The team of the 21st Century (so far)

[M2]

Got a bug in my brain the other day about what is the team of the 21st century (and which city is enjoying the best 21st century in terms of pro sports). So I came up with a basic methodology to determine it:

1 point for playoff appearance
1 point for a division win
1 point for the best record in your league
2 points for the best record in MLB (replaces best record in league)
2 points for winning your pennant
3 points for winning the World Series (replaces pennant)
-1 point for a losing season

Max points for a season is 7. A team with a .500 or better record, but no playoffs gets 0 points. Obviously there's different ways to weight these things, but it rewards strong seasons and consistent playoff entrants. Personally I find counting up World Series a bit lazy. I mean, the Giants can claim the last five years as theirs, but the six years before that count as well. They own that too.

In case of ties, I awarded both teams the points. There was one pre-2012 Wild Card playoff, in 2007 between the Rockies and Padres, and I gave both teams a point for it (because they'd both have earned that point under the current system). I picked 2000 as the starting point. Yeah, I know that technically was part of the 20th century, but it begins with a 2 so it's in.

Anyway, here's my results:

First the Worst

30. PIT -11
28. KCR -9
28. BAL -9
26. TOR -7
26. COL -7
23. MIL -6
23. CIN -6
23. MIA -6
22. SDP -5
20. WSH -3
20. SEA -3

Lots of teams with lost decades in there. The Pirates are still digging their way out of a 13-year slide. The Nats grade out as a 0 since they moved to D.C., but they had a dodgy final few years in Montreal. Winning a World Series in 2003 didn't save the Marlins from the lower tier. Seattle hasn't earned a point since 2001. The Reds find themselves here thanks to 11 losing seasons and the NL Central takes the cake as the worst overall division of the century.

Stuck in the Middle

18. NYM -2
18. CHC -2
17. CLE -1
16. TBR 0
14. HOU 1
14. TEX 1
10. ARI 6
10. MIN 6
10. CWS 6
10. DET 6

Well, the AL Central has been the most the most balanced division. The White Sox and D-Backs each have a WS crown on the shelf. The outstanding feature of the teams here is that they've been up-and-down.

Life at the Top

9. LAD 10
8. OAK 12
7. PHI 15
6. LAA 16
5. ATL 17
4. SFG 18
3. BOS 20
2. STL 34
1. NYY 43

The Dodgers and the White Sox are tied with seven 0-point seasons. The Phillies and Braves each had runs of excellence. The Giants had five -1 seasons and four 0 seasons. When they're good, they're great, but they're out of the money too often. Same basic thing applies to the Red Sox. Frankly, much as it may irk people, there's almost no way to come up with a system that doesn't spit out the Cardinals and Yankees as the top two teams of the 2000s. They're routinely among the best teams in the league, not just making the playoffs but posting the top record in their leagues, and they've both got two World Series titles.

I'm going to do this with other sports over it in the Tavern section of the site in the coming days.

[powersackers]

If we took the time to add in average payroll per season, the order wouldn't change much would be my guess.

[Ironman92]

Interesting that Minnesota and the Tigers are the same.

[RedFanT]

The thing is the St. Louis Cardinals knew about this thread before it was even posted.

[ac084c]

I'm not seeing any points awarded for "winning the right way"....

How will I explain that to my son?

[westofyou]

Interesting that Minnesota and the Tigers are the same.

They swapped places in 2008 or so

[KronoRed]

To me, more points should be give for a world series title, those are what everyone is after.

[Kingspoint]

A team should get 10 points for winning a World Series on the scale M2 is using.....not a lousy three points.

[ac084c]

To me, more points should be give for a world series title, those are what everyone is after.

Unless you make a world series title worth 14 points or more, that would only change your 5th place team (of the top 5).

[ac084c]

A team should get 10 points for winning a World Series on the scale M2 is using.....not a lousy three points.

