PDA

View Full Version : NL Central: 2000-2010



Falls City Beer
08-03-2010, 08:32 PM
In honor of departed Reds killers, I'd like to offer them a belated swift kick in the pants as they head out of the Central and into I-don't-care-where.

Bye-bye:

Lance Berkman
Roy Oswalt
Ryan Ludwick
Ryan Teriot

Soon to be departed:

Prince Fielder - go to the AL, it is calling...
Ricky Weeks
Jim Edmonds - retire!
Derek Lee - fading
Zambrano - fading mentally

In general, I've always defended the NL Central against pundits who always think the coastal divisions are better, but man the quality really is undeniably down for the near future, as the Reds are emerging, thankfully.

Just look at the talent that used to rule our division; it's fading, dissipating, vanishing...

Let's keep this trend going. I like it.

The NL Central has been a gutter since its creation.

mdccclxix
08-03-2010, 08:36 PM
I think the Cards, Astros and Cubs have carried it quite well until the last 2 years. 2000-2006 were particularly strong.

Falls City Beer
08-03-2010, 08:37 PM
I think the Cards, Astros and Cubs have carried it quite well until the last 2 years. 2000-2006 were particularly strong.

The Cubs?

Other than the Cards, every team has been ultimately a second or third tier franchise.

mdccclxix
08-03-2010, 08:42 PM
The 2004, 2005 Astros say hello. And the 2003 Cubs just dropped by as well.

Falls City Beer
08-03-2010, 08:44 PM
The 2004, 2005 Astros say hello. And the 2003 Cubs just dropped by as well.

Yeah, they had blips of decency, but someone has to win the division. And the Astros were a first-round exit punchline for years.

mdccclxix
08-03-2010, 08:46 PM
2004 and 2005 fixed all that, didn't it?

guttle11
08-03-2010, 08:48 PM
By that definition, only the AL East has been above awful since the third division was added, since it's the only division where multiple teams have been good virtually the whole time.

mdccclxix
08-03-2010, 08:50 PM
NLCS participants 2000-2009:

East: 6
West: 6
Central: 8

Falls City Beer
08-03-2010, 08:51 PM
By that definition, only the AL East has been above awful since the third division was added, since it's the only division where multiple teams have been good virtually the whole time.

NL East, NL West have had consistently relevant teams.

Falls City Beer
08-03-2010, 08:53 PM
NLCS participants 2000-2009:

East: 6
West: 6
Central: 8

Central has had 3 teams represent it in those 10 seasons, and just one of those teams has been there on, what, 5 of those 8 occasions?

guttle11
08-03-2010, 08:57 PM
NL East, NL West have had consistently relevant teams.

Relevant in wins/serious title contention, or just name value? The Braves sure, but the Phillies, Marlins and Mets trade off as challengers over that time. The Giants are the closest thing out west, but no other team challenges on a consistent basis since 1995.

In the Central it's been the Cardinals with rotating challengers behind them. Same as the other divisions.

Falls City Beer
08-03-2010, 08:58 PM
Relevant in wins/serious title contention, or just name value? The Braves sure, but the Phillies, Marlins and Mets trade off as challengers over that time. The Giants are the closest thing out west, but no other team challenges on a consistent basis since 1995.

In the Central it's been the Cardinals with rotating challengers behind them. Same as the other divisions.

Series wins, season win percentage, postseason victory totals.

westofyou
08-03-2010, 09:02 PM
NATIONAL LEAGUE
CAREER
2000-2009

LOSSES displayed only--not a sorting criteria
WINNING PERCENTAGE displayed only--not a sorting criteria

WINS W L PCT
1 Cardinals 913 706 .564
2 Braves 892 726 .551
3 Dodgers 862 758 .532
4 Giants 855 762 .529
5 Phillies 850 769 .525
6 Astros 832 787 .514
7 Mets 815 803 .504
8 Marlins 811 807 .501
9 Cubs 807 811 .499
10 Diamondbacks 805 815 .497
T11 Padres 769 852 .474
T11 Rockies 769 852 .474
13 Reds 751 869 .464
14 Brewers 741 878 .458
15 Nationals 711 908 .439
16 Pirates 681 936 .421


top 50 seasons NL 2000-09



NATIONAL LEAGUE
SEASON
2000-2009

LOSSES displayed only--not a sorting criteria
WINNING PERCENTAGE displayed only--not a sorting criteria

