Best Team of the Fanhome Era (1999 - )

bedir than average · 12-11-2006, 02:02 PM

Which team has performed the best over the past seven seasons? How can we judge this? And which team's past seven years would be best to emulate for your club in the coming seven?

Are championships the only thing that matters? The Yankees with their two titles, four AL crowns and seven division titles, are they the standard by which all other clubs should be judged?

Or when one considers the enourmous revenue advantage they have with their unique situation and the inability of any team to duplicate their methodology should we ignore their case?

The following teams have won the World Series during the FanHome era - NYY (2), Arizona, LAA, Florida, Boston, WhiteSox, St.Louis

The following teams have won their league Pennant during the same - NYY (4), Atlanta, NYM, LAA, SanFrancisco, Boston, StLouis (2), Houston, Detroit

Should attendance be a consideration over the period?
Do we care about MVPs, CyYoungs, RoY and other individual awards when judging the teams?
What about total wins (ie is Seattle's 2001 season worth noting?)?

Would you accept your team pulling a Florida and mortgaging the now every few years so they could win in the future? Or would you rather root for a club like Seattle who hung onto the past for a few years too long?

Goose · 12-11-2006, 04:25 PM

Well if you want to be literal, I'd say it has to be total wins. The playoffs are too random for one to use championships as a means of measurement.

I'd also say individual awards would be irrelevant. Your asking who was the best team not who was the team with the best individual players.

Lenny · 12-11-2006, 04:30 PM

I'm not saying this is the factor that should be used for this, but it would be interesting who had the lowest cost per win over that time. It would also be interesting to see who had the highest cost per loss over that period also.

bedir than average · 12-11-2006, 04:34 PM

Goose, I disagree. I think the ability of a team to develop, retain and acquire individual talent is important in all sports except for the NFL. It is a rare town that will support a club that loses often and has no talent going for it. Also showing which teams had the most individual talent, but did not win in the playoffs would help to compensate for the randomness of the playoffs.

Mariners during the Fanhome Era
One Division Title
One Wild Card
Two Visits the ALCS
Tied regular season wins (116)
603Wins (86.14 per season)
MVP - 1,3,3,6,7,10,10,15,15,16,16,17,18,19,22,23
CY - 3,4,5,6,9
ROY - 2,1,1,4

The Mariners were good, but not great during the early FanHome era, acquired good talent, but held onto aging talent too long.

Goose · 12-11-2006, 04:51 PM

I would think that would have more to do with what club has been run the best more so than what club has been the best.

The Yankees way of running a ballclub is to constantly throw money at their problems. Yes this has led them to success, but it is not a smart way to run a ballclub. Does them having constant success because of that method make them better than the Twins, who have had not quite as much success but are considered one of the best run teams in baseball?

TonyBagO'Donuts · 12-12-2006, 02:19 AM

I'm gonna give an easy answer and go with a tie between the Braves and Yankees. Both teams have made it to the play-offs more times than any other team since '99.

BigBadBlueBird · 12-20-2006, 07:09 PM

Shouldnt the "Fanhome era" really be 1999-2002 or so? Not sure I would include the Scout years myself.

The Yankees, sadly, are probably the winners there.

bedir than average · 12-20-2006, 10:33 PM

But the Yanks don't have a repeatable model. It is not as if the Blue Jays or even the Mariners (a top 4 revenue team) could copy the Yankees methods.

bigheadache · 12-20-2006, 10:46 PM

I realize it has nothing to do with who is the best, but as an Astros fan you have to be happy that in every year except 2000, your team has been playing for a playoff spot the last weekend of the season. I would have liked to have won more, but the team I root for is competitive every year. There is something to be said for that.

BigBadBlueBird · 12-21-2006, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bedir than average

But the Yanks don't have a repeatable model. It is not as if the Blue Jays or even the Mariners (a top 4 revenue team) could copy the Yankees methods.

