There are absurd headlines, then there's this

  • “But while the Yankees had the best winning percentage for the 2000s as a whole — .597, with a 965-651 record — we have chosen the Red Sox as the team of the decade.”
  • “For the decade, the Red Sox averaged 92 wins per season, compared to the Yankees’ 96.5. (St. Louis led the NL with 91.3.)”
  • “And when the Yankees bookended the decade with this year’s title, they matched the Red Sox as the only team with two championships in the 2000s.”

And Price was good enough to add this nifty table (which has not one, not two but three errors: how do you win a WS but NOT a Pennant? And the Yanks won FOUR pennants, not two. And the Rays won the division in 2008, not the Sox. Screw the facts!):

Best of the 2000s
Top franchises for the decade:
Team Wins Div. Titles Pennants WS Titles
Yankees 965 8 2 4 2
Red Sox 920 2 1 1 2 2
Cardinals 913 6 2 1
Angels 900 5 1 1
Braves 892 6 0 0
A’s 890 4 0 0

So, what was the reason for picking the Sox ahead of the Yanks, per Ed’s reasoning:

  • “Boston earns the nod not just based on its success but also for the way the franchise turned itself around and became a standard-bearer in ways for the industry.”

Ahhhh, intangibles. And doesn’t the RSN like to bash Jeter because we like to tout his intangibles.

Oh yeah, nevermind the fact that the Yanks only missed the post-season once (’08) during the decade. Four misses for the Sox (’00, ’01, ’02, ’06). I’ll give you that the Sox “2004 story” was the biggest non-steroids-related story of the decade, but that doesn’t make them the team of the decade.

This isn’t about “who the best team in the 2000’s is”. This is about a writer making the case for a team, but only cites another team’s accomplishments (which are factually superior, not an opinion), and has the audacity to title the article “No Rival…”

Har-dee-har-har.

UPDATE: I wish I saw this one before, but it’s nearly as awful/biased:

The Yankees won the most games, the most division titles and the most American League pennants. They employed the hitter with the most home runs, and the pitcher with the most wins.

And it still says here that the Red Sox were baseball’s Team of the Decade.

[…fast forward to conclusion…]

They each won it twice, and it says here that the two Red Sox wins meant more than the two Yankees wins did.

And that’s why it also says here that the Red Sox, and not the Yankees, were the Team of the Decade.

Way to go, @DKnobler. Why let facts get in the way? The Best Story Of The Decade doesn’t mean they are The Team Of The Decade.

UPDATE #2 (12/30/09, 2:45pm): Just saw this come out. Hate the logic, hate the team, can’t refute the results.

The Five Best Sports Franchises of the 2000’s

[…]

5. New York Yankees: World Series Wins (2), AL Pennants (4), Playoff Appearances (9), AL East Titles (8), Four Seasons of 100+ wins

The World Series wins bookended the decade. The April to September supremacy was throughout. The Yankees went to four World Series. It would have been five barring the greatest comeback in the history of sports. They also came ludicrously close to winning a third title in 2001. New York’s AL team was great. It should have been. They function with virtually unlimited resources in a world allowing them to spend 33 percent more than their closest rivals and three times as much as the bottom feeders. Boston won the same number of World Series, but were beaten in the division eight out of ten times.

IIATMS overlord and founder. ESPN contributor. Purveyor of luscious reality.