1-4 Stays the same
5. Angels (+1)
6. Phillies (+1)
7. Braves (-2)
8. White Sox (+2)
8. Diamondbacks (+2)
10. A's (-2)
11. Dodgers (-2)

[cincyinco]

How about this scale for the 20th century?

[M2]

1-4 Stays the same
5. Angels (+1)
6. Phillies (+1)
7. Braves (-2)
8. White Sox (+2)
8. Diamondbacks (+2)
10. A's (-2)
11. Dodgers (-2)

Yep, it's pretty baked in. After 15 seasons what sets teams apart is consistency. A World Series every now and then is great, wish the Reds could do it, but the Cardinals and Yankees have been operating at a higher level.

[M2]

How about this scale for the 20th century?

That's more work than I'm willing to do. The points would work a lot different because the playoffs were so exclusive. Guessing most teams would find themselves in the negative zone. No real question of which team would be #1. Cardinals and Dodgers probably would be duking it out for the second spot.

[westofyou]

That's more work than I'm willing to do. The points would work a lot different because the playoffs were so exclusive. Guessing most teams would find themselves in the negative zone. No real question of which team would be #1. Cardinals and Dodgers probably would be duking it out for the second spot.

Tigers would place pretty high, the Dodgers did have a few decades of daffiness before McPhail showed up

[cincyinco]

That's more work than I'm willing to do. The points would work a lot different because the playoffs were so exclusive. Guessing most teams would find themselves in the negative zone. No real question of which team would be #1. Cardinals and Dodgers probably would be duking it out for the second spot.

Yeah, a ton more data to work with.. and as you eluded to, perhaps different weighting. I don't blame you for not doing it.. but still would be interesting nonetheless.

- - - Updated - - -


That's more work than I'm willing to do. The points would work a lot different because the playoffs were so exclusive. Guessing most teams would find themselves in the negative zone. No real question of which team would be #1. Cardinals and Dodgers probably would be duking it out for the second spot.

Yeah, a ton more data to work with.. and as you eluded to, perhaps different weighting. I don't blame you for not doing it.. but still would be interesting nonetheless.

[Ironman92]

They swapped places in 2008 or so

Yeah...Tigers in the World Series skewed my memories

[ac084c]

That's more work than I'm willing to do. The points would work a lot different because the playoffs were so exclusive. Guessing most teams would find themselves in the negative zone. No real question of which team would be #1. Cardinals and Dodgers probably would be duking it out for the second spot.

It would also be different because the original 16 franchises had many more years to accumulate points (both negative and positive). I started this activity last night and got through the 30's. I just used your same criteria (much easier with playoff teams because there are only 2 of them) - but I'd be open to finishing the legwork if you want to give me an idea about how you'd award points differently for the era before division play.

[ac084c]

Alright, so I'm done with analysis of the 20th century. This analysis covers 1903 - 1999 with a few exceptions:
1904 and 1994 are excluded (no postseason held). 1900-1902 weren't included because postseason didn't actually count (they were exhibition games).

1903-1968 (no divisions):
1 point for playoff appearance
1 point for the best record in your league
2 points for the best record in MLB (replaces best record in league)
2 points for winning your pennant
3 points for winning the World Series (replaces pennant)
-1 point for a losing season

Since making the playoffs was more exclusive (1 team in each league, I figured keeping the extra points was warranted).

1969-1993 (division play), same as above plus:
1 point for division win

1994-1999 (wild card play), same as above.

Prior to division play, the max points for a season is 6, after it becomes 7 (just like M2's scoring). Again a team with a .500 record or better but no playoffs gets 0 points. For any ties in record, points were awarded to both teams.

The only season with exception was 1981 in which they did a funky playoff format (division winners from the first half and second half made the playoffs). I awarded points to the team with the best overall record (e.g. Reds) as if they would have won the division (3 points) even though they didn't make the playoffs. Teams that wouldn't have actually won the division with overall records but made the playoffs, were only awarded one point (e.g. Phillies).

