Whos the team of this decade?

[011873]

Yanks were the team of the 90's so whos this decades team?

As of right this second, as much as it irks me, Id say its the R Sox due to their 2 WS and constant playoff showings.

BUT, assuming the Yanks or Philies win the WS this year (just assunme it for this) are the Sox still the team?

If the Yanks win, both teams wil have 2 WS victories. Both teams will have made the playoffs almost eery year. Big difference here is that the Yanks also mae the WS two more times, though lost both.

Or is it another team?

 

[boomets]

if the yankees win this year that would be 2 for them

plus they were in 2 others and played in more playoff games the the red sox

also they have more wins

plus the blockbuster trades

 

[trademhigh]

Wouldn't the first year of the decade be 2001 ('01-'10)?

 

[hofautos]

Wouldn't the first year of the decade be 2001 ('01-'10)?

I would say the first year of the decade would be 2000 (e.g. 2000 to 2009), as the first decade AD would be 00-09.
Also, I would say Yankees are the Team of this decade as well (at least to date) as the only team to make it to the world series 3 times. If the question was just who won the WS the most this decade, ok, boston, but more generally, Yankees are the team of the decade in W/L and WS opportunities.

 

[trademhigh]

Wouldn't the first year of the decade be 2001 ('01-'10)?

I would say the first year of the decade would be 2000 (e.g. 2000 to 2009), as the first decade AD would be 00-09.

So based upon your logic I'd be right, then. There is no year zero, and the millennium started in the year 2001.

 

[Lars]

A's - Billy Beane, Moneyball book written by Michael Lewis, possibly movie was in the works, zero championships.

 

[hofautos]

Wouldn't the first year of the decade be 2001 ('01-'10)?

I would say the first year of the decade would be 2000 (e.g. 2000 to 2009), as the first decade AD would be 00-09.

So based upon your logic I'd be right, then. There is no year zero, and the millennium started in the year 2001.

Interesting...didn't realize that...had to look it up...
Excerpt from Wikipedia AD (Anno Domini)

"There is no year zero in this scheme, so the year AD 1 immediately follows the year 1 BC."

 

[jlecates]

Wouldn't the first year of the decade be 2001 ('01-'10)?

I would say the first year of the decade would be 2000 (e.g. 2000 to 2009), as the first decade AD would be 00-09.

So based upon your logic I'd be right, then. There is no year zero, and the millennium started in the year 2001.

[youtube:1fsfp1po]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BF8P7Rrjkdk[/youtube:1fsfp1po]
Sorry it had to be posted here :lol: .

Has to be the Sox this decade though.

 

[hofautos]

Wouldn't the first year of the decade be 2001 ('01-'10)?

I would say the first year of the decade would be 2000 (e.g. 2000 to 2009), as the first decade AD would be 00-09.

So based upon your logic I'd be right, then. There is no year zero, and the millennium started in the year 2001.

Sorry it had to be posted here :lol: .

Has to be the Sox this decade though.

If you haven't owned me yet, you ain't nobody... :lol:
Everyone has owned me, you haven't?

 

[cowboysrule48]

If the Cardinals win it all this year, they have to get consideration.

 

[trademhigh]

If the Cardinals win it all this year, they have to get consideration.

If people consider 2000 as part of this decade and the Yankees win this year, then it has to be them. 4 WS appearances and 2 WS championships.
If the Cardinals win this year, then they are the team of the decade- 3 WS and 2 WS wins. They also have the best player in baseball on their team (and he started in '01 when the decade started). That should count as something, no?

 

[jlecates]

If you haven't owned me yet, you ain't nobody... :lol:
Everyone has owned me, you haven't?

Ha, no, just the question of the beginning of the millennium immediately made me think of this episode - thought everyone would get a laugh.

 

[JoshHamilton]

Wouldn't the first year of the decade be 2001 ('01-'10)?

I would say the first year of the decade would be 2000 (e.g. 2000 to 2009), as the first decade AD would be 00-09.

So based upon your logic I'd be right, then. There is no year zero, and the millennium started in the year 2001.

And you'd be wrong

 

[cowboysrule48]

I would argue that this is the last year of the decade, regardless of the calendar starting a year 1.

By the other logic that would mean that 2000 was part of the 90s, 1990 was part of the 80s 1980 was part of the 70s, etc. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense...

 

[timryan111]

I would argue that this is the last year of the decade, regardless of the calendar starting a year 1.

By the other logic that would mean that 2000 was part of the 90s, 1990 was part of the 80s 1980 was part of the 70s, etc. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense...

Completely agree with you.

 

[thefasterblade]

It's the Red Sox.

 

[goblue6919]

It's the Red Sox.

 

[hofautos]

I would argue that this is the last year of the decade, regardless of the calendar starting a year 1.

By the other logic that would mean that 2000 was part of the 90s, 1990 was part of the 80s 1980 was part of the 70s, etc. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense...

That's the more logical thinking, and I would suggest 99.9% of everyone would say that, but if you do keep going back like you were, the first decade is actually 0001 to 0010 :?

 

[trademhigh]

Wouldn't the first year of the decade be 2001 ('01-'10)?

I would say the first year of the decade would be 2000 (e.g. 2000 to 2009), as the first decade AD would be 00-09.

So based upon your logic I'd be right, then. There is no year zero, and the millennium started in the year 2001.

And you'd be wrong

How so?

 

[hofautos]

I will settle this fairly...whoever is the winner of the 2009 WS, is the team of the decade! :mrgreen: