Jump to content


Which team is better: 2008 Rays or 2003 Marilns?


miamibaseball
 Share

Recommended Posts


They both are quite similar, in my opinion, but I believe if the Rays can make it to the WS and win, they will be considered the better of the two simply because of the opponents they beat along the way (Yanks and Red Sox) and the way they won it (American League East Champs). In addition while the 02 Marlins and 07 Rays were both woeful, last year's Rays WERE the worst team in baseball (at least the Marlins were a few wins away from a .500 season).

 

The biggest similarities, in my mind, is that for both teams, the playoff squads were essentially the same as the previous years' with a few key additions that seemed to put them over the hump. With the Marlins, it was Pudge, Willis and Urbina. With the Rays, it's Longoria, Garza and Bartlett.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were/are both exciting, young teams. Of course I'll always have a soft spot for the 2003 Marlins, but the 2008 Rays are very fun to watch and as a Florida team I hope they go all the way.

 

I just hope that unlike the Marlins, the Rays ownership keeps the 2008 team together for years to come, because it's a talented bunch.

 

Perhaps we'll see a Sunshine State World Series next year....that would just blow MLB's mind and serve as a nice F.U. to anyone who talks bad about Florida baseball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They both are quite similar, in my opinion, but I believe if the Rays can make it to the WS and win, they will be considered the better of the two simply because of the opponents they beat along the way (Yanks and Red Sox) and the way they won it (American League East Champs). In addition while the 02 Marlins and 07 Rays were both woeful, last year's Rays WERE the worst team in baseball (at least the Marlins were a few wins away from a .500 season).

 

The biggest similarities, in my mind, is that for both teams, the playoff squads were essentially the same as the previous years' with a few key additions that seemed to put them over the hump. With the Marlins, it was Pudge, Willis and Urbina. With the Rays, it's Longoria, Garza and Bartlett.

This is something I dislike a bit. I honestly believe that the NL East has been a tougher division over the last 10 years than the AL East. I mean, why is it so great that they beat the Yankees? Because they won 26 WS a long time ago? The Yankees were not great this year.

 

In addition to that, the NL East has historically had atleast 3, if not 4, good teams in it at any year, with the Phillies, Mets, Braves, and Marlins. The AL East has really been a 2 horse race for a long time, with the Jays, the O's and the Devil Rays being free wins.

 

NL East > AL East

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is something I dislike a bit. I honestly believe that the NL East has been a tougher division over the last 10 years than the AL East. I mean, why is it so great that they beat the Yankees? Because they won 26 WS a long time ago? The Yankees were not great this year.

 

In addition to that, the NL East has historically had atleast 3, if not 4, good teams in it at any year, with the Phillies, Mets, Braves, and Marlins. The AL East has really been a 2 horse race for a long time, with the Jays, the O's and the Devil Rays being free wins.

 

NL East > AL East

 

The Yankees did have 89 wins, which would have been good for second in our division... it's really hard to say they weren't great. They were very flawed, don't get me wrong but they were also very good... a little good luck here and there and they win 90+ games. Heck, even the Jays this year were better than us. It has nothing to do with the division's history... it has everything to do with how this division compares to ours in 2003...

 

The 2008 AL East had a winning percentage of .537, whereas the 2003 NL East had a winning percentage of .529... it's not much, but it does say the AL East was more competitive this year, ergo tougher to win in, ergo the Rays had the tougher schedule and won more games in said tougher schedule. Add in that they won their division, which counts for something... and the fact that they rebounded from being the worst team in baseball, I'd say the Rays are the better story. However, the better team is still a toss up but I'd lean towards the Rays being the better team, to be honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is something I dislike a bit. I honestly believe that the NL East has been a tougher division over the last 10 years than the AL East. I mean, why is it so great that they beat the Yankees? Because they won 26 WS a long time ago? The Yankees were not great this year.

 

In addition to that, the NL East has historically had atleast 3, if not 4, good teams in it at any year, with the Phillies, Mets, Braves, and Marlins. The AL East has really been a 2 horse race for a long time, with the Jays, the O's and the Devil Rays being free wins.

