I figured that before I decided on this team that I’d go to BaseballProjection.com to take a look at their historical WAR data for the decade. Fangraphs only goes back to 2002 with their WAR calculations. I had good ideas already for each position, and for the most part the WAR totals agreed with my preconceptions, but there were a few surprises. I’m going to state right here that I might as well entitle this post “BaseballProjection.com’s All-Decade Team” because I’m basically just going by their WAR calcs. To make sure to highlight that fact, I’ll put each player’s WAR next to his name.

C – Jorge Posada (39.9 WAR)

He’s never been close to as good as Joe Mauer is right now, which is why I feel so dirty putting him above Mauer. But he’s been around the entire decade and I’d say he hit pretty damn well for a catcher. 208 HR and 819 RBI are solid counting stats.

Backup – Joe Mauer (33.1 WAR)

I saved my words for the guy with the potential to be the greatest catcher ever. Three batting titles in five full years. An explosion of power this year that made him as feared as Mike Piazza. I’m not sure if all the power will stay, but he’s actually a good catcher, too! He made one of the more heads-up and athletic plays you’ll ever see a catcher make when he stopped himself from throwing to first on a bunt attempt, only to turn back around, run down, dive, and tag Brett Gardner — one of the fastest dudes in the league — before he could scurry and slide home. Mike Piazza would’ve made the throw to first and the guy would have been safe. The Twins HAVE to sign him or else I’ll just be totally disillusioned with baseball free agency — like that hasn’t happened before. But really, the guy is a once-in-a-generation player. If I were a Twins fan and he ended up somewhere else, I’d burn all my Twins memorabilia.

1B – Albert Pujols (76.6 WAR)

The most valuable player of the decade, and he got started a year late. What can be said about the guy that hasn’t been said already? When your WORST batting line of the decade is .314/.394/.561, I think you can say you’ve had a decent nine years. His average Triple Crown numbers were .334 BA, 41 HR, and 124 RBI. Disgusting. He would have the Decade Triple Crown if it were not for A-Rod. Now I’m curious to see if anyone has ever accomplished that.

I found this page that said Rogers Hornsby is the only player to do it. But if Hornsby counts, then Pujols does — it’s an AL/NL thing.

Backup – Todd Helton (53.1 WAR)

Sure, his home park for the entire decade was Coors Field, but Helton was still an absolutely fantastic hitter for most of it, and also a great fielder. An OPS over 1.000 is impressive wherever you play.

2B – Jeff Kent (36.2 WAR)

Another player whose spot on the list is due primarily to being around the entire decade, barely beating out a superior player who arrived in the middle of the 00s. But I shouldn’t take too much away from Kent; he mashed to a OPS+ of 130 while hitting 216 HR and racking up 850 RBI. Not a bad decade for a second baseman. And he was serviceable in the field, unlike say, Dan Uggla.

Backup – Chase Utley (34.6 WAR)

Well, that just doesn’t sound right. Utley has been a top-5 player — and that’s conservative — for the past five years. That he racked up that much value in half a decade should tell you something. He hits, he fields, and he runs. Over the past five seasons, he’s averaged 39 2B, 29 HR, 101 RBI, 111 R, and 15 SB (with only 2 CS). I still can’t get over his perfect 23-23 in steal attempts last year. Oh, and he should probably have a few Gold Gloves by now, at least.

SS – Alex Rodriguez (72.9 WAR)

Yeah, I went there. A-Rod might have been the best shortstop of all-time if it weren’t for Derek Jeter. A-Rod was the better fielding shortstop when he came to the Yankees, but unfortunately, captain status and World Series rings outweigh actual ability. Jeter’s Total Zone rating for the years 2000-2003 (the four before A-Rod): -19, -15, -15, -13. I don’t even need to post A-Rod’s numbers because there’s no way they could be worse than that. In terms of hitting, he was pretty good. He led the decade in HR, RBI and R at 435, 1243, and 1190, respectively. Not a bad 10 years.

Backup – Derek Jeter (46.2 WAR)

Jeter is relegated to backup, but he had a damn fine decade. He racked up close to 2000 hits, scored over 1000 runs, stole over 200 bases, hit .317, and got two more World Series rings. It’s just a shame he has no range. The man is a lock for the Hall of Fame regardless, and will likely go down as the third-best shortstop ever (behind Honus Wagner and Cal Ripken Jr.).

