the real difference between the sox and the yankees right now are twofold
1) manny was worth his contract and giambi wasn't
2) the sox young players thus far this season are massively outperforming their yankee counterparts.

they'd be in opposite positions in the standings if Lester and Buchholz were struggling like Hughes and Kennedy are, and if Ellsbury were hitting like Cano.

Eh, I'll believe the Yankees are dead and buried if they're still flailing in late July. Heck, they're not even really flailing now. They're not in that different position than they were last year, though with A-Rod and Posada, who pretty much carried the team the first half of last year, injured. It's not like Cano got off to a fast start last year either.

If they are a dynasty should I start stockpiling vases?

And if it happened right under his eyes I can only imagine he has somewhat less than 20/20 vision. About the only difference between the two is the city they reside.

The 2007 team was better than the 2008 team is. The losses due to the age/Schilling more than offset the addition of Buchholz/Ellsbury.

The 2008 team might still be very good, but call me a skeptic, in spite of their record so far. I guess I'd bet on them winning the division, but I think it's going to be close. I think this team might be in for a world of hurt due to the complete lack of development in control by either Lester or Matsuzaka.

Or you know, not.

The losses due to the age/Schilling more than offset the addition of Buchholz/Ellsbury.

While those losses are definitely factors, those aren't the only factors in play. I really don't think either Drew or Lugo were as bad as either was last year, Manny appears to be off to a hot start after a pretty substandard 2007 - I know he's 36 but he had established a level of performance quite a bit higher than his 2007. I'd expect the offense to be off a little bit overall given the number of over-30 regulars. But I'd expect the pitching to improve enough to essentially offset that.

Any anti-dynasts (sic? / sp? / bs?) should appreciate Julio Lugo's efforts to single-handedly keep the team down.

I should amend my previous remark. If Lugo is really this bad, he should/will be replaced posthaste. I imagine at some point the Sox will be giving Lowrie some more PT at SS if this persists.

The 08 team has been lucky in close games so far. The 2003-05 Sox seem to be the best 3-yr run of recent memory. No matter how 08 turns out, 06-08 won't be better. Let's wait a little more before the D word gets tossed around, or before declaring the diff between Bos and NY is smarts and better plan; this article could look real stoooopid in 4 months time.

The Red Sox aren't likely to be a dynasty because of the current playoff system - no specific team is likely to win the world series in any given year because you have to get through three rounds, no matter how good you are in the regular season.

Personally, I think the 2007 and 2008 versions are very similar. You can find lots of reasons why they may be a little better and lots why they may be a little worse, whether its aging, reverting to previous career norms, maturing of young players, rookies, etc., but its pretty much the same team.

I think this team might be in for a world of hurt due to the complete lack of development in control by either Lester or Matsuzaka.

Personally, I think Matsuzaka's performance has been fairly good this year. And its not like the other teams in the league have five sure-things in their rotations.

Matsuzaka's results have been good, but they're coming on the strength of an unsustainably low BABIP, while he's walking a ton of guys. His ERA will go up at least a run from where it is now, but hopefully he can allow fewer walks as he starts to allow some hits.

And its not like the other teams in the league have five sure-things in their rotations.

i've been accused of being the fanboy of all fanboys when it comes to the red sox by my best friend, the yankee fan.

there's no way you can tell me the red sox have 5 sure-things in their rotation.

beckett: coming off of injury, has only pitched 200+ innings twice, but is the surest thing in the rotation

matsuzaka: if he keeps on walking 5+, it's going to come back and haunt him. but he's a pretty sure thing

now here's where it starts to get dicey

buchholz: like beckett, probably a sure thing, but he's a kid and you never know if you're going to get mark prior or mark injured prior or rick ankiel (to take some extreme examples).

lester: he's probably the least sure thing. he has all the potential in the world, but he can't keep guys off the bases.

and finally, the very definition of unsure thing: tim wakefield. right now, he's starting to look like the 95/02 in terms of era and record, but he's on pace to match his career high in walks and his career low in strikeouts.

and, if you drink the espn kool-aid, they'll tell you that the blue jays have the best rotation 1-5 in the league. but i happen to think the sox have the stronger rotation =)

The Red Sox aren't likely to be a dynasty because of the current playoff system - no specific team is likely to win the world series in any given year because you have to get through three rounds, no matter how good you are in the regular season.

Which is what makes the 96-01 yankees all the more amazing. 14-2 in post seasons series.

