which World Series was the Worst of the Decade?

Question

i say the 2009 World Series, why? becuase both Teams in that World Series already won a World Series in the Decade, so what was the point of seeing them win another one?

Answer 1

While I don't like 4-0 and 4-1 series, sometimes such series are closer than the final game count.



2004 - Red Sox beat Cards 4-0. At least this one had teams with a lot of history behind them. But not a good series. No close, see-saw games after Game 1.



2005 - White Sox beat Astros 4-0. Not as bad a series as the final game count, and a little history made (First W.Sox win since 1917)... fInal scores were 5-3, 7-6, 7-5 (14 innings) and 1-0. All games were decided late (8th inning or later)



2006 - Cardinals over Tigers 4-1 - Not a good series imo, but two historically good baseball towns. The Tigers jumped out to leads in 2 of the 4 games that they lost.



2007 - Red Sox over Rockies 4-0... Worst series of the decade imo.... the Red Sox broke the jinx in 2004, so another one wasn't a big deal.



2008 - Phillies over Rays 4-1.. I live in Florida, but I was not excited at all to see the Rays in the Series... apparently, the rest of the country felt the same way... three of the Phills' wins were 1-run games, though.



2009 - Yanks over Phillies 4-2. This was a pretty good series, lots of controversy, and it involved the two best teams in baseball.





I would pick the Red Sox 4-0 sweep of the Rockies as the worst series of the decade. The Rockies led the Red Sox for only 3 of the 36 innings. So not only were they swept, but they were never in any of the games. It was a colossal mismatch on paper that played out that way on the field.

Answer 2

Huh? You think that the 2009 World Series as the worst "because both teams in the World Series already won a World Series in the decade"?? That's your reason?



I personally would pick the 2007 World Series. There was no doubt that Boston was going to demolish Colorado who got hot near the end of the season and snuck into the playoffs. Boston swept the overmatched Rockies.



What about the 2006 Series? Detroit was the hottest team in the postseason, but they had a week off, got rusty, and were beaten by the Cardinals who had won a measly 83 games that season.



The 2003 World Series was not great either. The Yankees and Red Sox were by far the two best teams in baseball that year and beat each other up in the ALCS. The Yankees had nothing left for the World Series, had one day off, then lost to the Wild Card Marlins. Not a great series.



The 2009 World Series was very good. Two slugging teams, with veteran sluggers and exciting players throughout their lineups. The Yankees and Phillies were the two most closely matched teams in years, and the Series drew huge ratings.

Answer 3

2006 Cardinals. Their division stunk that year, they only went 83-79. They had 7 game losing streaks 3 times in the season. And they only had the 14th best record in baseball. The worst in baseball history. The 87 Twins had a bad division too, they won 2 more games than the 2006 Cardinals, but there were only 4 divisions at the time and with 7 teams in each, so it's a different era so to speak. Plus only 4 teams total made the playoffs back then as opposed to 8 teams today. 2006 Cardinals were way worse than the 87 Twins.

Answer 4

lol, the most boring was the yankees vs mets:) and the ratings proved it! you want to talk about a title not meaning anything to a team that one meant nothing to the yankees and the yankees were clearly the better team! the best by far was the red sox vs cardinals two great teams going up against each other with boston man handling them of course:) but the 2007 nor 2009 world series was not boring the better teams both won those:)

Answer 5

The 2007 World Series was the worst by far, no one had any doubt that the Red Sox were going to win. 2005 was pretty bad too.



Chipmaker, how were '07 and '08 World Series better than this year's World Series?

Answer 6

I say the 2009 World Series. Because I feel the Series was totally WASTED because, the Phillies had just been to the Series the year before, and, the Yankees had already been in the Series three times in the decade! (2000 vs. Mets,) (2001 vs. Diamondbacks,) and (2003 vs. Marlins.) Do you HAVE to live in a National League city, to see a different team each year in the World Series?

Answer 7

2007 was the worst. Colorado was no match for Boston. Boston easily won every game. There was no point to watching. No competition. I have no problem with a team winning more than 1 WS in a decade, I wouldnt even care if 1 team won 10 but I dont want to see blow out sweep world series. 2004 was also a sweep but considering it was Bostons first WS in 86 years that added excitement. 2007 ment nothing to Boston and it wasnt competitive at all.

Answer 8

Marlins winning over the Yankees the team who should have beat the Yankees the Cubs but never happened because of Bartman and the Red Sox Shortcomings the World Series itself was Not to watch .

Answer 9

In a decade notable for poor World Series, I would say 2006 was the worst - a Cardinals team that was barely .500 during the regular season and a Detroit team that completely forgot how to play defense. 2005 and 2007 were not much better.