3B – Chipper Jones (50.0 WAR)

Chipper just plain hit this decade. A .311/.413/.547 line that works out to a OPS+ of 147. He’s had some injury problems, but he still to both score and drive in over 900 runs, and hit 273 HR, tormenting Mets fans while he was at it. He’s a Hall of Famer.

Backup – Scott Rolen (47.1 WAR)

While Chipper hit, Rolen fielded. Perhaps not quite as masterful a fielder as Brooks Robinson, but certainly a better hitter, Rolen quietly put together a very valuable decade, even if his hitting has slipped a bit in recent years. He still managed a 125 OPS+ over the last ten years.

LF – Barry Bonds (64.4 WAR)

Bonds for the first half of this decade was in God Mode. He wasn’t content with being the best player in baseball in the 90s, he almost did it again in the 00s. Well, he managed it for the first half, at least. From 2001-2004, he put together four straight years with over 10 WAR, three of them over 12. That’s just not fair. His OPS+ for the decade? 221. He was 121% better than the average MLB hitter. Holy fuck.

Backup – Bobby Abreu (44.7 WAR)

This one choice is probably the only time I have an issue with the WAR calculations. I don’t care how atrocious he is in the field, I would’ve picked Manny. But I can’t deviate from the WAR gospel now! Abreu’s extra 1000 or so PAs are what put him over Manny, it seems. But he did average 30 SB a season, get on base at a 40% clip, and hit over 400 doubles. It’s really killing me not to put Manny over him, though. I can’t think of a team that would have taken Abreu over Manny at any point this decade, except maybe during that steroid suspension. Damn you, BaseballProjection.com!

CF – Carlos Beltran (50.1 WAR)

You’ve heard it plenty of times already — the most under-appreciated player in baseball. His contract says otherwise. I do think this is one spot where Total Zone disagrees with UZR a bit, though. Due to this, Beltran gets more of a boost in the WAR calculation in comparison to on Fangraphs. But either way, everyone can agree that Beltran is at the very least a solid center fielder. When you throw in the 121 OPS+ and the 295 steals with only 30 caught stealings, you have a pretty awesome all-around player.

Backup – Jim Edmonds (46.3 WAR)

Might be even more under-appreciated than Beltran. Everyone knows Edmonds was an absolutely ridiculous center fielder, and Total Zone backs it up — UZR doesn’t though. Maybe this discrepancy is just endemic to center fielders not named Andruw Jones, who knows. But Edmonds wasn’t all glove, he was a great hitter too. Even though he had to deal with injuries, he managed to hit 261 HR and both score and drive in over 700 runs due to his 140 OPS+.

RF – Ichiro Suzuki (50.7)

Ah, the player who does everything but hit for power. Over 2000 hits in the decade, over only 9 seasons. Almost 1000 runs, even though the Mariners weren’t exactly a great hitting team this decade. Stole 341 bases while getting caught 79 times. And he patrolled right field better than anyone since Clemente.

Backup – Vladimir Guerrero (45.2 WAR)

Certainly a better hitter than Ichiro, with an even stronger arm, but the lack of speed hurt him in both the outfield and the basepaths in comparison to Ichiro. He stole half the bases while getting caught almost the same amount, and had nowhere the amount of range of the speedy Japanese wonder. But he could sure hit: 315 HR with a .315 average, and a good percentage of those hits were on balls out of the strike zone.

SP – Roy Halladay (44.5 WAR)

You shouldn’t need WAR calculations to tell you that Halladay was one of the very best pitchers of the decade, but somehow MLB Network put him sixth on their list, behind Andy Pettitte, because the latter won the most games in the decade. Wow. Maybe Halladay should’ve struck out more guys instead of throwing all those pointless complete games — he had 47, with 14 of them being shutouts. Both handily led the decade. He threw 1883.1 innings with an ERA+ of 133. His K/BB ratio was 3.74. He also managed to go 139-69 while playing for the Blue Jays in a division with both the Yankees and Red Sox. I’m gonna get crazy and say that if Halladay played for the Yankees and Pettitte played for the Blue Jays, their win-loss records might have been a bit different.