I should amend my previous remark. If Lugo is really this bad, he should/will be replaced posthaste. I imagine at some point the Sox will be giving Lowrie some more PT at SS if this persists.

I'm starting to think that the Red Sox will best be able to use their financial advantage not by signing new players to big contracts, but by using it to make older players go away.

While nothing's a sure thing, two things I feel pretty confident about:

Matsuzaka's ERA will go up.
Matsuzaka's BB/9 will go down.

Based on his past history, there's no reason to expect his control problems to last all season.

I'm starting to think that the Red Sox will best be able to use their financial advantage not by signing new players to big contracts, but by using it to make older players go away.

I think that is what the big NYY budget buys more than anything else. To most franchises an epic disaster at the level of the Giambi contract would have crippled the team. Even the Red Sox and Mets would have had their ability to sign players hindered significantly.

Except that the Yankees also gave out NTCs to those guys. Luckily the Sox have been stingy with those.

I think that is what the big NYY budget buys more than anything else. To most franchises an epic disaster at the level of the Giambi contract would have crippled the team. Even the Red Sox and Mets would have had their ability to sign players hindered significantly.

Maybe, maybe not. Beltran is not a Yankee, despite offering them a better deal than he offered the Mets. They signed Sheffield instead of Vlad.

The Red Sox aren't likely to be a dynasty because of the current playoff system - no specific team is likely to win the world series in any given year because you have to get through three rounds, no matter how good you are in the regular season.

This type of playoff system didn't stop the Celtics or Canadiens.

I agree with sj. I think the massive overspending has hurt the Yankees. Beltran is one example. I think they laid off Santana for a similar reason, they couldn't take on that much salary for such a shortterm reward.

They're still contending (at least until this year) because no matter how badly you #### up, when you spend twice as much as your competitors you're going to be able to compete. but the budget they are currently operating under has hurt them in recent times in being able to correct their defiencies, at least somewhat.

No Dynasty has Lugo as the F!@3ing shortstop.

This type of playoff system didn't stop the Celtics or Canadiens.

I could be wrong about this, but I tend to think that there is more "randomness" in the outcomes of short series in baseball than in basketball or hockey. I don't have so much evidence to back this up, but it seems like the impact of one or two or three great players has a far greater effect, especially in basketball, than in baseball.

tim wakefield. right now, he's starting to look like the 95/02 in terms of era and record, but he's on pace to match his career high in walks and his career low in strikeouts.

Wakefield had a better start to last year. I don't think 02 Wakefield is a possibility.

They signed Sheffield instead of Vlad.

That was Steinbrenner being a schmuck, not a budget issue.

Cano has never been this bad before, it's going to take a lot for him to dig himself out of his offensive hole. Fortunately he's flashed some leather this season or he would be a vortex of suck.

This type of playoff system didn't stop the Celtics or Canadiens.

Still a limited sample, there have been 12 playoffs with the current format. 8 of the flags fly in three stadiums.

Cano has never been this bad before, it's going to take a lot for him to dig himself out of his offensive hole. Fortunately he's flashed some leather this season or he would be a vortex of suck.

Off topic a bit, but I imagine Cano will be fine. Maybe he doesn't hit .310 again, and I guess this won't be the random year he hits .340 and wins a batting title, but I'd be shocked if he doesn't end up with at least a .270/.330/.430ish line, which is just fine for a 2B who is at worst average defensively.

I tend to think that there is more "randomness" in the outcomes of short series in baseball than in basketball or hockey.

Not to mention that the Red Sox don't approach the Celtics or Canadiens in terms of strength relative to the competition. There are only about six teams in the major leagues that I would be surprised to find beat the Red Sox in a short series. The number was much, much larger for both dynastics mentioned.

There are only about six teams in the major leagues that I would be surprised to find beat the Red Sox in a short series. The number was much, much larger for both dynastics mentioned.

I like the Red Sox, think they may be the best in baseball again, but even with that, there are no teams in baseball I would be surprised to see beat them in a short series (particularly best of 5).

The bottom line is the nature of baseball means the best team wins less often than the similar best team in basketball (as exemplified by year-end winning percentages), and even slightly less often than the best team in hockey.

I could be wrong about this, but I tend to think that there is more "randomness" in the outcomes of short series in baseball than in basketball or hockey. I don't have so much evidence to back this up, but it seems like the impact of one or two or three great players has a far greater effect, especially in basketball, than in baseball.

