Team of the Decade?

ESPN.com's Jerry Crasnick has a story up today about deciphering the Team of the Decade. He says the 2009 World Series will go a long way toward deciding things. If the Yankees win, he says there's no doubt they are the Team. But then he goes on to talk about the Phillies having a shot if they win.

That's where he gets a little lost.

Look, the Phillies are a great team. If they win this year, they'll have won back-to-back World Series for the first time since the Yanks won three in a row to end the 90s and start 00s. But seriously, before last year's run, the Phillies were a middling team that nobody cared about. They were just one of the teams fighting for the NL East division title like all the other 86-win teams that play in that division.

There, I said it. Don't deny it. It's true.

But let's back up a second and talk about what it takes to be the Team of the Decade. I even thought about this the other night, so I'm glad that Crasnick took it on.

I used the following criteria for my inner discussion: World Series titles, championship series appearances, playoff appearances and overall wins.

Titles. So, whoever wins this World Series ties with the Red Sox, who, in case you forgot, swept the World Series in 2004 and 2007. And, as much as I want this year's World Series to just be canceled, there has to be a winner.

World Series appearances. I'm counting years in which that team won it, and years in which they lost it. Yanks have been there three times. Sox, Phils and Cards twice. No one else more than once. That takes us to the next tiebreaker: Championship series appearances. That silence you hear is from Philadelphia (shocking that they're quiet, I know) because the Phillies' argument for Team of the Decade just ended.

LCS appearances. In college hoops, making the Final Four is enough of an accomplishment that it (almost) doesn't matter how you do there -- as long as you aren't embarrassed (looking at YOU, 2003 Marquette Golden Eagles). I'm not entirely sure that teams feel that way in baseball, but it's a similar feeling. It's a sign of accomplishment.

In the 00s, the Yankees made five league championship series. That's the most of anyone. That's the tiebreaker for the Yanks if they win the '09 World Series and tie up the BoSox. The Red Sox have made four league championship series, and split two of them with the Yankees.

The only other team that has a shot at winning this tiebreaker would be the Cardinals, the team I thought would be in the World Series this year representing the National League. St. Louis made four NLCS trips this decade. If they won another World Series this decade, they'd be right there with the Red Sox and Yankees (assuming the Yankees win in 2009).

Playoff appearances. We'll continue the tiebreaking even though we know the answers. The Yanks have made every postseason except for one from 2000 to 2009. The Cardinals have made seven. The Red Sox, Braves and Angels have made six appearances. The Twins and Athletics finish the decade with five. The Phillies have made three postseasons since 2000.

Overall wins. Mr. Crasnick gives us the win totals for 2000-2009. Yanks have the most; BoSox second; Cards third.

The bottom line here is simple: The Phillies are a great team this year. They were last year, too. But they don't deserve Team of the Decade status. They've had some above average teams that barely made the playoffs (2007) and a lot of average teams that didn't. Crasnick brings up a fine point -- the Phils have won 80 games more times in the 2000-2009 span than any other NL team. But still, as Crasnick writes, the Phils are 11th in baseball in overall wins since 2000.

Look, it's safe to say that they are the premier powerhouse in the NL now. That's fine. If the Phillies win back-to-back World Series, they enter the discussion for Team of the Decade. But even still, once you step back from the consecutive titles and think about it, they just don't stack up over the whole decade.