SP – Randy Johnson (42.7 WAR)

Just an absolute beast at the beginning of the 00s. Three straight Cy Young awards, 64 wins, 1053 K, 188 ERA+ to kick off the decade (this is ignoring his equally insane 1999). And then after an injury-plagued 2003, he came back a monster again in 2004. But after that, the decade is pretty much a wash. That’s what happens when a 6’10″ dude with back problems turns 40. He wasn’t awful, but he wasn’t good either. But overall, I’d say he had an OK decade, what with 143 wins and 2182 strikeouts.

SP – Johan Santana (42.1 WAR)

Pedro-lite. He won two Cy Youngs, should’ve won three, and arguably could’ve won four. He got a bit of a late start, as he was used as a reliever when he came up, but he quickly got accustomed to the starting role, it seems. Each year from 2004-06, he led the AL in Ks, ERA+ and WHIP. He had a 143 ERA+, a 3.66 K/BB ratio, and a 1.113 WHIP for the decade. I don’t want to imagine the Mets without him.

SP – Roy Oswalt (39.5 WAR)

I feel somewhat forgotten down in Houston, Oswalt threw 1803.1 innings, and racked up 137 wins while pitching to a 137 ERA+. He was definitely one of the more consistently great starters in the league until this year. Maybe I’m guilty of forgetting him, as I have nothing else to say.

SP – Mark Buerhle (39.4 WAR)

Buerhle might be the most consistent of all. He makes this list due to being a total workhorse. He threw 2061 innings in the decade, and 2000 only contained 51.1 of those. He has pitched at least 200 innings in every single season since then. Neither his 122 ERA+ not 135-97 record is spectacular, but hey, he threw a perfect game and also broke the record for most consecutive putouts. Would back-to-back perfect games have helped his eventual Hall of Fame case? It might not matter, as he looks like he could get to 300 wins, Tom Glavine-style.

SP – Pedro Martinez (39.2 WAR)

From 1997-2003, Pedro was the best pitcher in baseball history. During the part that came in this decade (2000-03), he went 59-17 with a 224 ERA+, .899 WHIP, and 6.19 K/BB. That’s obscene. He only managed 112 wins over the entire decade, only throwing 1468.0 innings, but his ERA+ of 154 leads the decade among starters. When he pitched, he pitched awesome. Except for three out of four years with the Mets. FML.

SP – Javier Vazquez (39.0 WAR)

The most mystifying pitcher of the decade. His WAR is so high despite his underwhelming 128-116 record. How could that be? He sucks in high leverage situations, for whatever reason. He also had shitty fielding behind him and didn’t play for the best of teams for many years. But, like Buerhle, he’s here partially because of his durability. he threw at least 198 innings every season, totaling 2163 IP for the decade. His 113 ERA+ isn’t great either, but he did have a 3.79 K/BB due to striking out 2001 batters. I still don’t know what to think of him, really.

SP – Curt Schilling (37.7 WAR)

He might have missed the last two years of the decade, but he was great enough that he still accumulated a shitton of value. Perhaps his K/BB ratio of 6.01 over the entire decade had something to do with it. There’s never been a power pitcher with control like that. He had three 20-win seasons, threw 26 complete games, and had a 133 ERA+. You might have also heard about his postseason achievements.

RP – Mariano Rivera (33.6 WAR)

The only reliever here. Why? Because he’s the only one that deserves it. There is Mariano Rivera, and then there is every other closer. He led the decade with 397 saves while posting a 214 ERA+ and .960 WHIP. He’s kinda not human. You could fill the rest of the bullpen with the extra starting pitchers.

That’s it. 25 players. One decade. I didn’t even do any thinking. Just spreadsheet summation. I really should go back and switch Manny in for Abreu. Fucking Bobby Abreu? Really?

Edit: Oh wait, I just put an apostrophe in my last post title! Guess I’m not consistent.