Answer 10

2008 was the worst World Series ever, but the 2009 World Series was the best World Series ever in history.

Answer 11

the worst was 08, the lowest ratings in world series history i think, so yeah that's the one, the rays an unknown team, and phillies weren't that known either:)

Answer 12

2005 was pretty boring, two teams that really didn't have fan bases outside of their towns. 2007 was pretty boring two, after an amazing run by the Rockies the Red Sox just killed them in 4 games. Any 4 game world series is actually boring. 2004 wasn't very exciting except for the fact that the Red Sox finally won. 2006 was also pretty boring game wise, but I did enjoy seeing the very unexpected Cardinals winning. 2000 was also pretty boring, Mets very just no match for the Yankees.



So, the exciting world series this decade were 2001,2002,2003,2008, and 2009.

Answer 13

Overall, The 2007 World Series

Answer 14

The 2009 world series because the yankees won!

The Phillies deserved it!

Answer 15

I actually agree with you and your reasoning. I don't like the Yankees, and the Phillies just won so I wasn't excited to root for either team. 2006 was pretty bad...I was pulling for the Tigers and they stunk, while the Cardinals were barely a .500 team. I was disappointed in 2007 too



I think 2001 was the best

Answer 16

My Favorite was the Phillies 2008 championship

I was excited about the 2009 series but the stupid Yankees ruined so thats probably the worst one.

Answer 17

2005 world series was the worst. the white sox pretty much dominated the astros in every game, and they lost one playoff game all postseason. it was definitely most boring world series of the decade.

Answer 18

2006 world series is the worst. Cardinals should not have even made the world series if not for Mets' usual collapse. Tigers totally blew it. That's the beauty of baseball that some people like, the unpredictability. To me I hate the fact that most of the years the best team in MLB does not usually end up as world series champ.

Answer 19

2007. The team that won already won a World Series this decade, so why see them win again?

Answer 20

2005 was the worst to me because it was so boring and the White Sox won the series in 4 games

Answer 21

Kave Dast , you obviously don't know much about baseball, because the reason that World Series had low ratings is because of the Tampa Bay fan base, not the Phillies fanbase. How can you say both team's had low ratings? moron.

Answer 22

Your reason is probably the dumbest thing I've heard all day. You make it sound like teams should only be allowed to win one World Series per decade..



For me, the worst World Series were either '07 or '08. Neither of them were really appealing to me..

Answer 23

2007 Rockies vs Red Sox.



It was obvious what the outcome would be,

Answer 24

Detroit vs St Louis 2006

Answer 25

I would have to say the worst world series was 2008's world series. Two teams that bring in low ratings. A 4-1 series is a bad series in my opinion.

As a Yankee fan i will say the best of the decade is by far the 2001 world series. Terrific games every night. and an ending that makes me sick every time i think of it. BUt it still was an incredible series.

Answer 26

same as giants fan 2007 i like the red soxx but i was 10000000000000% sure bo-sox were gonna win

Answer 27

''08'' gosh could it have been any less entainertaining, 09 was one of the best, ratings were higher than the previous series, so i have no clue what you are talking about, stop hating on the yankees:)

Answer 28

2000 was the worst. No one outside of NY gave a damn about it and it was boring.

Answer 29

2007 World Series. Yeah, the one with the two cheaters carrying a team on its shoulders.

Answer 30

I bet Henry is a Yankee's fan by a long shot and if you are, A-Rod was also on that list.

Answer 31

Let's review.



2000 -- Yankees over Mets, 4-1. Yeah, yeah, a vaunted Subway Series, but fans living more than 100 km outside of Noo Yawk Ciddy didn't care, and the ratings showed it (single market Series simply cannot pull in big numbers, not that this is important). There was the weirdo drama of Clemens heaving a bat chunk at Piazza, but the Mets were flat, and that it was over quickly was a mercy upon baseball fans everywhere.



2001 -- upstart Diamondbacks over Yankees, 4-3. Outstanding nailbiter which should have ended in five (Arizona winning), but for some immaculately timed Yanx home runs. Despite that, Schilling and Johnson would not be denied, and Rivera's meltdown in the final inning just adds to the storybook. The Game 7 duel in the desert was as classic an ending as any Series has provided. The kind of Series that you feel a bit sad for fans who missed it.



2002 -- Angels (at last) over Giants, 4-3. Fulminate your emotions however you want, this one was undeniably The Barry Show!, and damn but Bonds was entertaining. The Angels pitchers were TERRIFIED of him, with just cause. SF almost pulled it off. Memorable moment: JT Snow crossing the plate and immediately grabbing little Darren Baker out of harm's way, as large, muscular men moving at speed could have caused unspeakable tragedy upon a 3-year-old boy. And that put an end to offspring acting as bat boys. Another great nailbiter, and the last seven game Series we've seen since (drat the luck).



