Giants have 19 NL pennants, BicycleMike.

I wrote several articles about the pre-1892 marks in 2009 when the Cardinals either did or did not reach 10,000 victories.

"1880's AA player stats ok, but team stats are not"

pugsleyaddams wrote: Giants have 19 NL pennants, BicycleMike.

I'm counting 20:

1904,05,11,12,13,17,21,22,23,24,33,36,37,51,54,62, 89,2002,10,12.

pugsleyaddams wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- RatsBuddy wrote:

When I see how poorly Detroit played it honks me off to think we were so close to World Series #12. 

That close people..

Rat

---------------------------------------------

I beg to differ with you, Rat.....(please please)! There is no way to tell how Detroit would have fared against another WS foe? Maybe if our Cards would have been the NL representative, Waino trots out there in Game 1 and gets shelled by the likes of Prince and this year's Triple Crown winner and then it's a whole different series. Besides, as much as I love our Redbirds, I don't know if they are capable of dominating, let alone sweeping a team in post season play.....no we cannot count our one game series sweep against Atlanta. It really looked for awhile like our boys were finally going to drill a post season opponent, until they blew their royal opportunity to do so against the new World Champions in Game 5 at home.

I have a feeling you would have had a good chance to beat Detroit as well.  They had the same problem in 2006 when they swept to get to the World Series and were perhaps too well rested.  If you're going to sweep a postseason series, do what the Giants did and make it the last series.

Hard to believe that besides the Yanks, the last team to hoist back-to-back WS trophies were the '92-'93 Jays and then before that the '75-'76 Big Red Machine. Our 2012 Redbird squad really could have distinguished themselves by being the first team in Cardinal history to earn this coveted honor. Geesh, even the cubbies have back-to-backers under their belts having accomplished the feat back in the years 1907 and 1908......right around the time that tires were invented.

---------------------------------------------
--- bicyclemike wrote:

pugsleyaddams wrote: Giants have 19 NL pennants, BicycleMike.

I'm counting 20:

1904,05,11,12,13,17,21,22,23,24,33,36,37,51,54,62, 89,2002,10,12.

---------------------------------------------

I just read recently in the US Today where the Cards, Giants and Dodgers were tied at 18 NL pennants, Mike.

pugsleyaddams wrote: Hard to believe that besides the Yanks, the last team to hoist back-to-back WS trophies were the '92-'93 Jays and then before that the '75-'76 Big Red Machine. Our 2012 Redbird squad really could have distinguished themselves by being the first team in Cardinal history to earn this coveted honor. Geesh, even the cubbies have back-to-backers under their belts having accomplished the feat back in the years 1907 and 1908......right around the time that tires were invented.

Do you have to win consecutive titles to be considered a dynasty?  It's subjective according to wikipedia and a matter of debate.  Cubs were baseball's first dynasty.  Cards are listed under "dynasties in question" along with the Buffalo Bills, LOL.  Jays aren't listed under either category despite their back-to-back titles probably because they didn't sprinkle in more pennants during that period.  The Cards had decades where they dominated, but never won back-to-back world titles.  What do you all think?  Should those decades still be considered Cardinal dynasties?  As much as I hate to admit it, I think so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty_(sports)

KatieCubFan wrote:

pugsleyaddams wrote: Hard to believe that besides the Yanks, the last team to hoist back-to-back WS trophies were the '92-'93 Jays and then before that the '75-'76 Big Red Machine. Our 2012 Redbird squad really could have distinguished themselves by being the first team in Cardinal history to earn this coveted honor. Geesh, even the cubbies have back-to-backers under their belts having accomplished the feat back in the years 1907 and 1908......right around the time that tires were invented.

Do you have to win consecutive titles to be considered a dynasty?  It's subjective according to wikipedia and a matter of debate.  Cubs were baseball's first dynasty.  Cards are listed under "dynasties in question" along with the Buffalo Bills, LOL.  Jays aren't listed under either category despite their back-to-back titles probably because they didn't sprinkle in more pennants during that period.  The Cards had decades where they dominated, but never won back-to-back world titles.  What do you all think?  Should those decades still be considered Cardinal dynasties?  As much as I hate to admit it, I think so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty_(sports)

the term is obviously pretty subjective... a dynasty involves at least two champions apparently in a short amount of time? Although I dont see the giants as a dynasty, i dont know why....id almost consider the braves of the 90s more of a dynasty, only one ring but they simply dominated the nl east for such a long period of time...

I agree about the Braves (and if the Bills had won at least once during their stretch I would think the same).  The Giants don't feel like a dynasty to me either at this point, probably because of the interruption in pennants.

It is difficult for me to think of the Giants as a dynasty considering they have only made the playoffs five times in 13 years (2000-2012). They have been "the best" team over the most recent three year strech, but to my mind that is not a long enough period to call them a dynasty. Maybe it should be.

I don't know? When I think "Dynasty", I think Linda Evans. But as it relates to baseball, no way that this present group out of SF can be classified as such, nor will they ever attain that status. If our Redbirds had sealed the deal this year, they really could have entered the dynasty conversation......especially with the bumper crop of talent waiting to emerge down on the ol' farm.

pugsleyaddams wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- bicyclemike wrote:

pugsleyaddams wrote: Giants have 19 NL pennants, BicycleMike.

