Boy am I sick of this question. The only reason this team didn't put up the wins they did in the previous two years was that they had so many injuries. Once the got everyone together in time for the playoffs no one could touch them. All hail the Cardinals Champions of Baseball.
2006-12-12 01:38:33
·
answer #1
·
answered by SoccerClipCincy 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
Yes, they did. They didn't have the best record but how often does the team with the best record in their respective leagues win the World Series? Not a lot.
They had numerous injuries throughout the season which contributed to them only winning 83 games. But they got all their players back in time for the postseason. Game 1 of the NLDS against San Diego was the first game all season in which their starting lineup appeared together on the field. Somebody was always hurt; either Edmonds, Eckstein, Rolen, or Pujols.
Bad starting pitching cost them many wins during the regular season. Just look at Mulder and Marquis, if they had pitched in 2006 like they have in the past the Cardinals would easily have won 90-94 games. And neither of those pitchers pitched in the playoffs (maybe Marquis pitched in the first round, I don't remember...but he didn't pitch after that)
The team that showed up in the playoffs was the team that would have been around all season had they not suffered the injuries that they did and had they not had the pitching problems from certain pitchers (let's not forget they released Sidney Ponson for pitching terrible also).
The breaks went their way in the World Series, especially the terrible fielding by Detroit pitchers. But the 1-2-3 hitters in Detroits linup were hitless until game 4, which can be attributed to the Cardinals pitchers pitching great. Even game 2 losing pitcher Jeff Weaver pitched good that game, just not as good as Kenny Rogers.
Simply put, the Cardinals were a much better team than their 83-78 record during the season showed (yes, I know that only adds up to 161 games because they had a rainout hosting the Giants on Sept. 17 and it was never made up).
LIke I mentioned earlier, the first game of the playoffs was the first time they had their everyday lineup together on the field at the same time. Had they had those guys together all season, or at least most of the season, plus had Marquis and Mulder not been so ineffective, they would easily have won 90+ games.
Oh, and I just remembered, closer Jason Isringhausen had 10 blown saves. TEN!! He only had 9 the previous two seasons combined. So had he pitched better (he had a hip injury that has since been surgically repaired) they could have won at least 4 or 5 more games (because Izzy still would have blown a few even if healthy) so that would actually have pushed them to maybe 95-97 wins.
So, yes they did deserve a championship. They were a much better team than their record showed, and they played like it when it mattered most.
2006-12-11 20:35:06
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
Yeah the Cardinals deserve.. to die in a horrific plane crash. Tony F*ckin Larussa looks like a mob boss. Anyone can win a championship with Albert Pujols on the roster. This guy goes deep what every other at bat? Holy Christ. But a championship? I think not. Don't get me wrong, my team sucks and I know it. I'm just sick of Cardinals fans polluting my home stadium.
2006-12-12 04:13:22
·
answer #3
·
answered by Pr0SacK 1
·
1⤊
0⤋
confident, the Cardinals deserved to win the worldwide series and right this is why. a million. they did no longer have domicile field benefit and that they overcame that. 2. that they had a terrible checklist in the common season and intensely almost lost the branch and overcame that. 3. They lost in seven video games the two worldwide series beforehand the 2004 worldwide series. 4. The Tigers had their style in 1968. 5. Tony LaRussa had lost 8 as we communicate worldwide series video games past to this win. 6. per annum the Cardinals have been searching for October, yet got here up short. 7. Detroit is hockey city, no longer baseball city. beforehand this season, no person cared with regard to the Tigers. swiftly followers began performing out of nowhere. it incredibly is all.
2016-12-18 11:48:56
·
answer #4
·
answered by sameeruddin 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The thing to keep in mind with the Cardinals winning it all was that everyone counted them out because at the end of the season they lost their key players and went on a major losing streak. The rest of the season, they were the best or second best record in baseball. Going into the playoffs they had pujols injured, rolen injured, edmonds injured, mulder injured, eckstein injured, and isringhausen injured. The offensive players fought off their injuries and produced either offensively or defensively. At their best, they deserved to be there more than anyone else...remember they were only two years away from a World Series. Two straight 100 win seasons coming into 2006 with the same core players....but you be the judge.
2006-12-11 19:29:36
·
answer #5
·
answered by dna_notorious_here 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
the cardinals didn't deserve the championship because there were better teams to overcome. i thought the cards were dead during the last month but they pulled it out some how and i'm actually pleased about that. Cards RULE!
2006-12-12 06:02:59
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
the cardinals did deserve it because they won so they showed they were the best team, however i thought the tigers deserved it a lot more because they were really bad a few years ago and jim leyland is an excellent coach
2006-12-11 16:54:21
·
answer #7
·
answered by go cavs 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
Heck Yes they did!! They went in to that series with disabilities running rampant on their team, and without the help of one of their best pitchers. They may have barely skidded in to the playoffs, but they definitely proved themselves against the Mets, a team that had one of the best records last season.
Detroit had a healthy team going in and has one of the best pitching rosters this year. Funny how the only game they won, there happened to be major controversy with their star pitcher, though, isn't it?
2006-12-11 18:12:49
·
answer #8
·
answered by erinlinck 1
·
0⤊
1⤋
Were they the best team? No. But did they deserve the championship? They won it, didn't they? And there were no Don Denkinger-eske calls helped them out, so it was fair and square and decisive.
2006-12-11 17:25:42
·
answer #9
·
answered by nymetsking 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
YES. They were the first to win 4 games.
2006-12-11 20:26:17
·
answer #10
·
answered by Steve 2
·
0⤊
1⤋