2006 World Series: Detroit vs. St. Louis

[stevejrogers]

Maybe not-so-interesting tidbit, since 2003 the team in the series with the longer "drought" has won

[stevejrogers]

Has anyone confirmed that David Eckstein is a Jewish ballplayer or is it like Mike Jacobs/David Cone where the name/spelling sounds jewish but the person isn't?

Just looked at a list and he isn't on it, and I thought I heard that he was.

[Guest ScarletKnight41]

Irish - I know where you're coming from.

Yancy - this was, most certainly, the first year of Busch II.

[MFS62]

SteveJRogers wrote: Has anyone confirmed that David Eckstein is a Jewish ballplayer or is it like Mike Jacobs/David Cone where the name/spelling sounds jewish but the person isn't?

He is not Jewish.
Nobody's perfect.

Later

[Frayed Knot]

SteveJRogers wrote: Has anyone confirmed that David Eckstein is a Jewish ballplayer or is it like Mike Jacobs/David Cone where the name/spelling sounds jewish but the person isn't?

David Eckstein: NOT the subject of any Adam Sandler songs

]Well I recall the 1923 Yankees. Like it was yesterday. The Cards also did it in 1967.

Busch II opened in 1966.
The '23 Yanx were the last team to christen a new park with a title.

[Guest ScarletKnight41]

Sportsman Park was only known as Busch for such a short time that I never think of it that way.

But Busch III opened this season.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

On the UMDB, I labeled the current stadium as Busch II, since I'm referring to the the place where the Cards were playing in 1962 as Sportsman's Park.

But this stadium-name stuff is confusing in so many ways.

When the Yankees get their new ballpark, I'm leaning towards calling it Yankee Stadium III, and relabeling the current park Yankee Stadium II.

[stevejrogers]

Yeah, I crigne everytime I hear "Rogers Centre" for the Bluejays' home. Not that I don't mind the plugs, but ITS SKY FREAKING DOME! And allways will be!

[Frayed Knot]

What was 'Sportsman's Park' for the longest time was re-named Busch Stadium at some point after the A-B people bought the team in the early '50s or so. The replacement was new for the '66 season and was either Busch I or Busch II depending on your POV, making this one either II or III.
Not sure which version prevails 'mongst the locals.

[Guest ScarletKnight41]

The locals just refer to the stadia as Busch. They don't need no stinkin' Roman numerals!

[smg58]

So the Cards dominate the NL for two years, and are postseason disappointments. The next year they squeak by with 83 wins, and take the World Series. Funny game, this baseball.

To be fair, the Cardinals dealt with injuries all year, and played September without Rolen, Eckstein or Edmonds and spent most of the month with Looper trying to close. Give LaRussa some credit for giving the kid Wainwright the ball in the 9th.

Don't ask me what happened to Suppan and Weaver, especially Weaver. They were really the keys.

I can remember all the statheads talking about how foolish the Cardinals were for settling for Eckstein at short. He now has two more rings than A-Rod ever will.

[stevejrogers]

BTW, I feel bad for Izzy. Was there with the Cards since 2002 and is DLed with the possiblity of a career ender for the championship ride.

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/pics/jason_isringhausen_autograph.jpg

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

The Cardinals completely outplayed the Tigers in the Series. Of course, that wasn't all that hard to do since Detroit was busy choking, gagging, and throwing the series away.

In the five games, Detroit scored 11 runs while committing 8 errors that led to 8 unearned runs by the Cardinals. That doesn't even factor in the Tigers' poor plays and miscues that weren't actual errors. Detroit played as if someone had turned back time and suddenly it was 2003 all over again.

Congratulations to the Cardinals, they were clearly the better team.

[Elster88]

I guess I'm the only person here who thinks that the Cardinals are/were a garbage team? A lot of people are giving them way too much credit. This is the worst WS champion in history.

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

Well, they played well enough (or maybe the Mets poorly enough) for them to advance to the World Series. Once there, the Cardinals won almost by default as the Tigers played horrendously bad baseball for the five games of the World Series.

I don't think the Cardinals are a great team, but they had people (Suppan, Weaver, Wainwright, Molina, etc.) step up and produce when it mattered most. Do I think they are the best team in MLB? No, but the Cardinals won when the games mattered most, so I give them their due.

Elster - "This is the worst WS champion in history."

I think that's some rather extreme hyperbole, but you're entitled to your opinion.

[nymr83]

the '87 Twins might be close, i'm not sure who else won it all that was this bad, at least in the last 30 years.

[stevejrogers]

Teams under 90 wins that won the World Series in a non-shortened season:

1945 Tigers 88-65 slight caveat for WWII
1959 Dodgers 88-68 and they needed Games 155 and 156 to do so!
1987 Twins 85-77
2000 Yankees 87-74
2006 Cardinals 83-78

Also making it to the World Series:
1926 Cardinals 89-65
1938 Cubs 89-63
1944 Browns 89-65 slight caveat for WWII
1973 Mets 82-79
1997 Indians 86-75

[Elster88]

Rockin' Doc wrote: Elster - "This is the worst WS champion in history." I think that's some rather extreme hyperbole, but you're entitled to your opinion.

If you've got one that was worse I'm all ears.


Or eyes, rather.

[Willets Point]

ScarletKnight41 wrote: Is this the first time that a team has won the World Championship in their first season in a new ballpark?