2003 -- Marlins over Yankees, 4-2. The kid pitchers of Florida, led by Josh Beckett, put the aging Yanx to the screws. Clemens' last game -- or not. A good Series but not a great one.



2004 -- Red Sox over Cardinals, 4-0. The Curse goes down in flames, almost anticlimactically after the amazing ALCS that preceded it. A Boston team that went from great to unstoppable, as the Cards had nothing, NOTHING going against Schilling and Pedro and even Derek Lowe. St. Louis never had a lead in any game. A Series remembered more for the making of history than the actual gameplay.



2005 -- White Sox over Astros, 4-0. Chicago makes its first Series appearance since 1959 (and wins for the first time since 1917) and Houston makes it to the Series for the first time ever, but the tension never builds. The Astros got there with great pitching and adequate hitting, but fall apart because they're old -- Biggio is creaky, Clemens flames out, Bagwell can only DH and slap singles. The White Sox are a ragtag collection of castoffs, with lone star Thomas on the shelf the whole time. Every game is close (5-3, 7-6, 7-5 in 14 innings, and 1-0) but none are gripping. Lost in the mess is that the Sox wrap up the title with an 11-1 postseason, tied with the 1999 Yankees for the best yet. This one should have been great -- it had all the elements needed -- but it was a routine walk in the ballpark, and ended with a cultural yawn. My choice for the decade's snoozarama.



2006 -- Cardinals over resurgent Tigers, 4-1. Another coulda-been-great Series, but the Detroit pitchers all forgot how to field, and gave St. Louis several extra outs they couldn't afford. Great to see the Tigers show up again, they were the season's best story, but flatlined at the very worst time of the year. This one could easily have gone the other way, but did not.



2007 -- Red Sox rout Rockies, 4-0. Boston gives the Nation a rousing encore (thanks, lads), in what was probably the most predetermined, predictable outcome of the decade. Despite storming to the Series with a 21-1 run, the Rox crash head-on into a decidedly better team (why don't we ever read that they finished 21-5? That's still pretty good...), get thumped twice and lose another two squeakers -- but it was never really in doubt. Denver got a World Series, but did anyone buy tickets for Game 5? If so, why? This was a good show but without real tension, and coming so soon after the 2004 triumph, this Boston victory, while decidedly enjoyable, didn't have the same punch; well, how could it?



2008 -- Phillies over young Rays, 4-1. The Phils finally hoist a second trophy, while the Rays, who could have won this one, saw all their bats go cold. Good stories on both sides, particularly the Rays, who made the October dance for the first time ever and romped in the daunting AL East all year long (and they're too good and too young to have peaked and passed by already; they'll be back). Memorable moment: the Rays tying Game 5 just before the rain went from "torrential deluge" to "Ark-class flood conditions", so it didn't have to be called, which would have been a wretched (but by-the-book) ending. Rule changes quietly enacted during the offseason made sure that situation will not occur again.



2009 -- Yankees over Phillies, 4-2. Yeah, fine, Alex got a ring so his critics can and should quiet down a bit. Six games, 59 runs -- pitching was not the theme here (though Lee and Sabathia were quality; no other starter was), but that's how a Series



(note to YA: damn your character limits to Hell)



but that's how a Series plays out in two sluggers' heavens. New Yankee Stadium gets its first bedpost notch quickly, so that's over with. Now, please, go away for another ten or twelve years.



Ranking the World Series, best to worst:



1. 2001.

2a. 2004 (historic impact division).

2b. 2002 (dramatic, tense gameplay division).

4. 2003.

5. 2008.

6. 2007.

7. 2009.

8. 2006.

9. 2000.

10. 2005.

Answer 32

I would say 2004 and 2007. As a neutral observer and a father of two young sports-loving kids, I'm trying to raise them to live with integrity, but watching two cheating sluggers carry their team to a title isn't a good example for my daughters. I want my girls (ages 6 and 8) to grow up living an honest lifestyle, but when a team in a prominent sports league shows little kids that cheaters can and do prosper, it is hard to be a good father and a sports fan at the same time.



Bucc 4.0: I hope you never have kids. Or by the time you have kids, you learn the difference between making a transgression because of peer-pressure and owning up to and apologizing for it, and knowingly cheating and using another shady substance to try to hide your transgression or bringing in an "expert" to lawyer-speak your beyond-a-reasonable-doubt non-guiltiness.

Answer 33

idk but any world series with the yankees sucks big time. I'm tired of seeing that damn team every year.