I’m pretty sure I will never have a decade as eventful as this one. I started 2000 in middle school, a Dreamcast fanboy who loved video games and was afraid of women — well, I guess that last one hasn’t changed too much. But I’ve gone through high school and college the past ten years. I attended two high schools and four colleges. And then of course there are all the other milestones any person goes through that don’t need to be listed. The years of 13 to 23 cover all of those for most people, I imagine. How is any other decade going to beat that? Maybe if I move between cities and/or countries I can top it? Maybe marriage + kids? Too far off to think about and I feel like one doesn’t truly understand starting and raising a family until one experiences it. A person always thinks the present is going to be the most important time of one’s life.

But still, that’s a fairly stuffed ten years, is it not? I attended… I started to write a huge bunch of personal anecdotes, but I’d probably regret it at some point. I’ve become a bit more secure with myself and my past disappointments and failings, but I’m not totally comfortable writing them all out for the entire internet to see. Sure, no one reads this, but people technically *could*. So what was the point of this post? I guess I felt the need to wrap up the 00′s somehow.

In terms of looking forward, I find it so difficult to bring myself to do it. I see way too many possible paths laid out in front of me, all with their positives, but I can’t help but focus on the downsides to all of them. I assume the worst almost always, and while it brings immense  joy when things do work out, it’s not good when it stops me from actually doing things. So it’s going to be 2010. Here’s to actually doing things. I hope.

But I still won’t do the only thing I want to do.

I’ve been thinking about making Best of Decade posts for a month or so now, debating how to go about it — whether to just make lists or rambling contemplations, and how to spread them out across a bunch of posts. I’ve settled on separate posts for separate segments of entertainment, consisting of personal anecdotes and feelings about my decade’s experience in each form of time-wasting. They’ll all be somewhat chronological, so you can see my evolution and growth or lack thereof. I originally wanted to get this done BEFORE 2010 started, but that’s not going to happen now because I procrastinated like with every single other thing in my life. Except for one decision this year, and that turned out pretty well. But this is not about my laziness and neurotic failings, this is about stuff you watch on a screen. Let’s get this kicked off.

The decade starts with Gladiator, which I believe — mistakenly or not — was my first R-rated theater experience. If there were any before it, they were obviously unmemorable, or just paled in comparison to the glory of a sword-and-sandals spectacle to a 14-year-old male. And this was in a massive theater that is actually now closed down, beaten into submission by a new stadium-style seating multiplex. This old theater was a multiplex as well, but it had one theater that was absolutely immense, unlike the new multiplex where every theater is the same mediocre size. I only delve into this at all because it was the place of the some of the bigger movie experiences of my life — with Gladiator possibly still being the biggest. It was just so unbelievably epic and badass. I wanted to be Russell Crowe, I wanted to be slashing and stabbing competitor after competitor, I wanted to fight fucking tigers.

Recently, the internet has tried to convince me that Gladiator is actually a terrible movie. Fuck the internet, or more specifically NeoGAF. I’ve heard ridiculous things like Kingdom of Heaven: Director’s Cut is actually superior. Sorry, any film that stars Orlando Bloom cannot — by the laws of nature — be superior to one that stars Russell Crowe when they are in the same genre and directed by the same man. It’s science. Perhaps I haven’t matured enough to realize that Joaquin Phoenix’s Commodus is overacted or that the plot is straight out of Spartacus, but perhaps I just don’t care and still totally enjoy the movie because it’s so goddamn entertaining. I’ll refrain from quoting the line.

Time to go to Wikipedia to remember what came out in 2001…

Oh right, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. I’d say that was a huge theater experience as well. I admit I said at one point that it was better than Gladiator, but then upon watching it again at home, I rescinded this statement. It doesn’t make that first viewing any less amazing, as I was definitely blown away at the world that was created for that entire trilogy. But I enjoyed each successive installment less and less, culminating in the half-dozen endings for The Return of the King that had my entire group of friends complaining on the way home. That was brutal.

I’m gonna go ahead and mention Snatch in here right now. I’m not entirely sure when I saw it first — it came out in 2000 — but I’ve always absolutely loved it. Guy Ritchie gets a SHITLOAD of hate from critics and the internet alike, but I also loved Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and RocknRolla wasn’t too bad either. I should probably go ahead and see Sherlock Holmes then, huh? Snatch is my favorite of his so far, though — probably due to Brad Pitt’s character. It’s just pure fun from beginning to end. Whoever doesn’t like it is a joyless twat.