This is true, but the fact is, the Yankees have played by the rules. You cant have a "best team in x" topic and exclude the top team because it is a no brainer.

bedir than average · 12-21-2006, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bedir than average

Which team has performed the best over the past seven seasons? How can we judge this? And which team's past seven years would be best to emulate for your club in the coming seven?
Should attendance be a consideration over the period?
Do we care about MVPs, CyYoungs, RoY and other individual awards when judging the teams?
What about total wins (ie is Seattle's 2001 season worth noting?)?

Would you accept your team pulling a Florida and mortgaging the now every few years so they could win in the future? Or would you rather root for a club like Seattle who hung onto the past for a few years too long?

To condense to just the question. My purpose here is to wonder what fans accept from their teams. Since only the Yankees can be the Yankees, the question can be answered for bigheadache as stating that he finds following a team that enters September with a chance at the Division Crown every year and performing well in the playoffs on occaision acceptable. Myself, I think that I would prefer the Cardinals model, or a slightly higher bar being my standard.

A Series Victory with two League Pennants built through draft, trade and free agency in balance with a few Stars, a Hall of Famer in a beautiful park with great attendance. They spend money, but not absurd amounts. To me they are the standard by which I would judge the Mariners right now. And the Mariners are failing.

John F · 12-21-2006, 07:07 PM

That's the model that worked for the Braves for over a decade, Bedir. The Rays (who have been around for just a little while longer than Baseballboards/FanHome) have flirted with the Yankees system (spend spend spend) and the A's system (save money, make smart decisions while building from within) and have failed in each direction.

The A's system for a tight-pocket team over the course of the last few years (the FanHome era) appeals to me a bit. Build from within, trade assets you can't afford for more stock, amaze others by being competitive with these young guys -- but unfortunately you won't be able to keep them around after you achieve division titles with them. Something like that.

bedir than average · 12-21-2006, 07:17 PM

The Spend Big Model has been adopted by the Yankees, the Red Sox and the Mets. Maybe the Tigers?

The Balanced Approach is one that I would say the Cardinals, the Braves, the Astros, the WhiteSox have used.

Traditional Low-Budget Draft is the technique of the Twins, the Royals over the era I would say.

The Mariners have used an intensive International Scouting Effort and trades to build their team.

And MoneyBall has been applied in some manner by the Athletics, BlueJays, Dodgers (shortlived) and RedSox.

Are there other General Management techniques that could be classified? What teams also belong in a category during the FanHome Era?

Kodiak · 12-24-2006, 05:31 AM

The Cardinals have been successful for various reasons but a lot of them stem from the General Managing of Walt Jocketty. The Cards have long been in the middle of the pack when it comes to payroll. By having decent drafts (such names as Pujols, Polanco, Drew, Duncan, Molina....) they've been able to get just enough talent in their farm system to make the big trades just when they are needed. Walt usually does his best work around the trading deadline or right around spring training. Furthermore, the Cards usually stay away from the expensive free agents which allows them to take on salary come trading time in the middle of the season.

Take into account these moves that Jocketty has done:

The Big Mac deal. Mac not only brought back baseball from the dead, but he injected new life into a franchise that had been struggling ever since they lost the WS in '87. Jocketty got him for Eric Ludwick, T.J. Mathews, and Blake Stein; all of whom went on to do nothing in their careers. Mac then signed for a discount with STL and this act would later lead to Edmonds taking a discount himself to sign a big contract with the Cardinals

The Edmonds deal. Thanks to Mac the Cardinals were ready in 2000 to take it to the next level. After having 75 wins the Cardinals went on to win 95 and make it to the NLCS where they got beat by the Mets. Edmonds was aquired via trade from Anaheim for one year wonder Kent Bottenfield and Adam Kennedy (who is now a Cardinal again). Kennedy performed decently in Anaheim but the Cardinals clearly won that trade by a wide margin. Edmonds, who was considered to be second to Griffey, went on to become the best Center fielder of the first half of the 2000's. His addition to the Cardinals franchise was HUGE.