The Pittsburgh Pirates won the 1909 World Series after moving into Forbes Field midseason. The 1912 Boston Red Sox won the World Series after a full first-season in Fenway Park.


Oh, and I hate the Cardinals.

[smg58]

Going by records, Elster is absolutely right. But October was one of the few months where they had their full lineup in place, so the team that played in the playoffs was better than the team that played the regular season (and certainly better than the one that finished it). That certainly doesn't explain how Suppan and Weaver pitched this month, though.

This Cardinals team, even at full strength, doesn't match the Mets or Tigers on paper. But playoff series aren't decided on paper. They were the better team when it mattered most.

[Elster88]

smg58 wrote: But playoff series aren't decided on paper.

Agreed....but I think everyone already knew this.

My opinion still stands unchallenged. I'm willing and eager to hear opposing arguments regarding other past champions.

Let's have them.

[stevejrogers]

Elster88 wrote: ="smg58"]But playoff series aren't decided on paper. Agreed....but I think everyone already knew this. My opinion still stands unchallenged. I'm willing and eager to hear opposing arguments regarding other past champions. Let's have them.

Does coming 27 outs away count as worse?

SC=1973

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

Elster88 wrote: ="Rockin' Doc"]Elster - "This is the worst WS champion in history." I think that's some rather extreme hyperbole, but you're entitled to your opinion. If you've got one that was worse I'm all ears. Or eyes, rather.

Upon closer inspection, I must admit that your claim regarding the Cardinals lack of strength is not nearly as extreme as I initially thought. If they are not the worst team to win the World Series, they are definitely in contention for the dubious title.

I think a decent case can be made that the 1987 Minnesota Twins were a pretty weak team for World Series Champions. The 1987 Twins allowed went 85-77 during the regular season. They scored 786 runs while allowing 806 to their opponents. Kirby Puckett was great in centerfield, but the remainder of their line up was pretty non-descript. Their pitching consisted of Frank Viola and an aging Bert Blyleven in the rotation and Jeff Reardon as closer.

The 2001 Arizona Diamondbacks who thrilled us all when they defeated the Yankees in 7 games were a rather motley collection. Their line up consisted of Luis Gonzalez, who had a monster season, with some support from Mark Grace, Reggie Sanders, and Steve Finley. This team though wasn't about hitting, it survived on the strong arms of Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling. The two combined to go 43-12, the remainder of the pitchers combined to post a record of 49-58. Any team that featured a double play tandem of Tony Womack at shortstop and Jay Bell at second base is on shaky ground in my mind.

The 2006 Cardinals featured the preeminant slugger in the game today. He received offensive support from Scott Rolen and David Eckstein. Beyond Chris Carpenter, their was no one in their rotation that opposing line ups would be too concerned over.

I'm sure there are a few contenders going back into the annuls of World Series histroy, but I tried to limit it to teams that I could actually remember watching.

All these teams found a way to step up and perform under the pressure of the postseason spotlight. The timeliness of their performances enabled them to prevail over more talented teams.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I think of the 1985 Royals. I picked them that year, but gracious.

The 1987 Twins should have been the end of the road for both Steve Carlton and Joe Niekro, but they each came back to pitch less than a dozen innnigs for the 1988 Twinks and each got shellacked. But those Twinks had a lot of power on the corners.

[Willets Point]

Elster88 wrote: I guess I'm the only person here who thinks that the Cardinals are/were a garbage team? A lot of people are giving them way too much credit. This is the worst WS champion in history.

On the other hand, I find it deliciously ironic that in the year that all the hype was for the American League and that the World Series title would go to an AL team by default that a team the could only win 83 games in the lowly NL won the series in a dominating fashion.

I mean, I still hate the Cardinals, and I don't buy that reflected glory crap, but ... go NL!

[Guest Edgy DC]

The 1988 Dodgers were a ghost-rider champion, riding a hot pitcher to the end of the line.

They had about two and half hitters on that team. I'll acknowledge that Mike Scoscia was pretty OK for a catcher and make it three.

[MFS62]

Willets Point wrote: On the other hand, I find it deliciously ironic that in the year that all the hype was for the American League and that the World Series title would go to an AL team by default that a team the could only win 83 games in the lowly NL won the series in a dominating fashion. I mean, I still hate the Cardinals, and I don't buy that reflected glory crap, but ... go NL!

I agree wholeheartedly.
And I also get some satisfaction in knowing thatthe Mets gave the Cards a tougher struggle than the Tigers.

But still, a Tiger victory would have given us something we've missed for a while. We haven't seen a good old fashioned car-burning type Detroit celebratory street riot in years.

Later

[metsmarathon]

the 87 twins would have to be the worst world series winner, at leat based on my estimation.

they are the only WS champ with a sub-.500 pythagorean record, and they are the only WS champ ever with below league-average offense AND defense (they were 8th of 14 teams in runs scored, and 10th of 14 teams in ERA)

now, the cards might be the second-worst WS champion ever, but i think that the 85 royals might have a thing to say about that...

[Frayed Knot]

Either way, Cards fans can take in the fact that they either [u:531e0db64f]were[/u:531e0db64f] the worst WS winner of all time, or [u:531e0db64f]they lost to[/u:531e0db64f] the worst ever.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

St. Louis was just named the most dangerous city in America. (Taking the title from Camden, NJ, which has held it for the past two years.)

Coming in second place this year: Detroit, Michigan.


So the city of St. Louis wins bragging rights over Detroit in two categories during the course of a single month.