 

NL East > AL East

 

The Yankees did have 89 wins, which would have been good for second in our division... it's really hard to say they weren't great. They were very flawed, don't get me wrong but they were also very good... a little good luck here and there and they win 90+ games. Heck, even the Jays this year were better than us. It has nothing to do with the division's history... it has everything to do with how this division compares to ours in 2003...

 

The 2008 AL East had a winning percentage of .537, whereas the 2003 NL East had a winning percentage of .529... it's not much, but it does say the AL East was more competitive this year, ergo tougher to win in, ergo the Rays had the tougher schedule and won more games in said tougher schedule. Add in that they won their division, which counts for something... and the fact that they rebounded from being the worst team in baseball, I'd say the Rays are the better story. However, the better team is still a toss up but I'd lean towards the Rays being the better team, to be honest.

Wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Yankees did have 89 wins, which would have been good for second in our division... it's really hard to say they weren't great. They were very flawed, don't get me wrong but they were also very good... a little good luck here and there and they win 90+ games. Heck, even the Jays this year were better than us. It has nothing to do with the division's history... it has everything to do with how this division compares to ours in 2003...

 

The 2008 AL East had a winning percentage of .537, whereas the 2003 NL East had a winning percentage of .529... it's not much, but it does say the AL East was more competitive this year, ergo tougher to win in, ergo the Rays had the tougher schedule and won more games in said tougher schedule. Add in that they won their division, which counts for something... and the fact that they rebounded from being the worst team in baseball, I'd say the Rays are the better story. However, the better team is still a toss up but I'd lean towards the Rays being the better team, to be honest.

Wrong.

 

Not wrong.

 

Beating out the Red Sox and Yankees this year for the Rays was harder than the Marlins beating out the Mets and Phillies in 2003.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Yankees did have 89 wins, which would have been good for second in our division... it's really hard to say they weren't great. They were very flawed, don't get me wrong but they were also very good... a little good luck here and there and they win 90+ games. Heck, even the Jays this year were better than us. It has nothing to do with the division's history... it has everything to do with how this division compares to ours in 2003...

 

The 2008 AL East had a winning percentage of .537, whereas the 2003 NL East had a winning percentage of .529... it's not much, but it does say the AL East was more competitive this year, ergo tougher to win in, ergo the Rays had the tougher schedule and won more games in said tougher schedule. Add in that they won their division, which counts for something... and the fact that they rebounded from being the worst team in baseball, I'd say the Rays are the better story. However, the better team is still a toss up but I'd lean towards the Rays being the better team, to be honest.

Wrong.

 

Not wrong.

 

Beating the Red Sox and Yankees this year was harder than the Marlins beating the Mets and Phillies in 2003.

Well, that's not actually what I am going on about. I'm going an about the NL East vs the AL East. The Rays definitely have the better record than we did and won their division. They have us there.

 

I'm just saying that it has been easier playing against two tough teams, Yankees and Red Sox, than against 3 tough teams, The Braves, Mets, and Phillies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Yankees did have 89 wins, which would have been good for second in our division... it's really hard to say they weren't great. They were very flawed, don't get me wrong but they were also very good... a little good luck here and there and they win 90+ games. Heck, even the Jays this year were better than us. It has nothing to do with the division's history... it has everything to do with how this division compares to ours in 2003...

 

The 2008 AL East had a winning percentage of .537, whereas the 2003 NL East had a winning percentage of .529... it's not much, but it does say the AL East was more competitive this year, ergo tougher to win in, ergo the Rays had the tougher schedule and won more games in said tougher schedule. Add in that they won their division, which counts for something... and the fact that they rebounded from being the worst team in baseball, I'd say the Rays are the better story. However, the better team is still a toss up but I'd lean towards the Rays being the better team, to be honest.

Wrong.

 

Not wrong.

 

Beating the Red Sox and Yankees this year was harder than the Marlins beating the Mets and Phillies in 2003.

Well, that's not actually what I am going on about. I'm going an about the NL East vs the AL East. The Rays definitely have the better record than we did and won their division. They have us there.

 

I'm just saying that it has been easier playing against two tough teams, Yankees and Red Sox, than against 3 tough teams, The Braves, Mets, and Phillies.