Darryl Kile, Chris Carpenter, Woody Williams and Jeff Suppan have been great additions to the pitching staff by Jocketty. Duncan was able to really improve Williams and Suppan who were also aided by the excellent defense that the Cardinals have had throughout the 2000's.

Other great additions by Jocketty have been Scott Rolen (via trade. Cardinals got the best of this deal by a wide margin again), Mike Matheny, Larry Walker, David Eckstein, Edgar Renteria, Wainwright, Fernando Vina, Will Clark (for the half season until he retired he put up HUGE numbers), and even Fernando Tatis who had a big big big season (or two) for the Cardinals and then was traded away after which he did absolutely nothing.

I'm missing a lot of things that Jocketty has done over the years but you get the general picture of how the Cards have been successful. Timely trades, SMART free agent signings and money spending (avoiding the big name overhyped, over expensive pitchers that NEVER pan out. And only giving a maximum of a 3 year contract to any pitcher outside of Carpenter), decent drafts (which allow for big league players and necessary trade bait), and the occasional finding of the diamond in the rough (Suppan, Pujols - 13th round of the draft! -, Weaver, Eckstein, Williams, Carpenter, etc).

All of these methods are why the Cardinals were so successful 2000-2006. Follow them and your team will eventually do pretty well. Where teams usually fail is the smart spending of money. You don't need a lot of money to be succesful in this game. Excessive payroll waste is the prime reason for a team being a failure (among other reasons of course)....Sorry for rambling!

Rice4HoF · 12-24-2006, 02:46 PM

Any idea why Jocketty isn't, or wasn't, liked by St. Louis fans?
I went to spring training in 2004, and was at a Cards home game in Jupiter, when a plane flew overhead with a sign that said something like "Fire Jocketty - paid for by Cardinal fans". A bunch of fans around me started to cheer when they saw that. As an outsider, I think he's done fine too... and ironically that same year he took them to the World Series.

12-11-2006, 02:02 PM	#1 (permalink)
bedir than average Administrator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Starbucks Posts: 8,256	Best Team of the Fanhome Era (1999 - ) Which team has performed the best over the past seven seasons? How can we judge this? And which team's past seven years would be best to emulate for your club in the coming seven? Are championships the only thing that matters? The Yankees with their two titles, four AL crowns and seven division titles, are they the standard by which all other clubs should be judged? Or when one considers the enourmous revenue advantage they have with their unique situation and the inability of any team to duplicate their methodology should we ignore their case? The following teams have won the World Series during the FanHome era - NYY (2), Arizona, LAA, Florida, Boston, WhiteSox, St.Louis The following teams have won their league Pennant during the same - NYY (4), Atlanta, NYM, LAA, SanFrancisco, Boston, StLouis (2), Houston, Detroit Should attendance be a consideration over the period? Do we care about MVPs, CyYoungs, RoY and other individual awards when judging the teams? What about total wins (ie is Seattle's 2001 season worth noting?)? Would you accept your team pulling a Florida and mortgaging the now every few years so they could win in the future? Or would you rather root for a club like Seattle who hung onto the past for a few years too long? __________________ US Men's National Team World Cup Qualifying \| Democracy in Sports Meets My First Campaign "You're only so sure you're right because they're so sure you're wrong." Orson Scott Card in Xenocide

12-11-2006, 04:25 PM	#2 (permalink)
Goose Moderator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Aberdeen,Wa Posts: 1,190	Well if you want to be literal, I'd say it has to be total wins. The playoffs are too random for one to use championships as a means of measurement. I'd also say individual awards would be irrelevant. Your asking who was the best team not who was the team with the best individual players. __________________