Also the fact that the starting pitcher, who probably has the single biggest impact of any player in any given game, changes every game. Probably a best of 7 NBA playoff series is equivalent to something like a best of 19 baseball series. (I totally made that number up.)

In basketball or hockey, the strength of a team doesn't differ all that greatly from day to day, assuming everyone is healthy. But the 2000 Red Sox, for example, were virtually unbeatable on days Pedro pitched, but much less so depending on who else took the mound.

This type of playoff system didn't stop the Celtics or Canadiens.

From 57-65, the Celtics played in two rounds.

The Canadiens played in two rounds until 1968.

They signed Sheffield instead of Vlad.

That was Steinbrenner being a schmuck, not a budget issue.

Gary was good for the Yankees though. He was productive for sure.

The 2007 team was better than the 2008 team is. The losses due to the age/Schilling more than offset the addition of Buchholz/Ellsbury.

I don't agree with this at all. The pitching looks much better this year than last, in both quality and quantity. Ellsbury is a huge upgrade over Crisp and the young bench guys like Moss and Lowrie look like they're going to be much better than Cora and Hinske. Finally, if Cash is for real (and by real I mean somewhere close to average MLB quality), he's much better than Mirabelli, since he's an outstanding defensive cathcer.

Remember, they really haven't hit their stride yet. Papi si still a bit off his game and the young pitchers are still in the process of adapting. But I think this team has a chance to be totally dynamite. I'm not sure I would say that about last year's team, certainly not before Ellsbury was up and inserted as a starter.

From 57-65, the Celtics played in two rounds.

And then won 3 of the next 4 when the format was expanded, which by itself would be considered a dynasty.

Based on his past history, there's no reason to expect his control problems to last all season.

His low H/IP is a function of the high BB/IP. He's pitching to avoid contact.

We can argue whether that's a good or bad thing but you can't argue with the results. The Sox have won every game he's started.

I know this has nothing to do with this thread but I wanted to mention it anyway because I didn't see a thread on it yesterday.

Did anyone catch the highlights of Ankiel throwing out two runners and hitting a homerun Tuesday night?

Wow. The first throw was a howitzer, equal to anything I ever saw Clemente do with his arm. From deep center he nailed a guy tagging up from second with an ICBM that hit would have hit the thirdbaseman in the navel on the fly had he not caught it.

The pitching looks much better this year than last, in both quality and quantity.

Well, we had some flotsam like Piniero and Romero, but this year, Delcarmen is still broken, Okajima hasn't been as good, Tavarez has lost it (I think he's better as a starter), Timlin is a bloody corpse, and Lopez is still "gotta walk Giambi" Lopez.

And Curt's still on the DL.

Remember, they really haven't hit their stride yet.

118 team OPS+ and a 106 team ERA+ but the Sox haven't hit their stride yet. Sure.

I don't agree with this at all. The pitching looks much better this year than last,

They were first in the majors in runs allowed last year; I don't know how much better than that they can do. I couldn't see them allowing than like 645 or so, which is only a 10 run improvement, and thats probably best case.

Well, we had some flotsam like Piniero and Romero, but this year, Delcarmen is still broken, Okajima hasn't been as good, Tavarez has lost it (I think he's better as a starter), Timlin is a bloody corpse, and Lopez is still "gotta walk Giambi" Lopez.

Sure. but Ahansen looks ready with his insane stuff and have you checked the performances of the AA starters? They all are pitcing at a major league level.

I don't agree with this at all. The pitching looks much better this year than last, in both quality and quantity.

They're allowing 4.33 R/G right now, against a league average of 4.40 so far. Last year, they allowed 4.06 against a league average of 4.90. I can see the argument that they're as good as last year, given how little turnover they've had (in spite of losing 151 innings of 122 ERA+ in Schilling, but much better?

Finally, if Cash is for real (and by real I mean somewhere close to average MLB quality), he's much better than Mirabelli, since he's an outstanding defensive cathcer.

Something about my aunt and what she'd be if she had balls comes to mind here. Cash has 36 at bats with a .500 BABIP.

Remember, they really haven't hit their stride yet. Papi si still a bit off his game and the young pitchers are still in the process of adapting.

This sort of thing can be said about any team in baseball. Cano is a bit off his game, and the young pitchers are still in the process of adapting.

The Red Sox have obviously been very good lately, but I don't think that a "dynasty" that lasts four years should only win their division once and have a negative Pythag record in one of the four years! They may well turn into a dynasty, but they are still very far from doing so.

