NWO, don't you think that poor regular season record was due to the multiple injuries to key, key players? During the postseason, Edmonds, Pujols and Rolen were in there and contributed where they each missed part of the regular season.

 

I contend that the postseason is where we saw the TRUE Cardinal team rather then the regular season record. Would any of you believed they only win 82 or 83 games at the beginning of the season?

 

As far as the Steelers being the worse of all time, I don't get that at all. They were one of the top 4-5 teams last year. This year's team has minimal at best to NOTHING to do with last year's team.

 

Interesting that you mention injuries and the impact on the team's final record.

 

Last year, Roethlisberger was hurt and missed the Jacksonville game and the game at Baltimore. Both were narrow losses I feel would've been wins had he been healthy. The next week after the Baltimore loss was against Indy, and they lost by 19 when his thumb was still smarting. Same thing the next week in a narrow loss to Cincy. May not have mattered against Indy, but a healthy Roethlisberger may have been the difference in a win at home against Cincy.

Interesting that you mention injuries and the impact on the team's final record.

 

Last year, Roethlisberger was hurt and missed the Jacksonville game and the game at Baltimore. Both were narrow losses I feel would've been wins had he been healthy. The next week after the Baltimore loss was against Indy, and they lost by 19 when his thumb was still smarting. Same thing the next week in a narrow loss to Cincy. May not have mattered against Indy, but a healthy Roethlisberger may have been the difference in a win at home against Cincy.

I gave the Steelers there props as one of the top teams in the NFL last season. They were right there with IMO, the Colts, the Bengals, the Seahawks as the top teams in the NFL last season.

 

The Cardinals were not in that position going into the playoffs this year. My contingent was that during the regular season they don't have the injuries they had, we see them as a 92-95 win team.

 

BTW, if we are playing the injury game with the Steelers, a healthy Carson and the Steelers aren't Super Bowl champs. :D :D :sssh:

I still think this is an interesting question.

 

For everyone that keeps saying the Cardinals just got hot at the right time... well, you think? :lol: I think that more affirms they were not as good as their playoff performance. I am in no way discrediting what St. Louis did at all during the playoffs, but I think most agree they are more like an 83 win team than the dominating team in the playoffs that we saw.

, but I think most agree they are more like an 83 win team than the dominating team in the playoffs that we saw.

 

 

I disagree with that on the basis of the injuries the Cardinals went through during the year. Edmonds, Eckstein, Carpenter, Pujols, Rolen, Mulder, and Izzy all missed time due to injuries. In the playoffs, except for Mulder and Izzy, the injured players were back in the lineup and performing the way the should. If they have those guys for the majority of the year they probably would have won 90 + games and this would not even be a discussion. They finally got the team the most healthy that it had been all year and it came together for them.

I still think this is an interesting question.

 

For everyone that keeps saying the Cardinals just got hot at the right time... well, you think? :lol: I think that more affirms they were not as good as their playoff performance. I am in no way discrediting what St. Louis did at all during the playoffs, but I think most agree they are more like an 83 win team than the dominating team in the playoffs that we saw.

 

Totally disagree. They had a bad SECOND half of the regular season due to injuries. People (the village idiots on the radio) poor mouthed their pitching, but the Tigers are probably convinced the guys can throw.

 

They have some of the best defenders at their position in baseball, starting with the cat behind the plate. Rolen at third, Edmonds in center, Eckstein at short and Pujols at first are all one of the best defensive players in baseball. Pujols might be the best player in the game. How does this equate to the worst team ever to win the WS?

I believe the Cardinals is a lot better than most baseball fans seem to think. They got cold near the end of the season and many who had doubts about them before hand gained a lot of momentum in that line of thinking but, a few fans, mostly those of this team never gave up on them. I did not see this coming about but always thought they were one of the better teams in the league.

"Are WS champ Cardinals the worst champs ever?"

 

No.....They are the best 83 win team in MLB history

The Cards are pretty bad to be world series champs. Especially since Carpenter only had to pitch one game in the series to win it. The Tigers were bad too and the WS shouldn't be ugly baseball. The Steelers were legit. Their defense was tough, and their offense made big plays.

If they are not one of the worst in recent memory, name some of the worst teams of recent memory or through history?... you are going to be hard pressed to find anyone below the Cards.

 

Again, I am not saying they are terrible team... no team to take home a WS title is.

If they are not one of the worst in recent memory, name some of the worst teams of recent memory or through history?... you are going to be hard pressed to find anyone below the Cards.

 

Again, I am not saying they are terrible team... no team to take home a WS title is.

 

 

I am a big Reds Fan but I've always thought that the '90 Reds were one of the worst. Their hitting was average at best but did get hot in the playoffs and WS. Their bullpen was awesome but I think the team only won about 90 games didn't they?

 

Some others worth mentioning would be the '63 Dodgers. They were very weak on hitting but had great pitching and used their speed well.

 

What about the '69 Mets? They went on a roll and they had great starting pitching but their hitting was nothing much to write about.

 

I might consider the '81 Dodgers. Their infield was in its twilight and young pitching helped the older guys. Besides that they squeaked in to the playoffs with that stupid split winner idea from the strike. (Reds had the best record in the majors that year but were left out) Their 70's teams were probably better but lost to the Reds or the A's ('73) or the Yankees ('77, '78).

 

How good would you say the '60 Pirates were? They were doubled up for runs in the series by NY but won in 7 on Mazaroski's homer. If not for a bad hop that took Kubek out of the game would the Pirates have come back? I'm sure they had some good players but a young Clemente and Mazaroski are all that come to mind right now.

 

Those are some I was thinking about.

The Cards are pretty bad to be world series champs. Especially since Carpenter only had to pitch one game in the series to win it. The Tigers were bad too and the WS shouldn't be ugly baseball. The Steelers were legit. Their defense was tough, and their offense made big plays.

I may pass out! Was Jim Schue there with a gun to your head, were you drunk, did someone steal your password? You gave the Steelers props! At last, my faith in mankind has been restored, what a glorious day!

I am a big Reds Fan but I've always thought that the '90 Reds were one of the worst. Their hitting was average at best but did get hot in the playoffs and WS. Their bullpen was awesome but I think the team only won about 90 games didn't they?

 

Some others worth mentioning would be the '63 Dodgers. They were very weak on hitting but had great pitching and used their speed well.

 

What about the '69 Mets? They went on a roll and they had great starting pitching but their hitting was nothing much to write about.

 

I might consider the '81 Dodgers. Their infield was in its twilight and young pitching helped the older guys. Besides that they squeaked in to the playoffs with that stupid split winner idea from the strike. (Reds had the best record in the majors that year but were left out) Their 70's teams were probably better but lost to the Reds or the A's ('73) or the Yankees ('77, '78).

 

How good would you say the '60 Pirates were? They were doubled up for runs in the series by NY but won in 7 on Mazaroski's homer. If not for a bad hop that took Kubek out of the game would the Pirates have come back? I'm sure they had some good players but a young Clemente and Mazaroski are all that come to mind right now.

 

Those are some I was thinking about.

 

 

The 1990 Reds led from wire to wire.

The 1990 Reds led from wire to wire.

 

I understand that but they lead from wire to wire a weak NL West and still won only 91 games. The Pirates won 95. I'm not looking to bash the Reds (I celebrated that Title immensely) but I would like to know what World Series Champ they were better than?

"Are WS champ Cardinals the worst champs ever?"

 

No.....They are the best 83 win team in MLB history

 

 

 

:thumb:

Why are you leaving the Miami Heat out of this discussion? IMO, they are clearly the worst team I've ever seen win an NBA Title. Of the three (St. Louis Cardinals, Pittsburgh Steelers, Miami Heat), I think the Steelers are clearly better than the other two.

 

The Steelers were a team that entered the playoffs on a roll. They had a dominating defense that created points, either directly or indirectly by giving the offense the ball in great position. And they had a punishing running game that really complimented the defense. A QB in Roethlisberger who did a great job of managing games and making timely plays when called upon...and he played very well down the stretch last year, until the Super Bowl. Wisenhunt allowed Ben to spread the field and throw more than expected on some occasions, and Ben answered the bell. Also, they had Randle-El who was good for one big play a game that usually resulted in a score or lead to one. The Steelers weren't that much different than the Baltimore Ravens Super Bowl team...their defense wasn't that suffocating, but their offense was far superior.

 

The Cardinals and Heat....there is no way either of those teams should have won championships.

 

I would say this though...the combination of Miami, St. Louis, and Pittsburgh is probably the worst trio in history to be champions of the major sports at the same time. That's no knock on Pitt though...I would make this statement no matter who had won the Super Bowl.