12-11-2006, 04:34 PM	#4 (permalink)
bedir than average Administrator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Starbucks Posts: 8,256	Goose, I disagree. I think the ability of a team to develop, retain and acquire individual talent is important in all sports except for the NFL. It is a rare town that will support a club that loses often and has no talent going for it. Also showing which teams had the most individual talent, but did not win in the playoffs would help to compensate for the randomness of the playoffs. Mariners during the Fanhome Era One Division Title One Wild Card Two Visits the ALCS Tied regular season wins (116) 603Wins (86.14 per season) MVP - 1,3,3,6,7,10,10,15,15,16,16,17,18,19,22,23 CY - 3,4,5,6,9 ROY - 2,1,1,4 The Mariners were good, but not great during the early FanHome era, acquired good talent, but held onto aging talent too long. __________________ US Men's National Team World Cup Qualifying \| Democracy in Sports Meets My First Campaign "You're only so sure you're right because they're so sure you're wrong." Orson Scott Card in Xenocide Last edited by bedir than average; 12-11-2006 at 04:55 PM. Reason: Added the seven year recap of the Seattle Mariners

12-11-2006, 04:51 PM	#5 (permalink)
Goose Moderator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Aberdeen,Wa Posts: 1,190	I would think that would have more to do with what club has been run the best more so than what club has been the best. The Yankees way of running a ballclub is to constantly throw money at their problems. Yes this has led them to success, but it is not a smart way to run a ballclub. Does them having constant success because of that method make them better than the Twins, who have had not quite as much success but are considered one of the best run teams in baseball? __________________

12-20-2006, 10:33 PM	#8 (permalink)
bedir than average Administrator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Starbucks Posts: 8,256	But the Yanks don't have a repeatable model. It is not as if the Blue Jays or even the Mariners (a top 4 revenue team) could copy the Yankees methods. __________________ US Men's National Team World Cup Qualifying \| Democracy in Sports Meets My First Campaign "You're only so sure you're right because they're so sure you're wrong." Orson Scott Card in Xenocide

12-11-2006, 04:30 PM	#3 (permalink)
Lenny Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 240	I'm not saying this is the factor that should be used for this, but it would be interesting who had the lowest cost per win over that time. It would also be interesting to see who had the highest cost per loss over that period also.

12-12-2006, 02:19 AM	#6 (permalink)
TonyBagO'Donuts Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 65	I'm gonna give an easy answer and go with a tie between the Braves and Yankees. Both teams have made it to the play-offs more times than any other team since '99.

12-20-2006, 07:09 PM	#7 (permalink)
BigBadBlueBird AKA: Keith, SteibFan, E5 and Snakeeye Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 38	Shouldnt the "Fanhome era" really be 1999-2002 or so? Not sure I would include the Scout years myself. The Yankees, sadly, are probably the winners there.

12-20-2006, 10:46 PM	#9 (permalink)
bigheadache Moderator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Roswell, NM Posts: 866	I realize it has nothing to do with who is the best, but as an Astros fan you have to be happy that in every year except 2000, your team has been playing for a playoff spot the last weekend of the season. I would have liked to have won more, but the team I root for is competitive every year. There is something to be said for that.

12-21-2006, 07:07 PM	#12 (permalink)
John F Administrator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Tampa Bay area, Florida Posts: 2,497	That's the model that worked for the Braves for over a decade, Bedir. The Rays (who have been around for just a little while longer than Baseballboards/FanHome) have flirted with the Yankees system (spend spend spend) and the A's system (save money, make smart decisions while building from within) and have failed in each direction. The A's system for a tight-pocket team over the course of the last few years (the FanHome era) appeals to me a bit. Build from within, trade assets you can't afford for more stock, amaze others by being competitive with these young guys -- but unfortunately you won't be able to keep them around after you achieve division titles with them. Something like that.