WINS YEAR W L PCT
1 Cardinals 2004 105 57 .648
T2 Braves 2002 101 59 .631
T2 Braves 2003 101 61 .623
T4 Giants 2003 100 61 .621
T4 Cardinals 2005 100 62 .617
6 Diamondbacks 2002 98 64 .605
T7 Cardinals 2002 97 65 .599
T7 Giants 2000 97 65 .599
T7 Cubs 2008 97 64 .602
T7 Mets 2006 97 65 .599
11 Braves 2004 96 66 .593
T12 Cardinals 2000 95 67 .586
T12 Braves 2000 95 67 .586
T12 Dodgers 2009 95 67 .586
T12 Giants 2002 95 66 .590
16 Mets 2000 94 68 .580
T17 Cardinals 2001 93 69 .574
T17 Phillies 2009 93 69 .574
T17 Astros 2001 93 69 .574
T17 Dodgers 2004 93 69 .574
T21 Rockies 2009 92 70 .568
T21 Diamondbacks 2001 92 70 .568
T21 Astros 2004 92 70 .568
T21 Phillies 2008 92 70 .568
T21 Dodgers 2002 92 70 .568
T26 Giants 2004 91 71 .562
T26 Marlins 2003 91 71 .562
T26 Cardinals 2009 91 71 .562
T29 Braves 2005 90 72 .556
T29 Diamondbacks 2007 90 72 .556
T29 Giants 2001 90 72 .556
T29 Rockies 2007 90 73 .552
T29 Brewers 2008 90 72 .556
T34 Mets 2008 89 73 .549
T34 Astros 2005 89 73 .549
T34 Phillies 2007 89 73 .549
T34 Cubs 2004 89 73 .549
T34 Padres 2007 89 74 .546
T39 Cubs 2001 88 74 .543
T39 Mets 2007 88 74 .543
T39 Cubs 2003 88 74 .543
T39 Phillies 2005 88 74 .543
T39 Dodgers 2006 88 74 .543
T39 Padres 2006 88 74 .543
T39 Braves 2001 88 74 .543
T39 Giants 2009 88 74 .543
T47 Padres 2004 87 75 .537
T47 Marlins 2009 87 75 .537
T47 Astros 2003 87 75 .537
T50 Dodgers 2000 86 76 .531
T50 Phillies 2001 86 76 .531
T50 Phillies 2003 86 76 .531
T50 Phillies 2004 86 76 .531
T50 Dodgers 2001 86 76 .531
T50 Astros 2008 86 75 .534
T50 Braves 2009 86 76 .531
T50 Cardinals 2008 86 76 .531

mdccclxix
08-03-2010, 09:08 PM
And that team has been a top 5 in baseball year in and year out. I've said it before, and I may not need to say it again with all these departures, the Central has been underrated in the last decade.

Falls City Beer
08-03-2010, 09:09 PM
And that team has been a top 5 in baseball year in and year out. I've said it before, and I may not need to say it again with all these departures, the Central has been underrated in the last decade.

Right, but you realize that a division is more than one team, right? As a division it sucks. Trace it back to its inception and it's even worse.

TheNext44
08-03-2010, 09:11 PM
Central has had 3 teams represent it in those 10 seasons, and just one of those teams has been there on, what, 5 of those 8 occasions?

The Central has 6 teams, so by design it will have more bad teams in it. Take away the Pirates and the divisions are fairly equal, especially when you consider that it has had the NL's best franchise these last 15 years. Move the Pirates to either of they other two, and they become the gutter of the league.

Captain Hook
08-03-2010, 09:11 PM
I know it's been a few year since he departed or was blackballed from baseball and it's been even longer since he was a division rival but not ever having to see the Reds face Barry Bonds makes me very happy.Same goes for Randy Johnson.