Some other important notes:
The 16 original franchises will obviously have the most opportunities for points, positive and negative. Franchises that changed cities/names (e.g. Senators/Twins and Browns/Orioles) points' are still cumulative.

The expansion franchises and the year they entered the league are as follows:
1961: Texas Rangers (as the new Washington Senators - Minnesota was the original Senators) and Los Angeles Angels
1962: Houston Astros (as the Houston Colt .45's) and New York Mets
1969: San Diego Padres, Washington Nationals (as the Montreal Expos), Kansas City Royals, and Milwaukee Brewers (as the Seattle Pilots)
1977: Seattle Mariners and Toronto Blue Jays
1993: Miami Marlins (as the Florida Marlins) and Colorado Rockies
1998: Arizona Diamondbacks and Tampa Bay Rays (as the Tampa Bay Devil Rays).

Anyway, here's my results:

First the Worst

30. PHI* -36
29. MIN* -22
28. CHW* -18
26. TEX -17
26. LAA -17
25. WAS -16
24. SEA -13
23. MIL -11
22. SDP -9
21. CLE* -8

Stuck in the Middle

20. HOU -6
19. BAL* -4
17. TBR -2
17. COL -2
16. MIA -1
14. ARI 1
14. NYM 1
12. KCR 7
12. CHC* 7
11. TOR 10

Life at the Top

10. ATL* 12
9. CIN* 14
8. DET* 15
7. BOS* 18
6. PIT* 19
5. OAK* 34
4. STL* 44
3. SFG* 53
2. LAD* 57
1. NYY* 182

* denotes original 16 franchise

[cincyinco]

Thank you for doing that. Good lord the Yanks just dominated the century. Flat out owned it. Knew they'd be #1, but I'm still shocked to see that gap between them and #2.

[villain612]

Haha. Phillies still suck.

[BluegrassRedleg]

Toronto at 11 is pretty amazing, considering when the Jays entered the league.

[ac084c]

Further nerdery, in case anyone is interested. I find this fascinating.



Team
1903-1927
1928-1951
1952-1975
1976-1999
TOTAL
Losing Seasons


Yankees
16
75
52
39
182
21


Dodgers
-9
6
41
19
57
36


Giants
40
10
6
-3
53
26


Cardinals
-10
37
7
10
44
36


Athletics
14
2
6
12
34
54


Pirates
15
-9
10
3
19
36


Red Sox
16
-4
-2
8
18
36


Tigers
4
11
-1
1
15
35


Reds
-6
-6
15
11
14
45


Braves
-15
-7
6
28
12
53


Blue Jays
0
0
0
10
10
9


Cubs
21
12
-16
-10
7
49


Royals
0
0
-4
11
7
13


Mets
0
0
2
-1
1
20


D-backs
0
0
0
1
1
1


Marlins
0
0
0
-1
-1
5


Rockies
0
0
0
-2
-2
3


Rays
0
0
0
-2
-2
2


Orioles
-18
-15
22
7
-4
54


Astros
0
0
-10
4
-6
17


Indians
-3
0
-9
4
-8
43


Padres
0
0
-7
-2
-9
19


Brewers
0
0
-7
-4
-11
19


Mariners
0
0
0
-13
-13
17


Nationals
0
0
-7
-9
-16
17


Angels
0
0
-11
-6
-17
23


Rangers
0
0
-13
-4
-17
23


White Sox
7
-17
-1
-7
-18
44


Twins
-4
-12
-3
-3
-22
57


Phillies
-11
-20
-14
9
-36
61

[redsmetz]

Further nerdery, in case anyone is interested. I find this fascinating.



