if we use the more technically proper (but still arbitrary) decade of 2001-2010, the Yanks lose a WS, and the Sox lose a year without a playoff appearance, so the debate becomes even tighter. However, that also leaves this year and next to play out, and could completely change the picture.

  5. Red Sox are the team of the decade. I don’t see how you could argue that. The Yankees have been making the playoffs nearly every year, but havn’t had much of a chance to do anything in them. Detroit, Cleveland, Anaheim, Boston all mowed them down.

  6. Rob A from BBD: Red Sox are the team of the decade. I don’t see how you could argue that. The Yankees have been making the playoffs nearly every year, but havn’t had much of a chance to do anything in them. Detroit, Cleveland, Anaheim, Boston all mowed them down.

    “Haven’t had much of a chance to do anything in any of them”? You must be f*cking kidding me. They went to three world series, one more than the Sox did. They advanced to the ALCS 5 times – as many times as the Sox managed to make it into the playoffs. You are essentially saying that the Yanks’ failure to advance in 3 PS appearances is more of a handicap than the 4 times the Sox stayed home in October.

  7. HAHAHAHA Bean town has the best 10yrs of their dismal history and the Yanks are STILL the team of the decade. What a sorry franchise boston, choke on it