Falls City Beer
08-03-2010, 09:12 PM
The Central has 6 teams, so by design it will have more bad teams in it.

That's not necessarily the case. At least not by design.

mdccclxix
08-03-2010, 09:15 PM
Right, but you realize that a division is more than one team, right? As a division it sucks. Trace it back to its inception and it's even worse.

"Sucks" is the perception and the degree it is emphasized is what I disagree with. I'm not saying it's been the best, perhaps it's still 3rd, but it's underrated because it gets railed like this when the postseason results say differently.

Take the West, it was always my impression that 3-4 teams evenly matched would trade blows all to just over .500 and none of them were usually a real force, with the exception of those few Dbacks teams. I've never thought as much of the West as the media, actually.

TheNext44
08-03-2010, 09:15 PM
That's not necessarily the case. At least not by design.

Why not? More teams. More likely to have more bad teams any given year.

Like I said, if the Pirates were in the NL East, like they should be, it would be the worst hands down.

Take it to an extreme. Three divisions, two have three teams, one has nine. Odds are the one with nine will have more bad teams because it has more teams. It will appear to be worse because it will have so many bad teams.

Falls City Beer
08-03-2010, 09:16 PM
Why not? More teams. More likely to have more bad teams any given year.

The schedule is unbalanced, but it's not exclusive. The Reds, Cubs, Brewers, Pirates have been routinely dogmeat since the creation of the Central.

TheNext44
08-03-2010, 09:22 PM
The schedule is unbalanced, but it's not exclusive. The Reds, Cubs, Brewers, Pirates have been routinely dogmeat since the creation of the Central.

Just not true. The Cubs and Brewers have had as many if not more good seasons than the Nationals and Marlins.

Falls City Beer
08-03-2010, 09:23 PM
Just not true. The Cubs and Brewers have had as many if not more good seasons than the Nationals and Marlins.

Look at the winning percentages that westofyou posted.

And the Marlins have exactly one more World Title than the ENTIRE NL Central since 1993.

TheNext44
08-03-2010, 09:38 PM
Look at the winning percentages that westofyou posted.

And the Marlins have exactly one more World Title than the ENTIRE NL Central since 1993.

Since the Brewers joined the division, they and the Cubs have had 10 winning seasons, while the Marlins and Expos/Nationals have had 7.

And the Marlins also have one more World Series Title than the entire NL West. Not really seeing the point.

Falls City Beer
08-03-2010, 09:39 PM
Since the Brewers joined the division, they and the Cubs have had 10 winning seasons, while the Marlins and Expos/Nationals have had 7.

And the Marlins also have one more World Series Title than the entire NL West. Not really seeing the point.

The point is the Marlins haven't been a bad franchise.

But I'll grant that the Cubs have been decent the last 16 years. The Brewers really haven't.

RedsManRick
08-03-2010, 09:50 PM
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/9cd322e769.jpg

TheNext44
08-03-2010, 09:55 PM
The point is the Marlins haven't been a bad franchise.

But I'll grant that the Cubs have been decent the last 16 years. The Brewers really haven't.

I agree that the Central has been the weakest division in the NL since it went to three divisions, but it mostly is because they have the a sixth team, that happens to be the worst team in the league the last two decades.

But yeah, the Central has been beat up this past decade.

MattyHo4Life
08-03-2010, 10:01 PM
NATIONAL LEAGUE
CAREER
2000-2009

LOSSES displayed only--not a sorting criteria
WINNING PERCENTAGE displayed only--not a sorting criteria

WINS W L PCT
1 Cardinals 913 706 .564
2 Braves 892 726 .551
3 Dodgers 862 758 .532
4 Giants 855 762 .529
5 Phillies 850 769 .525
6 Astros 832 787 .514
7 Mets 815 803 .504
8 Marlins 811 807 .501
9 Cubs 807 811 .499
10 Diamondbacks 805 815 .497
T11 Padres 769 852 .474
T11 Rockies 769 852 .474
13 Reds 751 869 .464
14 Brewers 741 878 .458
15 Nationals 711 908 .439
16 Pirates 681 936 .421


top 50 seasons NL 2000-09



NATIONAL LEAGUE
SEASON
2000-2009

LOSSES displayed only--not a sorting criteria
WINNING PERCENTAGE displayed only--not a sorting criteria

