Dude you've been sniffing too much hair dye in your "salon". You pick the Mets 3rd?

We all know by now that the man is scrappy, but good On Base? His career OBP is .350 (last year .351), which is pretty much the league average. This goes against popular sentiment, but Eckstein is just not that good a leadoff man. And if you're using him as one of your reasons to defend the Cardinals as a strong WS champ, then you are pretty much proving King's point.

Pujols and Carpenter are awesome. But let's be honest about the '06 Cardinals; they won the Series because their little-bit-better-than-mediocre (besides Carpenter) pitching rotation got unconscious in the postseason. It does not make them a bad team, and it does not mean they didn't earn the championship. But a pretty strong argument can be made that they are the worst WS champion ever.

South Florida's apparent lack of mourning over Girardi's dismissal could be attributed to typical attendance approximating a smallish funeral, but I believe the more complete story is that the first year manager also clashed on power issues with Larry Beinfest, the GM properly credited with re-constructing the over achieving Fish with awesome rookie talent.

The clash with Loria was true and splashy, but it also shows again why you can't rely solely on the national baseball media to tell the small market story - a fact well known to the King-ster and his readers.

This season should tell that tail. Esp. if this one doesn't get away.

A Cy Young winner (Carpenter), a perrenial MVP candidate (Pujols), a multi-Gold Glove center fielder (Edmonds), one of the best, if not THE best, defensive catchers in the game (Molina), a scrappy, good-on-base-percentage leadoff man (Eckstein), a mult-Gold-Glove third baseman (Rolen), and so forth, the "worst team ever to win a World Series"?

Isn't that like saying "the ugliest girl ever to win Miss America"? By any standard, she's still gotta be pretty damn hot.

Thanks to everyone for pointing out the copious copy errors in yesterday's column, which have all been fixed now.

Also, jenbynight,

Biggio is never a concern to us at the plate, though. Don't let the years fool you - the guy seems to be able to get on base - a lot.

Biggio's on-base percentage the last four years: .350, .337, .325, .306.

Define "a lot." Or define "seems" maybe.

edwardo the 2006 cardinals arguably the worst world series champions ever? love ya king, but that, my friend, has got to be one of the dumbest, most short-sighted things you have ever written.

I love you too, edwardo! Believe me, because I'm going to argue with you for a while, just for fun.

i will concede they had a mediocre record and stumbled to the finish of the regular season. there's no denying that. but prior to that stagger they were on a 90 win pace the whole year,

Around Christmas 1963, I was on pace to double my size every six months. Imagine if I'd kept that up!

and i believe they won about 300 games the previous 3 years.

How many did they win in 1934? Answer: 95. Has about the same relevance to 2006.

do you think the padres, mets or tigers thought they were the weakest champs ever?

It's a widely held view, so I'd say yes, that's a distinct possibility.

the tigers were a very good team that beat very good teams to get there and they got smacked in five games!

The Tigers were a .500 team in the second half -- they were on pace to be a .500 team starting at midseason -- and anything can happen in a short series. I wouldn't necessarily argue the Cardinals weren't better than the Tigers. Just looking at October, the whole month, they clearly were.

i'll admit i am a cardinals fan,

No!

so lets make use of that for some historical perspective. when the 1982 cardinals won the world series their best hitter was george hendrick with about 25 home runs.

Actually, 19 home runs. Of course, it was a different game then. The Braves led the league with 146 home runs that year. This year the Pirates trailed the league, by a lot, with 141. You seem to be suggesting the Cardinals were a weak offensive team in 1982. You're doing that with the false statement that George Hendrick was their best hitter. If he was their best hitter, I was their manager. Keith Hernandez and Lonnie Smith were better than Hendrick by orders of magnitude. The 1982 Cardinals finished fifth in scoring in a 12-team league. They scored 103 percent of the league average in runs. The 2006 Cardinals were sixth in a 16-team league in scoring. They scored 102 percent of the league average. The two teams, each in their own way, were of roughly equal offensive quality.

their rotation featured guys like john stupor

See, you're doing it again. Their rotation did feature "guys like" John Stuper. In fact, it featured Stuper himself! He and Dave LaPoint split the fourth/fifth spot in the rotation (it was a four-man rotation, with spot starts by a fifth man), and they were pretty good together: 41 starts, 259 innings, 17-10, 3.47 ERA (league average was 3.60).

Of course, the Cardinals also had "guys like" Joaquin Andujar, who was 15-10 with a 2.47 ERA in 265.2 innings, seventh in the Cy Young voting, and got MVP votes. If you want to make direct comparisons, how did Chris Carpenter compare to that?

The 1982 Cardinals were third in the league in ERA, but first in run prevention, thanks to their outstanding defense. They allowed 92 percent of the league average in runs. The 2006 Cardinals were ninth in the (16-team) league in ERA, but fifth in run prevention, thanks to their outstanding defense. They allowed 99 percent of the league average in runs.

i loved those 1982 guys, but the 2006 cardinals would kill them

Anything can happen in a short series, but the 1982 Cardinals were a better team than the 2006 Cardinals.

and i don't hear anybody talking about the 1982 cardinals as the worst champs of all time.

Man: Did anyone ever tell you you're beautiful?

Woman: Why, no!

Man: Did you ever wonder why that was?

they weren't the worst champs. they were exactly this - the champs with the all-time ugliest slump coming out of the regular season.

This is why I love you, edwardo. That's a good argument. That's why I said "arguably." I would argue that that slump counts. It was part of who the 2006 Cardinals were. Many teams that win 83 games have a slump somewhere. Are you always there to say, "They really weren't a mediocre, barely .500 team, they just had a really ugly slump in May, and another one in late July" or whatever?

I'm a believer in that Bill Parcells line, something like "You are what your record says you are." I'm a bigger believer in baseball than in football, because there are 10 times as many games. Sure, a few bad hops and whatnot mean there might not be any difference between an 83-win team and an 80- or an 85-win team. But not between 83 wins and 97, the number won by the Mets last year. (And yes I know the Mets lost to the Cardinals. See "Anything can happen in a short series," above.)

The '82 Cardinals had the best record in the league by three games. The 2006 Cardinals had the fifth best. I think the 1982 Cardinals were much, much better than the 2006 Cardinals, and I agree, the 1982 Cardinals were not a great team.

Here's a team you might want to look into, though: The 1987 Minnesota Twins.