12-21-2006, 07:17 PM	#13 (permalink)
bedir than average Administrator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Starbucks Posts: 8,256	The Spend Big Model has been adopted by the Yankees, the Red Sox and the Mets. Maybe the Tigers? The Balanced Approach is one that I would say the Cardinals, the Braves, the Astros, the WhiteSox have used. Traditional Low-Budget Draft is the technique of the Twins, the Royals over the era I would say. The Mariners have used an intensive International Scouting Effort and trades to build their team. And MoneyBall has been applied in some manner by the Athletics, BlueJays, Dodgers (shortlived) and RedSox. Are there other General Management techniques that could be classified? What teams also belong in a category during the FanHome Era? __________________ US Men's National Team World Cup Qualifying \| Democracy in Sports Meets My First Campaign "You're only so sure you're right because they're so sure you're wrong." Orson Scott Card in Xenocide

12-24-2006, 05:31 AM	#14 (permalink)
Kodiak Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 746	The Cardinals have been successful for various reasons but a lot of them stem from the General Managing of Walt Jocketty. The Cards have long been in the middle of the pack when it comes to payroll. By having decent drafts (such names as Pujols, Polanco, Drew, Duncan, Molina....) they've been able to get just enough talent in their farm system to make the big trades just when they are needed. Walt usually does his best work around the trading deadline or right around spring training. Furthermore, the Cards usually stay away from the expensive free agents which allows them to take on salary come trading time in the middle of the season. Take into account these moves that Jocketty has done: The Big Mac deal. Mac not only brought back baseball from the dead, but he injected new life into a franchise that had been struggling ever since they lost the WS in '87. Jocketty got him for Eric Ludwick, T.J. Mathews, and Blake Stein; all of whom went on to do nothing in their careers. Mac then signed for a discount with STL and this act would later lead to Edmonds taking a discount himself to sign a big contract with the Cardinals The Edmonds deal. Thanks to Mac the Cardinals were ready in 2000 to take it to the next level. After having 75 wins the Cardinals went on to win 95 and make it to the NLCS where they got beat by the Mets. Edmonds was aquired via trade from Anaheim for one year wonder Kent Bottenfield and Adam Kennedy (who is now a Cardinal again). Kennedy performed decently in Anaheim but the Cardinals clearly won that trade by a wide margin. Edmonds, who was considered to be second to Griffey, went on to become the best Center fielder of the first half of the 2000's. His addition to the Cardinals franchise was HUGE. Darryl Kile, Chris Carpenter, Woody Williams and Jeff Suppan have been great additions to the pitching staff by Jocketty. Duncan was able to really improve Williams and Suppan who were also aided by the excellent defense that the Cardinals have had throughout the 2000's. Other great additions by Jocketty have been Scott Rolen (via trade. Cardinals got the best of this deal by a wide margin again), Mike Matheny, Larry Walker, David Eckstein, Edgar Renteria, Wainwright, Fernando Vina, Will Clark (for the half season until he retired he put up HUGE numbers), and even Fernando Tatis who had a big big big season (or two) for the Cardinals and then was traded away after which he did absolutely nothing. I'm missing a lot of things that Jocketty has done over the years but you get the general picture of how the Cards have been successful. Timely trades, SMART free agent signings and money spending (avoiding the big name overhyped, over expensive pitchers that NEVER pan out. And only giving a maximum of a 3 year contract to any pitcher outside of Carpenter), decent drafts (which allow for big league players and necessary trade bait), and the occasional finding of the diamond in the rough (Suppan, Pujols - 13th round of the draft! -, Weaver, Eckstein, Williams, Carpenter, etc). All of these methods are why the Cardinals were so successful 2000-2006. Follow them and your team will eventually do pretty well. Where teams usually fail is the smart spending of money. You don't need a lot of money to be succesful in this game. Excessive payroll waste is the prime reason for a team being a failure (among other reasons of course)....Sorry for rambling!

12-24-2006, 02:46 PM	#15 (permalink)
Rice4HoF Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Calgary, Canada Posts: 60	Any idea why Jocketty isn't, or wasn't, liked by St. Louis fans? I went to spring training in 2004, and was at a Cards home game in Jupiter, when a plane flew overhead with a sign that said something like "Fire Jocketty - paid for by Cardinal fans". A bunch of fans around me started to cheer when they saw that. As an outsider, I think he's done fine too... and ironically that same year he took them to the World Series.