One of the Best Decades in Cardinals History

by StLouisSwifties on Sep 23, 2009 1:29 PM EDT

Using regular season W-L pct. as a measuring stick, the 2000s are just percentage points away from being the second best decade in Cardinals history. Here are the six best:

1. 1940s .623 (960-580)

2. 1930s .56649 (869-665)

3. 2000s .56619 (911-698)*

4. 1960s .552 (884-718)

5. 1920s .536 (821-712)

6. 1980s .529 (825-734)

* 10 games remaining

If I'm calculating correctly, in order for the 2000s Cardinals to move into 2nd place they need to go 7-3 for the remainder of the season. This would give them a W-L pct. of exactly .567 for the decade. Pretty impressive, given the illustrious history of this franchise.

Tweet Comment 21 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Also, regarding playoffs

Cards will have been in all but two years so far this decade. And none were the Wildcard, other than the technical Wildcard with the Astros in 2001, I believe.

by saladdays on Sep 23, 2009 2:09 PM EDT reply actions

Three years absent

2003, 2007 & 2008.

"I learned a long time ago if you keep checking your stats all year, you're going to end up in the toilet." - Chris Carpenter, 2009.

by indakind on Sep 23, 2009 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions

Whoops

forgot about 2003

by saladdays on Sep 23, 2009 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions

This is more of an achievement that it appears to be

at first glance. In the ‘30s-’40s the Cardinals benefitted greatly from Branch Rickey’s still new innovation, the farm system. The Cardinals pioneered this huge transformation in the way Major League organizations were structured and, as a result, unseated the previous dominant force in the National League, the New York Giants. In those pre-free agency days a dominant team remained dominant indefinitely, as the “have nots”—the Phillies, the Braves, et al—had few options in the way of improvement. So the Cards remained at the top of the heap, for the most part, until the rest of the league’s farm systems finally began to catch up, in the 1950s. Their only rival in the ’40s were the Brooklyn Dodgers, who had secured the services or Mr. Rickey in 1942.

Nowadays, if you don’t have Yankees/Red Sox/Mets/Cubs money, you have to be smarter than your competition, which is what the Cardinals have been—from smart free agent signings and trades to the managing of individual games. St. Louis ranks 17th in market size among MLB cities and the Cardinals hold the same position in team payroll, yet they are currently among the best teams in baseball and rank 4th in attendance.

"The Detroit Tigers' biggest obstacle to a championship will be keeping a straight face. The Tigers in three. (OK, make it four.)"
- Bob Nightengale's World Series prediction in USA Today, Oct. 20, 2006

by StLouisSwifties on Sep 23, 2009 3:17 PM EDT reply actions

To Augment Yer Article...

40’s were also the best decade for # of pennants, WS wins, etc. Breaks down like this:

1920’s – 2 pennants (‘26, ’28), 1-0 WS (’26)
1930’s – 3 pennants (‘30, ’31, ’34), 2-1 WS (’31 & ‘34)
1940’s – 4 pennants (‘42, ’43, ’44, ’46), 3-1 WS (’42, ‘44, ’46)
1950’s – Big Fat Zippo
1960’s – 3 pennants (‘64, ’67, ’68), 2-1 WS (’64, ‘68)
1970’s – Big Fat Zippo
1980’s – 3 Div Titles (‘82, ’85, ’87), 3 pennants (same), 1-2 WS (’82)
1900’s – 1 Div Title (‘96)
2000’s – 6 Div Titles (‘00, ’02, ’03, ’04, ’05, ’06), 1 Wild Card (’01), 2 pennants (‘04, ’06), 1-1 WS (’06)

Big McLargehuge!
:=8O

by The MooCow on Sep 23, 2009 3:29 PM EDT reply actions

Think of it in 30 year Spans:

1920’s – 1940’s – 9 pennants, 6 WS wins
1950’s – 1970’s – 3 pennants, 2 WS wins
1980’s – 2000’s – 5 pennants, 2 WS wins

Big McLargehuge!
:=8O

by The MooCow on Sep 23, 2009 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions

Yup, any way you slice it

the Cards of the Rickey-Breadon management-owner era dominate, primarily for the reasons stated above. Also working against the recent Cards teams—as far as reaching the world series—is the playoff system. No matter how much you dominate your opponents throughout the regular season, the postseason is a crapshoot, plain and simple. The ugliest example of this was when the 100-win Cardinals ended up losing the NLCS to the inferior, 89-win Wild Card Astros in 2005.

