By Nate Silver, BaseballProspectus.com

	THE WORLD SERIES GAME 5 Cardinals win first title since 1982 | BOX | GRADES BP: Big changes in store for next year's Cardinals BP: Tigers need to add big-time bats this winter DONOVAN: Cardinals complete unlikely run CHEN: Weaver shares moment with kid brother BP: Cardinals were better than their numbers HEYMAN: Redbirds red hot at right time GAME 4 Eckstein, Cardinals take control | BOX | GRADES VERDUCCI: Eckstein wins classic duel with Zumaya DONOVAN: Forces work against Tigers in Game 4 CHEN: Thirty-eight years later, history is repeated BP: Defining clutch and when to deal your ace GAME 3 Carpenter's gem powers Redbirds | BOX | GRADES HEYMAN: Coach says Rogers likely used pine tar VERDUCCI: Carpenter gets a career-defining win CHEN: Carpenter shows he's NL's best pitcher DONOVAN: Tigers terrible in almost every way HEYMAN: La Russa making the right moves BP: Carpenter in complete command GAME 2 Behind Rogers, Tigers pull even | BOX | GRADES DONOVAN: Series exceeds expectations so far HEYMAN: Rogers spotless with, without smudge BP: Is Rogers' success at Comerica legitimate? GAME 1 Reyes rules Tigers in opener | BOX | GRADES DONOVAN: Reyes proves himself on big stage CLOSER LOOK: Leyland lets Pujols beat him BP: Extra week of rest fails to help Tigers GALLERIES Dirt on Rogers | Top Controversies | Headlines Games 1, 2 | Game 3 | Unlikely Heroes | Walkoffs

But there are several reasons why the Cardinals are better than their numbers might indicate:

The Cardinals didn't come out of nowhere. Sure, 2006 was a rough year for the Cardinals, at least until the calendar turned to October. But between the last three seasons, with largely the same core of talent, the Cardinals averaged 96 wins, a mark surpassed by only the Yankees. And over the last five seasons, they averaged 94 wins, a mark bettered by only the Yankees and the A's. Did the Cardinals play over their head in the playoffs? Perhaps. But they also vastly underachieved in the regular season.

The superstar factor. The Cardinals have three players -- Albert Pujols, Scott Rolen, and Carpenter, who are better than any players on the 2005 World Champion White Sox. Now, three players do not a roster make, and Walt Jocketty took way too many liberties with the rest of his roster. However, a team whose best players are Pujols, Rolen and Carpenter should generally be good enough to win a title.

The dead weight factor. The Cardinals gave 17 starts to Mark Mulder during the regular season, who had a 7.14 ERA before his shoulder finally gave out. They gave 13 starts to Sidney Ponson (5.24 ERA). Thirty-three starts to Jason Marquis (6.02 ERA). And Jason Isringhausen was their closer for most of the season; he was second in the National League with 10 blown saves. None of those pitchers were on the World Series roster. This is the corollary to the superstar factor. It's far easier to replace truly execrable performers with adequate ones -- Ponson, say, for Jeff Weaver -- than it is to exchange average performers for blue-chip talent. The Cardinals didn't make any big ticket acquisitions at the trade deadline, but they cut out a lot o fat.

I don't think the 2006 Cardinals were a 100-win team, by any means. But they were probably a 90-win team, a 92-win team, at least based on the roster they fielded during the playoffs. Plenty of teams with 90-win talent have won the World Series. If this result was an embarrassment to baseball in any way, it's because there's a reward system in place that allows an 83-78 team to compete in October. It wasn't because of the Cardinals.

So about this worst-team-ever business: I don't think the Cardinals are demonstrably the worst team ever to win the World Series. But I do think they're in the company of some similarly mediocre teams that represent the lowest echelon of World Series champion. If I run the fool's errand of ranking every world champion since 1982 (the last time that the Cardinals won it all) based on a combination of objective and subjective factors, they divide fairly neatly into four tiers:

Tier A: The Transcendents. Teams that not only dominated their season, but transcended it, either by an utterly superior performance or by building part of a dynasty. Some folks may debate the placement of the 2004 Red Sox in this group, a team that didn't even win its division, but I know a Transcendent when I see it.

1. 1998 Yankees
2. 1986 Mets
3. 1984 Tigers
4. 1999 Yankees
5. 2004 Red Sox
6. 1989 A's
7. 1995 Braves

Tier B: The No-Doubters. Well-constructed teams that might or might not have had staying power, but left absolutely no doubt that they were the best team of the season in question. Last year's White Sox typify this group.

8. 1983 Orioles
9. 2002 Angels
10. 2005 White Sox
11. 1991 Twins

Tier C: The Yes, Buts. "Deserving" champions that had at least one serious flaw -- the '92 and '93 Blue Jays couldn't pitch, the '88 Dodgers couldn't hit and the 2000 Yankees barely qualified for the playoffs. A Tier C champion was probably not the best team in the league during the regular season.

12. 1993 Blue Jays
13. 1992 Blue Jays
14. 1996 Yankees
15. 2001 Diamondbacks
16. 1988 Dodgers
17. 2000 Yankees

Tier D: The Bleeps. As in, "What the [bleep]?" "How in the [bleep]?" Teams that were closer to average than great and required a truly serendipitous course of circumstances to win the championship.

18. 1985 Royals
19. 1990 Reds
20. 1997 Marlins
21. 2006 Cardinals
22. 2003 Marlins
23. 1987 Twins

You can shuffle the Tier D teams around in pretty much any order. But I watched a lot of that 2003 Marlins team, and a lot of that 1987 Twins team, and I think this year's Cardinals would beat them soundly. Anyway, congratulations, St. Louis. People are going to say that you didn't deserve your championship. But you sure as hell played these last fifteen games like you did.