I'm counting 20:

1904,05,11,12,13,17,21,22,23,24,33,36,37,51,54,62, 89,2002,10,12.

---------------------------------------------

I just read recently in the US Today where the Cards, Giants and Dodgers were tied at 18 NL pennants, Mike.

Sheesh, what shoddy reporting. Let's see, what would the Dodgers number be if we used 1901 and beyond? 1916,20,41,47,49,52,53,55,56,59,63,65,66,74,77,78, 81,88 - I think that's it. Nothing since 1988.

That does come to 18 if I haven't left a season out. It looks clear to me:

Giants: 20
Cardinals: 18
Dodgers: 18

dynasty? they're no dynasty. they had good pitching in 2010 and then this yr someone made a deal with the devil to sell their soul after game 4 with us :P

btw, according to wiki, they have 22 pennants

cardzZilla wrote: dynasty? they're no dynasty. they had good pitching in 2010 and then this yr someone made a deal with the devil to sell their soul after game 4 with us :P

btw, according to wiki, they have 22 pennants

They actually do have 22 pennants, as they won two before 1901. I mentioned that above - and we actually have 22 as well as our ancestors won four pennants in the 1880s.

But a lot of historical numbers in baseball are given in the context of the so-called "modern era", which is usually 1901-present.

And in the case of the Cardinals, the organization does not even recognize the franchise's roots before 1892 when they were merged into the National League after the American Association disbanded. Personally I think that is a mistake. It would be like a team such as the Indiana Pacers in basketball only counting their post-NBA-merger seasons in their lifetime club records, and not recognizing their ABA days.

So while I go along with the common view that we have 18 pennants, that's only the "modern era" number. We really have 22.

As for dynasties, I think that is a more subjective term. I see it as a sustained level of success over period of time, probably exceeding five years.

As for post 1900 major league baseball, in the National League you're looking at the Cubs 1906-10, the Giants 1921-24, us in the 40s, the Dodgers from probably 1947-1966, the Reds in the '70s and Braves in the '90s. I'm not sure you can call any other teams dynasties.

The late '50s Braves come close. The '70s Pirates come close as well, but both teams probably needed another pennant in there to really get to the "dynasty" level. 

In looking at my list, it looks like I need at least four pennants in a period of a few years, as I beleive all of those teams listed got four flags, and a couple of World Series titles to boot (althoguh the '90s Braves only won one World Series).

These Giants would need to win a few more division titles and a pennant or two over the next few years to be a dynasty in my opinion.

Agree with your criteria bicyclemike.

Baseball-reference counts 22 pennants for the Dodgers, Giants and Cardinals.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/

KatieCubFan wrote: Agree with your criteria bicyclemike.

Baseball-reference counts 22 pennants for the Dodgers, Giants and Cardinals.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/

Thanks Katie - yeah, that's how I actually see it as well. For the Cardinals they show us as beginning in 1882, which is the correct beginning of the franchise IMHO.

The organization does a disservice to their own history and the pioneers of the franchise, like flamboyant owner Chris Von Der Ahe and the great early day players like Charles Comiskey, Bob Caruthers and Dave Foutz when they just lop off the first 10 years of the club's existance.

Bob Broeg wrote a book about the Cardinals 100 year history in 1981, and of course started with the 1882 team. It baffles me how the current ownership doesn't recognize those American Association teams, which produced the first dynasty in Cardinal history (a nice tie-in to the other topic discussed in this thread ).

I suspect one reason the Cardinals don't want to recognize the 1800's teams is because they were called the "Browns".  Until 1899, I think (after the Robison brothers got the team after the bankruptcy sale that stripped the team from von der Ahe), when they were called the Perfectos, and then 1900 when they became the Cardinals.

Jmodene1 wrote: I suspect one reason the Cardinals don't want to recognize the 1800's teams is because they were called the "Browns".  Until 1899, I think (after the Robison brothers got the team after the bankruptcy sale that stripped the team from von der Ahe), when they were called the Perfectos, and then 1900 when they became the Cardinals.

Could be. With the American League St. Louis team adopting the name of Browns in 1902 I believe, after one year as the Milwuakee Brewers, and the fact that the original Browns played in the American Association, which went defunct after the 1891 season, the organization must feel it's less confusing to start with the National League years. But then, they were the Browns throughout the 1890s as you mention, with the "Cardinals" nickname not being adopted until late in the decade when the owners changed the teams colors to red.

But again, I really don't buy any of those reasons. Lots of franchises change nicknames. The Yankees were originally the Highlanders, the Red Sox were primarily known as the Americans in their early years.

I just think it's laziness on the part of the ball club. No one associated with the ball club has taken the time to do the research on the club's origins, nor do they really care about it. And the research is not hard to do, especially in this information age. But as I said, Bob Broeg and others wrote a lot about those pioneering days in the A.A. years ago, so there is really no excuse.

In the three articles off the link I posted on the previous page, I researched how and why MLB, other American Association clubs and the Cardinals specifically handled both team and individual player stats during that time. If you haven't read the articles, I recommend it.