by StLouisSwifties on Sep 23, 2009 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions

but 2005 was canceled out the following year

when the inferior, 83-win cardinals beat the 97-win new york mets to win the pennant . . . .

you might argue that this great decade is somewhat akin to the rickey-breadon era, in that it has mainly resulted from a superior commitment of resources. the cardinals were either 1st or 2nd in the NL Central in payroll every year in the 2000s -- and until last year, they were never seriously outspent by any division rival in this decade (ie, never by more than a few million dollars). in each of the last two years, the cubs outspent the cards by about $20 million. the astros, brewers, and pirates have never outspent the cards in any given year; the reds did it once, and the cubs have done it 3 times.

by lboros on Sep 23, 2009 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions

True, re: 2006

—but, after the debacles of the previous 2 postseasons (not to mention 1985) I feel the baseball gods owed us that one. Plus, various chunks of the team we fielded in the playoffs in ’06 had been alternately out of commission most of the regular season—so the team was potentially better than its record indicated.

As far as pre-2007 payroll, yes, Jockety and La Russa definitely employed a Win Now philosophy. Again, though, they spent smarter than most other teams.

Actually, now that I think about it, the DeWitt-Jockety Cardinals were in some ways the antithesis of the Breadon-Rickey teams, in that Breadon was notoriously cheap come contract time for his players. He could afford to be, since there was always a sea of farm hands anxious to move up to the big club. Rickey had a policy of trading his players when they reached the age of 30, hoping for a greater return in the form of younger talent—talent that was willing to work for less $ than wiser, 30-something players. Probably the only time this backfired was when he traded Johnny Mize after the 1941 season. Think how much his 40-50 HRs per year would have improved those Cardinals teams of the late ’40s, most of which finished 2nd to the rising Dodgers.

by StLouisSwifties on Sep 23, 2009 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions

Rickey-Breadon are sort of a blend

of approaches. what you say is true, they were incredibly stingy w/ salaries and habitually dumped expensive 30ish players and replaced them w/ younger, cheaper farmhands. in that respect, they’re the opposite of dewitt-jocketty-mozeliak.

but in spite of that, rickey-breadon — like dewitt-jocketty — achieved dominance by outspending their competition. in rickey-breadon’s case, the dollars were invested in the vast farm system rather than the big-league payroll — but the farm system was the only free-agent procurement mechanism of that era, and when you account for it the cards outspent everyone by a wide margin. at the end of the 1930s they had a near-monopoly on minor-league talent, to such an extent that in the late 1930s commissioner landis “liberated” about 75 st louis farmhands (most notably pete reiser) in “the best interests of baseball.”

by lboros on Sep 23, 2009 5:50 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Good point--

I’ve never thought of the Cards’ pre-WWII farm system as the free agency pool of its day, but that is essentially what it was.

by StLouisSwifties on Sep 23, 2009 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions

True, re: 2006

- but, after the debacles of the previous 2 postseasons (not to mention 1985) I feel the baseball gods owed us that one. Plus, various chunks of the team we fielded in the playoffs in ’06 had been alternately out of commission most of the regular season—so the team was potentially better than its record indicated.

As far as pre-2007 payroll, yes, Jockety and La Russa definitely employed a Win Now philosophy. Again, though, they spent smarter than most other teams.

by StLouisSwifties on Sep 23, 2009 4:24 PM EDT reply actions

Now that I think about it,

the DeWitt-Jockety Cardinals were in some ways the antithesis of the Breadon-Rickey teams, in that Breadon was notoriously cheap come contract time for his players. He could afford to be, since there was always a sea of farm hands anxious to move up to the big club. Rickey had a policy of trading his players when they reached the age of 30, hoping for a greater return in the form of younger talent—talent that was willing to work for less $ than wiser, 30-something players. Probably the only time this backfired was when he traded Johnny Mize after the 1941 season. Think how much his 40-50 HRs per year would have improved those Cardinals teams of the late ’40s, most of which finished in 2nd place to the rising Dodgers.

by StLouisSwifties on Sep 23, 2009 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions

Apologies for the double postings...

Obviously I don’t do this too often.

by StLouisSwifties on Sep 23, 2009 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions

2000's Better than 1930's

I see that the 1930’s Cardinals had an ever so slightly better record than the Cardinals of the 2000’s so far. That could change if St. Louis finishes 7-3 in its last 10 games. The Cardinals have had the best team in the NL since 2000. They are the only team that has won more than one NL pennant during that time.

