Team of the 2000s

[stocker323]

So who was the best team in the 2000s. Sox or Yanks? 2 titles a piece. Yanks have been to 2 more World Series, but I think that event in the 2004 ALCS, has to count for something. Thoughts?

[jacksonianmarch]

NY is the team of the 2000s. 9 playoff appearances, 8 division titles, 2 World Series titles, 4 AL pennants. It isnt close

[26 to 6]

NY is the team of the 2000s. 9 playoff appearances' date=' 8 division titles, 2 World Series titles, 4 AL pennants. It isnt close[/quote']

Agreed. but it's a hell of a debate.

[schillingouttheks]

Doesn't matter because it will be remembered as a Sox decade anyway because of the 2004 fiasco and then following up 3 years later.

 

You know that, even if it's not how it should be.

[Emmz]

In terms of memorable, like SOTK said, this is the Sox's decade, and when it comes down to it, that's what matters.

[Lester82]

The Yankees won 3 world series in the 90's, two of them back-to-back.... that felt more impressive actually.

 

these two 2000's world series by the Yankees were spaced so far apart. I mean Congrats to them, it's awesome, but.... well...

2004 and 2007 by the Red Sox was tremendous

 

and the Red Sox had the absolute greatest comeback in sports in '04. They became a model team and oh s***... no one can take away any of these two franchise's accomplishments, so it's all debate anyway.

 

 

 

by the way, Nike had a "Dynasty" tee-shirt with the yankee logo in some advertisement at the bottom of this webpage. the 2009 yankees haven't technically been part of a dynasty. (i guess Nike is making money off the theme of counting all their world series won)

[Lester82]

by the way, just by coincidence... the Yankees and Red Sox both won their last world series the year following not making the playoffs.

 

of course both teams had to make some moves to reverse their fates. But buying CC Sabathia, Teixeira, and Burnett never hurts and it locked up that whole 'team of the decade' thing for Jacksonianmarch.

 

Thank goodness.

[yankees228]

It all comes down to how you define "team of the decade". Technically, the New York Yankees were the most successful, but the decade will be remembered for what the Red Sox accomplished. No question about it.

[jacksonianmarch]

The question wasnt the most memorable. It was, the "team of the decade". To be honest with you, The 2000s will be remembered for droughts ending. Not really for what just the red variety of stockings did, but the white ones as well.

[rhet]

It all comes down to how you define "team of the decade". Technically' date=' the New York Yankees were the most successful, but the decade will be remembered for what the Red Sox accomplished. No question about it.[/quote']

 

Technically, the decade started on January 1, 2001.

[BoSox21]

Not really for what just the red variety of stockings did' date=' but the white ones as well.[/quote']

 

Most people didn't realize the White Sox were in a drought until they actually won. The Sox (were) and the Cubs (are) the only mainstream droughts that people knew about.

[Christian Snyder]

This may be just Red Sox bias but I think the Red Sox are the Team of the 2000's.... In '04 we won our first WS since what? 1918? For some reason I forget. Anyway, because of the fact that we won our first WS since (I think) 1918 the Sox will probably be remembered as the team of the decade.

[yeszir]

Patriots.

[BSN07]

NY is the team of the 2000s. 9 playoff appearances' date=' 8 division titles, 2 World Series titles, 4 AL pennants. It isnt close[/quote']

 

Just like the Braves were the team of the 90's right? 9 division titles, 4 WS, 1 WS championship...

 

 

 

 

I think we can say the 2000's were divided up by Boston, NY and St. Louis as the top franchises of the decade.

[Dojji]

Patriots.

 

Agreed. The only other franchise in sports who can touch what the Patsies did this decade is the Detroit Red Wings.

[mvp 78]

who cares?

[BSN07]

Agreed. The only other franchise in sports who can touch what the Patsies did this decade is the Detroit Red Wings.

 

The Lakers say "hello"

[Dojji]

Basketball isn't my strong suit but I thought LAL did most of its damage in the late 90's.

[Cocos Disciples]

Basketball isn't my strong suit but I thought LAL did most of its damage in the late 90's.

 

No, they won in 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2009.

[Dojji]

ehh, like I said, of the 4 major sports I know the least about basketball.

 

And who the baseball team of the decade is kinda depends on that whole 2000-2010 vs 2001-2011 thing. if it's the latter, then the Sox are the only two-time champ in the decade (D-backs, Angels, Marlins, Bosox, Chisox, Cards, Bosox, Phils, Yankees, ____, _____)

 

Either way though it's premature to talk about since there's either 1 or 2 more seasons in the decade, and if we do win the World Series in 2010 that'll make a huge difference in perceptions.

[Cocos Disciples]

ehh, like I said, of the 4 major sports I know the least about basketball.

 

And who the baseball team of the decade is kinda depends on that whole 2000-2010 vs 2001-2011 thing. if it's the latter, then the Sox are the only two-time champ in the decade (D-backs, Angels, Marlins, Bosox, Chisox, Cards, Bosox, Phils, Yankees, ____, _____)

 

Either way though it's premature to talk about since there's either 1 or 2 more seasons in the decade, and if we do win the World Series in 2010 that'll make a huge difference in perceptions.

If we're saying the decade started in 2000, then 2009 is the last year of the decade.

[BSN07]

New decade next year Dojji. Join us in the now.

[Dojji]

So what historic events happened in the year AD zero?

[stocker323]

talking about the 2000s... 1980 and 1990 are always included in their respective decades..

[Dojji]

The first year AD was AD 1. So to which decade of all the ones since are we assigning only nine years?

[Cocos Disciples]

You said that 2000-2010 is a decade. That's 11 years.

[schillingouttheks]

2000 was the 10th year of the 90's. If you want to argue semantics, Dojji's argument will win, because it's fact. EDIT: Though the decade is 2001-2010, not 2000-2010 or even 2001-2011. Wtf? 10 years. 2001 through 2010 is 10 years.

 

That said, arguing semantics for this cause is just not worth it, so whatever.

 

And jacko, team of the 2000s has many different definitions. If one team will be in peoples' minds 30 years down the road when they revisit this decade, the Red Sox will be at the forefront. Most successful? Yes, Yankees, but what the Red Sox did was more memorable and had more historic value, so, yes, you could argue that the Red Sox were the team of the decade. The original question was not "who was the most successful" either.

 

The question wasnt the most memorable. It was' date=' the "team of the decade". To be honest with you, The 2000s will be remembered for droughts ending. Not really for what just the red variety of stockings did, but the white ones as well.[/quote']

 

You always look for any reason to define a question that adapts to the framework in which you want to operate. If you don't think "team of the decade" goes hand in hand with the team that will be remembered most from the decade, I have a bridge to sell you. Yeah, the Yankees, technically, had the most success, but when it comes down to it, that probably pails in comparison to the accomplishments the Red Sox made. And because of that, they will be remembered more than the Yankees will. Maybe the Yankees will be remembered for 2001 and 2003 though.

 

And btw, what droughts ended? Most people didn't even realize the White Sox broke a drought when it happened, and I guarantee you most people would have to think for a minute to remember who won the 2005 World Series.

[Dojji]

The Phillies broke a 27 year drought of their own, although with 30 teams it really wasn't much of a drought anyway.

[Gom]

Yankees team of the decade in baseball. Same amount of wins as the Red Sox, more playoff appearances. Pretty simple math, actually.

 

Let's face it...the Yankees had the best winning percentage in baseball in the 1980's and won the most games. Team of the decade? No. Why? Zero championships.

 

It's all about the rings, stupid.

[Paradisecity]

Inquiring minds want to know- Why is it all about the rings?