Then I guess I plodded along watching crappy movies for another year or so, until I rented The Bourne Identity. That totally rocked my world — Matt Damon as a super-trained killing machine? Woah, this was so much better than those stupid Bond movies, too! And evidently, EON Productions thought the same, since Casino Royale (and Quantum of Solace even moreso) took massive inspiration from the Bourne movies, and it was one of the best things to happen to movies this decade. So thank you, Bourne series — you not only gave us an awesome trilogy, you revitalized an entire other series. Really, the entire Bourne Trilogy deserves the bold + italic treatment. I can’t think of a more consistently great trilogy.

Any discussion of this decade wouldn’t be complete without the disappointment of the Matrix sequels. The Matrix Reloaded was supposed to be one of the big movies that I could look back on and remember how I experienced it in theaters, in that huge theater that’s now torn down, how it totally blew my mind. And you know what? It might have blown my mind a little bit. I did not hate Reloaded as much as many other people; I talked about that speech by the Architect at the end with my friends, trying to figure out what the hell was going on; I enjoyed the highway chase scene; and I had no complaint about Monica Bellucci having screentime. But so much was just a bit off, and it seemed just a bit too philosophical (well, maybe more than a bit). It was nicer not knowing what was truly going on behind the scenes. And it was nicer before the CG went totally overboard. Unfortunately, The Matrix Revolutions was such a total fucking disaster that I don’t even want to dedicate more than a sentence to it. It was so bad that it made Reloaded worse by association — although I feel the original Matrix is removed enough that it remains unscathed.

I guess 2003′s bright spot had to be Old School for me. Yes, out of that group of movies that includes Zoolander and Anchorman, I’m going with Old School. Zoolander is also pretty great, but I’m going on record and saying Anchorman is pretty awful. I don’t care if I like the line “It’s science” or “Milk was a bad choice” — the vast majority of the movie was fucking bad and I wanted to stab Will Ferrell repeatedly in the face. He’s good in supporting roles like, say, Old School or Zoolander! You’re not going to see Old School on any Best of Decade lists, and maybe I wouldn’t even enjoy it as much as I did 6 years ago, but fuck if my friends and I (and the entire theater) weren’t laughing at it more than any movie I could remember up until then. I don’t care if you call me a tasteless frat boy. The Royal Tenebaums sucks.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is my favorite movie of the decade, and I’ve only watched it three times. I watched it once in 2004, and it totally destroyed me. So much so that I didn’t watch it again until this year. That second viewing cemented its status, as it blew me away all over again — so much so that I watched it again a few months later. It’s fucking PERFECT. It’s brilliant, touching, depressing, imaginative, hilarious, original, beautiful, and heartbreaking. I don’t know what else you could want out of a film. Jim Carrey is at his painfully shy and neurotic best as Joel (hey, that’s my name!), while Kate Winslet plays a cute, quirky but also realistically crazy girl that provides him with some much-needed excitement. They have chemistry, but they’re not perfect. It eventually falls apart — like 99% percent of relationships. You see all this through a fragmented and out-of-order journey through Joel’s brain. Never have I seen an entire relationship summarized in a two-hour movie so perfectly before. I can’t even bring myself to write anymore, as it will just inspire me to watch it again. I just might. Charlie Kaufman is a fucking genius when someone else is directing his scripts.

The next couple of years brought two of my favorite comedies of the decade, The 40-Year-Old Virgin and Borat. Sure, the former gets a bit sappy at the end, but there are just too many amazing quotes packed into the first hour and a half. And Steve Carell was born to play that part. Borat was a totally different animal; I seriously couldn’t believe some of the stuff I was seeing or hearing, but it just about all worked. “Let’s go back to New York, there are no Jews there!” might have gotten the biggest laugh in my NY theater.