The National League has 16 teams now. It only had 8 back in the 1930’s. It’s harder to win pennants these days. The 1930’s teams didn’t have to go through two rounds of playoffs to get to the Series. I give the 2000’s teams the nod with respect to that. The 2000’s teams have 2 pennants and 1 world championship so far. With a world championship in 2009, they would tie the 1930’s Cards with 3 pennants and 2 world championships. If that happens, then there should be no question that the 2000’s Cards were better.

Also, the Cubs actually had a better record in the 1930’s than the Cardinals did. The Cubs won 3 NL pennants just like the Cards did. Of course, the Cubs didn’t win any World Series titles back then. No NL team has had a better record than the Cardinals since 2000. The only decade I would put ahead of this one for St. Louis would be the 1940’s.

"The big possums walk late." - Harry Caray

by memphiscub on Sep 23, 2009 4:49 PM EDT reply actions

but, alternately, wildcard teams couldn't win pennants back then

I’d say that it’s harder to lead the league in wins than to squeak into the postseason and get lucky.

They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...

by Valatan on Sep 24, 2009 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions

I agree

Doubling the eligible teams drastically reduces your chances of pennants/series titles. Most teams now try to win and that wasn’t always the case. Finally, talent evaluation, minor league systems,etc are all uniform now so to show consistently above average perfromance you must be doing a lot of little things right.

These are the good ole days.

Just win

by The Duke on Sep 24, 2009 8:49 PM EDT up reply actions

1981 was the greatest screwjob in mlb history. best regular season record = no playoff seat.

when does RB Fallstrom get inducted to the hall of fame?

by hongniao on Sep 24, 2009 9:24 AM EDT reply actions

1981 Reds and Cardinals Both

The Reds and Cardinals had the best overall records in their respective divisions in 1981 and didn’t make the playoffs. The split-season format may work for the Southern League and Texas League, but not for the American League and National League.

"The big possums walk late." - Harry Caray

by memphiscub on Sep 24, 2009 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions

Team's success this decade lost on the media outside St. Louis.

What get’s me is that all of the talking heads in the media always seems to be amazed that the Cardinals are in 1st place every year. It’s like they forget that we have been the NL’s best team of the decade. They forget we have been to the playoffs 6 seasons getting ready for our 7th this decade. Not to mention we have been to 2 WS and won 1.

Case in point I sometimes listen to late night sports talk radio mostly the JT The Brick show when I drive home from work. Back in August when we were running away from the Cubs JT was shocked that St. Louis was taking the division. He acted like we were some expansion team that just joined the league 10 years ago. It really is sad that guys who talk sports every night can forget how much success this club has had.

I could go on and on about ESPN ignoring the team’s success over this decade but I’m not going to bother. At least we can appreciate what this team has done this wonderful decade.

Boy a frosty cold Budweiser would be great about now"…long pause…then an "aahhh". --Mike Shannon

by KYCards on Sep 25, 2009 7:24 AM EDT reply actions

I think it was in 2003

because the Cubs hadn’t yet won a division title in this decade and the Red Sox’ last championship was still 1918, when Fox Sports put up a graphic during a game asking fans to go to their website and vote for the “Greatest Franchise”. The candidates you could choose from were the Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox and Cubs—that’s right, no Cardinals. I shot them an angry email, wondering aloud how the team with the most championships in the history of the NL could not be considered in a “Greatest Franchise” poll, particularly when one of the NL’s worst teams of the past 50+ years was included. I never got a response. A fleeting TV graphic is a minor issue to be sure, but it was (and still is) emblematic of the sports media’s apparent disregard for the Cardinals—and this at a time (2003) when they had participated in 3 consecutive postseasons, so it’s not like they should have been off the radar.

Granted, whenever Fox Sports or ESPN broadcasts a game from Busch, the commentators usually fawn over the many great achievements and players the franchise has produced throughout its history. But it hardly makes up for ESPN’s nightly reports which invariably lead off with the Yankees-Red Sox games, then do a special story on, say, Sabathia or Papelbon, then make a big deal about Jeter breaking a team record for hits that comes up shy of Harold Baines’ career total, then eventually, after making the rounds of the leagues, get around to a very brief synopsis of the 1st place Cardinals’ game.

I realize this is well trod territory, but I’m with KYCards in that it’s worth yet another mention as the Cardinals, despite an outstanding season (and, more significantly, and outstanding decade), continue to get short shrift in the sports media.

by StLouisSwifties on Sep 25, 2009 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions