What about the 100-win Cardinals?

 

The 100 win Cardinals who lost the NLCS to a team they finished ahead of by 11 games? How good could they be if they couldn't win a 7-game series against an 89-win NL team?

 

The interleague record that season was AL 136- NL 116.

 

He seemed to be one of the few people who came out of spring training ready for the season to start.

 

yes, on the field for sure. I'm talking about the supposed lack of a strong clubhouse guy that Konerko is. That he's kinda stubborn and set in his ways like...well, most of this organization.

The 100 win Cardinals who lost the NLCS to a team they finished ahead of by 11 games? How good could they be if they couldn't win a 7-game series against an 89-win NL team?

 

The interleague record that season was AL 136- NL 116.

 

Sample size much?

Sample size much?

 

So 250 games isn't enough to conclude the AL was way, way better than the NL that season?

So 250 games isn't enough to conclude the AL was way, way better than the NL that season?

 

I think he was more looking at the 7 game series you cited.

Nevertheless, can't we conclude that the 100-win Cardinals were winning an awful lot of games against some of the worst teams in baseball that season, and that their 100 win season might not have meant quite as much as, say, the 99-win White Sox?

Nevertheless, can't we conclude that the 100-win Cardinals were winning an awful lot of games against some of the worst teams in baseball that season, and that their 100 win season might not have meant quite as much as, say, the 99-win White Sox?

 

The Royals were the worst team in baseball that season by a whopping 11 games worse than the nearest competitor.

 

I know that the AL was better than the NL. I just don't think you can write off any team that wins 100 games, especially because of one 7-game series against the hottest team in baseball. It's never easy to win 100 games in a season, no matter what your division looks like.