WINS YEAR W L PCT
1 Cardinals 2004 105 57 .648
T2 Braves 2002 101 59 .631
T2 Braves 2003 101 61 .623
T4 Giants 2003 100 61 .621
T4 Cardinals 2005 100 62 .617
6 Diamondbacks 2002 98 64 .605
T7 Cardinals 2002 97 65 .599
T7 Giants 2000 97 65 .599
T7 Cubs 2008 97 64 .602
T7 Mets 2006 97 65 .599
11 Braves 2004 96 66 .593
T12 Cardinals 2000 95 67 .586
T12 Braves 2000 95 67 .586
T12 Dodgers 2009 95 67 .586
T12 Giants 2002 95 66 .590
16 Mets 2000 94 68 .580
T17 Cardinals 2001 93 69 .574
T17 Phillies 2009 93 69 .574
T17 Astros 2001 93 69 .574
T17 Dodgers 2004 93 69 .574
T21 Rockies 2009 92 70 .568
T21 Diamondbacks 2001 92 70 .568
T21 Astros 2004 92 70 .568
T21 Phillies 2008 92 70 .568
T21 Dodgers 2002 92 70 .568
T26 Giants 2004 91 71 .562
T26 Marlins 2003 91 71 .562
T26 Cardinals 2009 91 71 .562
T29 Braves 2005 90 72 .556
T29 Diamondbacks 2007 90 72 .556
T29 Giants 2001 90 72 .556
T29 Rockies 2007 90 73 .552
T29 Brewers 2008 90 72 .556
T34 Mets 2008 89 73 .549
T34 Astros 2005 89 73 .549
T34 Phillies 2007 89 73 .549
T34 Cubs 2004 89 73 .549
T34 Padres 2007 89 74 .546
T39 Cubs 2001 88 74 .543
T39 Mets 2007 88 74 .543
T39 Cubs 2003 88 74 .543
T39 Phillies 2005 88 74 .543
T39 Dodgers 2006 88 74 .543
T39 Padres 2006 88 74 .543
T39 Braves 2001 88 74 .543
T39 Giants 2009 88 74 .543
T47 Padres 2004 87 75 .537
T47 Marlins 2009 87 75 .537
T47 Astros 2003 87 75 .537
T50 Dodgers 2000 86 76 .531
T50 Phillies 2001 86 76 .531
T50 Phillies 2003 86 76 .531
T50 Phillies 2004 86 76 .531
T50 Dodgers 2001 86 76 .531
T50 Astros 2008 86 75 .534
T50 Braves 2009 86 76 .531
T50 Cardinals 2008 86 76 .531



It's unbelievable that the only NL Central team that won the World Series in the 2000's isn't even on that list. If the NL Central wasn't so weak in 2006, the Cardinals wouldn't have even been in the playoffs. How pathetic is it that a team can win their division with only 83 wins.

2006

East Division
Tm W L W-L% GB
New York Mets NYM 97 65 .599 --
Philadelphia Phillies PHI 85 77 .525 12.0
Atlanta Braves ATL 79 83 .488 18.0
Florida Marlins FLA 78 84 .481 19.0
Washington Nationals WSN 71 91 .438 26.0

Central Division
Tm W L W-L% GB
St. Louis Cardinals STL 83 78 .516 --
Houston Astros HOU 82 80 .506 1.5
Cincinnati Reds CIN 80 82 .494 3.5
Milwaukee Brewers MIL 75 87 .463 8.5
Pittsburgh Pirates PIT 67 95 .414 16.5
Chicago Cubs CHC 66 96 .407 17.5

West Division
Tm W L W-L% GB
San Diego Padres SDP 88 74 .543 --
Los Angeles Dodgers LAD 88 74 .543 --
San Francisco Giants SFG 76 85 .472 11.5
Arizona Diamondbacks ARI 76 86 .469 12.0
Colorado Rockies COL 76 86 .469 12.0