Maybe you didn't follow the Cubs as closely in the early part of the decade. 2003 was the year that the was supposed to be the beginning of dominance for a decade. The 2008 team was the end of any relevance. but in terms of which team was better, it's not even close. the 2008 team was completely stacked. That 2008 team was not stacked by any stretch of the imagination. They didn't have any holes, but they were basically just good everywhere instead of having any real greatness. 2003 had a HOF RF and what should have been 2 HOF starting pitchers at the beginning of so your argument is based on 3 players? the 2008 team scored 131 more runs than the 03 team and allowed 12 fewer. the 2008 cubs had a great rotation, an amazing offense that had consistent OBP guys from top to bottom, and then had 2 shutdown strikeout guys at the end of the bullpen. they had the most runs scored in the league, and the second fewest given up. they also had the best record. how is that not stacked?