 

Right, but in context of what HawkFan said, he wasn't making a historical comparison. He was saying exactly what I did, that the 2008 iteration of the Rays played in a tougher division and beat out two very tough opponents. Yes, the Mets, Phillies, Braves and Marlins have made the division tough over the years... but the Mets sucked in 2003, and the Expos/Nats were merely average. The Phils, that year, were solid and the Braves were awesome, winning 101 games. But like I said, we're looking at this with blinders on to make a single comparison 2008 Rays vs 2003 Marlins.

 

Bringing up how the NL East has been arguably tougher over the past decade has little to do with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just saying that it has been easier playing against two tough teams, Yankees and Red Sox, than against 3 tough teams, The Braves, Mets, and Phillies.

 

 

First off, the Mets SUCKED in 2003.

 

The competition was the Braves (101-61), Philadelphia (86-76), and the Expos (83-79).

The Mets went 66-95 in '03.

 

Compare that to the AL East this year, and the Rays dealt with the Red Sox (95-67), Yankees (89-73), AND BLUE JAYS (86-76)...

 

...I'd have to say the Rays had to play in the tougher division...slightly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Yankees did have 89 wins, which would have been good for second in our division... it's really hard to say they weren't great. They were very flawed, don't get me wrong but they were also very good... a little good luck here and there and they win 90+ games. Heck, even the Jays this year were better than us. It has nothing to do with the division's history... it has everything to do with how this division compares to ours in 2003...

 

The 2008 AL East had a winning percentage of .537, whereas the 2003 NL East had a winning percentage of .529... it's not much, but it does say the AL East was more competitive this year, ergo tougher to win in, ergo the Rays had the tougher schedule and won more games in said tougher schedule. Add in that they won their division, which counts for something... and the fact that they rebounded from being the worst team in baseball, I'd say the Rays are the better story. However, the better team is still a toss up but I'd lean towards the Rays being the better team, to be honest.

First off, the Mets SUCKED in 2003.

The competition was the Braves (101-61), Philadelphia (86-76), and the Expos (83-79).

The Mets went 66-95 in '03.

Compare that to the AL East this year, and the Rays dealt with the Red Sox (95-67), Yankees (89-73), AND BLUE JAYS (86-76)...

...I'd have to say the Rays had to play in the tougher division...slightly.

 

Eerily similar :mis2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is really tough to analyze. The Rays this year may be playing in a better division than the Marlins in 2003, but the Marlins also put themselves in a pretty big hole at the beginning of the year. We had the best record in baseball from that point on.

 

The argument also requires an analysis of the leagues. The Marlins also called up Miguel Cabrera and Willis. They did not start the season with the additions mentioned above whereas the Rays did.

 

What about an analysis of the stadiums, injuries, and bullpen. The Marlins had injuries to Ivan Rodriguez, Josh Beckett, and the rays had injuries to Evan longoria and Troy Percival.

 

What about the matchups in the postseason? The marlins did not have homefield advantage at any point of the playoffs. They opened in San Fran against Jason Schmidt, and then won three straight (last game in dramatic fashion). They played the Cubs (better record and three ridiculous studs for pitchers) and beat them 3 straight against zambrano, prior and wood.

 

Then the analysis would go to the Yankees. The marlins beat the Yankees in Yankee stadium. If the Rays win, it will be against the Phillies. I think that comparison is worth mentioning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ill go with the Fish on this one but it depends how you phrase it.

In the playoffs the Marlins are definatly the better team Desides Mark Redmond(why was he in the rotation)

In the regular season they rays kill our season as we heated up after the ASB

But the Marlins team IMO had a better hitting team with more power but the rays have an eqaul defense and a better bullpen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because you win a World Series doesn't necessarily mean you were the best team in baseball. Sometimes it means you got hot at the right time and did what it takes to win a title (see the Cards in '06)

 

Having said that, I think it would be silly to say the Marlins were the best team in baseball in 2003. There were better teams who just couldn't get the job done in the playoffs.

 

I think to determine which team was "better", you have to compare numbers throughout the course of a 162 game season, not just what happened in the playoffs.

 

 

The Rays this year won 97 games in easily the toughest division in baseball. The Marlins in 2003 won 91 games and the wild card.

 

The 08 Rays scored more runs than the 03 Marlins (774 to 751). The 08 Rays allowed less runs than the 03 Marlins (671 to 692)

 

The 08 Rays > the 03 Marlins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...