Also, the Giambi contract was bad, but let's be fair to the guy. In four of the six years thus far he has been one of the best hitters in the league, and in one of them (2002) he was an awesome masher. He has not been close to the disaster that, say, Griffey was to the Reds. Of course, I would still have preferred the Yankees to have signed Bonds that offseason. In addition to the extra wins and perhaps titles, I think kevin's head would have literally exploded.

ESPN is big on the Jays? (Pitching-wise)

Hooray! We've made the big time!

They all are pitcing at a major league level.

Double A is now equivalent to the majors!?!?

Well, we had some flotsam like Piniero and Romero, but this year, Delcarmen is still broken, Okajima hasn't been as good, Tavarez has lost it (I think he's better as a starter), Timlin is a bloody corpse, and Lopez is still "gotta walk Giambi" Lopez.

Okajima hasn't been as good? How much better can you be?

Cano is a bit off his game, and the young pitchers are still in the process of adapting.

Adapting to what? AAA or the DL?

In addition to the extra wins and perhaps titles, I think kevin's head would have literally exploded.

Perhaps? Bonds has been a loser his whole career. And so has Giambi.

Perhaps? Bonds has been a loser his whole career. And so has Giambi.

Ted Williams and Carl Yaztremski too.

45, you beat me to it!

Yeah, Giambi never helped the Yankees win anything: http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/NYA/NYA200310160.shtml

Ted Williams and Carl Yaztremski too.

Ted Williams beat the Nazis. And he shot up some Koreans too, which makes him awesome in my book.

Ted Williams beat the Nazis. And he shot up some Koreans too, which makes him awesome in my book.

So did a lot of people who didn't win a world series. As a ballplayer, he was a complete and total loser.

Yeah, Giambi never helped the Yankees win anything

Well, he did help them win one thing: the reputation of being lying, cheating sacks of #### when it came to steroids.

So did a lot of people who didn't win a world series. As a ballplayer, he was a complete and total loser.

Just like A-Rod and Mussina and Giambi and Bonds and Cano, sj.

Thanks for coming, everyone.

Exactly. anyone player who has not won a title is irredeemable

Thanks for coming, everyone.

It all ended so suddenly

And he shot up some Koreans too, which makes him awesome in my book.

It occurs to me he probably shot some Chinese, too...were they, like, shootable Chinese?

there's no such thing as an unshootable Chinese.

The Red Sox have obviously been very good lately, but I don't think that a "dynasty" that lasts four years should only win their division once and have a negative Pythag record in one of the four years! They may well turn into a dynasty, but they are still very far from doing so.

I don't get why the part in bold disqualifies you as a dynasty.

The Red Sox have obviously been very good lately, but I don't think that a "dynasty" that lasts four years should only win their division once and have a negative Pythag record in one of the four years! They may well turn into a dynasty, but they are still very far from doing so.


I don't get why the part in bold disqualifies you as a dynasty.

It's in the Bible.

This is kind of semantics (in a bad way), but it seems to me that for a team to be a dynasty over as short a time period as four years, they should be at least pretty good in all four; your mileagle may vary.

they should be at least pretty good in all four;

They were pretty good, until they got hit with mucho injuries late in the year.

When the Pats won 2 titles in 3 years, but didn't even make the playoffs in the year in between, they were called a dynasty. I didn't agree, because it is relatively easy to make the playoffs in the NFL(compared to MLB). Personally, I think that a dynasty has to win at least 50% of titles and make the playoffs at least 80% over a 4-5 year period. Ooh, Red Sox, so close.

Did anyone catch the highlights of Ankiel throwing out two runners and hitting a homerun Tuesday night?

Wow. The first throw was a howitzer, equal to anything I ever saw Clemente do with his arm. From deep center he nailed a guy tagging up from second with an ICBM that hit would have hit the thirdbaseman in the navel on the fly had he not caught it.

maybe if this outfield thing doesn't work out for him, they could make him a pitcher!

Personally, I think that a dynasty has to win at least 50% of titles and make the playoffs at least 80% over a 4-5 year period. Ooh, Red Sox, so close.

Of course, if they repeat as WS champs this year, they qualify under rsmith51 dynasty math.

They were pretty good, until they got hit with mucho injuries late in the year.

So they were pretty good, until they weren't? How does that counter his point? Part of being a dynasty is, let's face it, luck. Now whether the 2006 Red Sox (Clement! Wells! Loretta!) were bad luck or bad planning is a matter of debate but it's hard to say that four-year dynasty inclues a third place finish one of the years.