2007 had to be the best year I ever had in terms of theatrical movie watching. Children of Men — albeit technically a 2006 film — didn’t get a wide release until 2007 (when I saw it). That’s one movie I’m extremely glad I saw in theaters. The entire climatic scene running through the warzone at the end was incredible. And I’ve never heard a packed theater audience as quiet as when the fighting stopped due to the baby’s crying. Then there was There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men, the two movies that were pitted against each other in every internet argument and even in the Academy Awards. Both amazing movies from masterful directors, but I give the edge to the one starring Daniel Day-Lewis. Endings don’t make movies, but I left There Will Be Blood with my jaw dragging on the fucking ground.

Also, I feel like Gone Baby Gone was a underrated gem that year, and it seems almost totally forgotten now. Maybe people thought Ben Affleck couldn’t direct a decent film; I thought the same until I watched it. Then there was The Bourne Ultimatum and Hot Fuzz as well. The latter doesn’t get highlighted because the first half of the movie is a bit slow, and Shaun of the Dead is superior anyway. Absolutely love that movie.

We’re almost at the end, people! But not really, because I watched way too many good movies the past two years.

I really don’t think The Dark Knight is one of the best movies of this decade, but it gets highlighted because it was the American movie event of the decade — and it did live up the hype. It’s a very, very good movie, but just a bit bloated. The action scenes also could have been handled better. Nonetheless, Heath Ledger’s Joker will be talked about for decades and it did bring comic book movies to a new level. Oh yeah, it also made over $500 million in America and $1 billion total, breaking almost every record in sight. Christopher Nolan will have a blank check for the third installment, I’m sure.

While The Dark Knight got all the attention, In Bruges was quietly amazing. It’s both charming and vulgar, both hilarious and somber. It’s also brilliantly acted and brilliantly shot. A perfect dark comedy. Just go watch it. I swear, Colin Farrell is totally awesome in it. I’ll just slide Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang in here, as it’s another (not-quite-as) dark comedy. More of a buddy cop mystery comedy. I just didn’t know how to get it in here. Watch it. It has Robert Downey Jr. — I’m sure you love him.

Another movie better than The Dark Knight? Memento. Christopher Nolan’s first feature with a budget over $6,000, it’s a mindfuck of a film where the non-linear storytelling isn’t just masturbation. I can’t imagine the film any other way. It fucks with your mind like the mind of an amnesiac. And not any old type of amnesia, this is one where you can’t even remember 5 minutes ago. The twists come at you over and over, but they never feel contrived, and it all comes together so beautifully (or terribly) in the end. Possibly Inception will top it with regards to both mindfucking and quality — well, probably not, but we’ll see.

Martin Scorsese finally got his Oscar for The Departed, but he should have gotten it a few years before for The Aviator instead. Leonardo DiCaprio gives a great performance, as does Cate Blanchett — and Kate Beckinsale looks really gorgeous. It’s a triumph of spectacle filmmaking; it’s just a joy to watch.

I leave for last three movies from 2002 that I finally got around to watching this year: City of God, 28 Days Later, and 25th Hour. Not a bad threesome. City of God is easily the gangster movie of the decade, a kinetic, uncompromising portrait of the slums of Brazil. It’s such a powerful, unrelenting film. 28 Days Later is probably one of the most influential movies of the decade. The ingenious idea to transform zombies into fast moving, bloodthirsty savages by making it all due to a virus instead of some living dead bullshit has reverberated throughout popular culture. The remake of Dawn of the Dead featured fast-moving zombies, and the Left 4 Dead series has fast-moving “infected” — the term used in 28 Days Later. It helps that the movie is absolutely fantastic, even if the final act goes off the rails a bit. BUT, I feel like the third act is foreshadowed and relevant enough thematically that it ultimately works. It’s not like the other Danny Boyle-Alex Garland collaboration, Sunshine. Two-thirds of that movie could make this list, but holy shit what the fuck happened.

I only watched 25th Hour a couple of weeks ago due to seeing it pop up on so many of these very lists. I was not disappointed. Every character plays their role perfectly — except for Tony Siragusa — and the backdrop of 9/11 does provide some great perspective. There’s a reason why I think the movie is finally getting the recognition it deserves, and I think that looking Ground Zero right in the face might be it. It’s about a man’s last free day, but it’s also about New York City, and it paints a portrait that will be looked back on for a long time.

Meanwhile, this post will never be even looked on, at least not in its entirety.