Team
1903-1927
1928-1951
1952-1975
1976-1999
TOTAL
Losing Seasons


Yankees
16
75
52
39
182
21


Dodgers
-9
6
41
19
57
36


Giants
40
10
6
-3
53
26


Cardinals
-10
37
7
10
44
36


Athletics
14
2
6
12
34
54


Pirates
15
-9
10
3
19
36


Red Sox
16
-4
-2
8
18
36


Tigers
4
11
-1
1
15
35


Reds
-6
-6
15
11
14
45


Braves
-15
-7
6
28
12
53


Blue Jays
0
0
0
10
10
9


Cubs
21
12
-16
-10
7
49


Royals
0
0
-4
11
7
13


Mets
0
0
2
-1
1
20


D-backs
0
0
0
1
1
1


Marlins
0
0
0
-1
-1
5


Rockies
0
0
0
-2
-2
3


Rays
0
0
0
-2
-2
2


Orioles
-18
-15
22
7
-4
54


Astros
0
0
-10
4
-6
17


Indians
-3
0
-9
4
-8
43


Padres
0
0
-7
-2
-9
19


Brewers
0
0
-7
-4
-11
19


Mariners
0
0
0
-13
-13
17


Nationals
0
0
-7
-9
-16
17


Angels
0
0
-11
-6
-17
23


Rangers
0
0
-13
-4
-17
23


White Sox
7
-17
-1
-7
-18
44


Twins
-4
-12
-3
-3
-22
57


Phillies
-11
-20
-14
9
-36
61



Thanks for breaking this out so well. I was very curious about how the Cardinals fared given their 20's to 40's success and this shows, it was quite a lot. We picked up in the 60's and 70's, obviously. But we lose out on the 45 years we had a losing record (well, and two .500 seasons - 1942 and 1996; we also had a .500 season just prior to the start of calculating, 1902).

I only note this because I have to have my ammunition when going toe to toe with my wife's family.

[BuckeyeRedleg]

Ranking MLB franchises (all-time) by WC’s and Pennants:

#1-NYY (formerly Baltimore Orioles- 1901-1902) = 27 World Championships, 40 Pennants
#2-STL = 11 WC’s, 19 Pennants
#3-SFG (formerly NY Giants- 1885-1957) = 8 WC’s, 23 Pennants
#4-LAD (formerly Brooklyn Dodgers- 1932-1957) = 6 WC’s, 21 Pennants
#5-OAK (formerly Philadelphia A’s- 1901-1954, Kansas City A’s- 1955-1967) = 9 WC’s, 15 Pennants
#6-BOS = 8 WC’s, 13 Pennants
#7-ATL (formerly Boston Braves- 1871-1952, Milwaukee Braves- 1953-1965) = 3WC’s, 17 Pennants
#8-CIN = 5 WC’s, 9 Pennants
#8-PIT = 5 WC’s, 9 Pennants
#10-DET = 4 WC’s, 11 Pennants

Ranking WS Championships by City:

#1-New York City = 35 (NYY x 27, NYG x 5, NYM x 2, BRK x 1)
#2-St. Louis = 11 (Cardinals x 11, Browns x 0)
#3-Boston = 9 (Red Sox x 8, Braves x 1)
#4-Philadelphia = 7 (Athletics x 5, Phillies x 2)
#5-Los Angeles = 6 (Dodgers x 5, Angels x 1)
#6-Cincinnati = 5
#6-Pittsburgh = 5
#6-Chicago = 5 (White Sox x 3, Cubs x 2)
#9-Detroit = 4
#9-Oakland =4

Ranking WS Championships by State:

#1-New York = 35 (NYY x 27, NYG x 5, NYM x 2, BRK x 1)
#2-California = 13 (Dodgers x 5, A’s x 4, Giants x 3, Angels x 1)
#3-Pennsylvania = 12 (Pirates x 5, Athletics x 5, Phillies x 2)
#3-Missouri = 12 WC’s (Cardinals x 11, Royals x 1)
#5-Massachussetts = 9 (Red Sox x 8, Braves x 1)
#6-Ohio = 7 (Reds x 5, Indians x 2)
#7-Illinois = 5 (White Sox x 3, Cubs x 2)
#8-Michigan = 4 (Tigers x 4)
#9-Maryland = 3 (Orioles x 3)