Now whether the 2006 Red Sox (Clement! Wells! Loretta!) were bad luck or bad planning is a matter of debate but it's hard to say that four-year dynasty inclues a third place finish one of the years.

of course it wasn't about clement, wells, and loretta. it was about lester getting cancer, ortiz coming down with a heart issue, and to a lesser extent (career threatening as opposed to life threatening) papelbon going on the DL with a bad shoulder. then there were run of the mill injuries to ... pretty much everybody else ... iirc, manny, wakefield, varitek, alex gonzalez, loretta, and coco missed significant time late in the season in addition to the usual suspects--foulke, nixon, clement, and wells.

dynasty or not, i dont care

these are the glory years. these are the good old days.

if i have kids, these are the times i'll be telling them about. i'll tell them about Manny, i'll tell them about tavarez rolling the ball to first, about todd walker launching a 2-out 2-strike 3-run homer to tie it in the 9th, i'll tell them about the whole park on their feet screaming when Pedro got a guy to 2 strikes and everyone knowing he's going to K him and then going wild when he does, i'll tell them about the 2003 & 2004 alcs's and about game 5, and i'll tell them about beckett chewing through the playoffs like fresh saltines, and by the time i'm done they will think david ortiz is some 12-foot tall superman who caused opponents to pee with fear.

and by the time i'm done they will think david ortiz is some 12-foot tall superman who caused opponents to pee with fear.

he pretty much is.

David Ortiz is what sportswriters claim Jim Rice was.

In trying to think of a team to compare the 2004/2007 Red Sox to, I thought of the 64/67 Cardinals - same spacing, the Cards' threw in another pennant in 68 which I could see the Sox doing this year. No one called them a dynasty, as far as I know, but they were a good team.

SMELLHORN!

if i have kids, these are the times i'll be telling them about. i'll tell them about Manny

Complete tangent, but... There's a kid on my son's little league team who is a pretty good player for his grade level, but so far this year:

- has, on more than one occasion, taken warmup swings as the pitcher was releasing the ball;

- has almost gotten tagged out at a base because, 3-4 minutes after the play would've otherwise ended, he hadn't actually stepped on the base yet (he was within 1 foot of the base pretty much the whole time);

- hit a double, then, after having reached second base safely, suddenly sprinted back to first base.

It's like watching Manny Ramirez, The Early Years. When you think of it that way, he's a LOT of fun to watch.

Vi, that's great. Kids 'r' the bomb.

I taught my eight-YO the stretch position yesterday.

and by the time i'm done they will think david ortiz is some 12-foot tall superman who caused opponents to pee with fear.

He consumed the Yankees with shooting fireballs from his eyes and thunderbolts from his arse...

The 08 team has been lucky in close games so far.

Well, last night's loss was pretty damn unlucky, and they're down to just one game above Pythag, which doesn't seem out of line.

Papi si still a bit off his game

I don't think that's true anymore. Fun with selective endpoints:

Ortiz since April 18th (16 games) - .348/.434/.697

if i have kids, these are the times i'll be telling them about. i'll tell them about Manny, i'll tell them about tavarez rolling the ball to first, about todd walker launching a 2-out 2-strike 3-run homer to tie it in the 9th, i'll tell them about the whole park on their feet screaming when Pedro got a guy to 2 strikes and everyone knowing he's going to K him and then going wild when he does, i'll tell them about the 2003 & 2004 alcs's and about game 5, and i'll tell them about beckett chewing through the playoffs like fresh saltines, and by the time i'm done they will think david ortiz is some 12-foot tall superman who caused opponents to pee with fear.

You tell'em about the fat Republican loudmouthed old bastard who'll always come through when you need him.

Just don't tell them about Tim and Doug's marriage though. That didn't end well.

And when you think about lucky/unlucky in 1-run games, it's hard to imagine that the 07 version was 5 games worse than their pythag with the amazing bullpen they had last year. As Biff points out, this year's team is only 1 game ahead of pythag, and they have a great closer and setup man. I don't see the luck there.

On the larger dynasty question, I agree with Blackadder and RB. You can't say a team is a dyansty based on a 4-year run, when in one of those years they didn't make the playoffs. Sure, they got hit by a rash of injuries, but that's the breaks. You're a dynasty because of what you do, not because of what you might have done. I also think of dyansties as having 3 championships, but I admit that's a weird standard and pretty unfair with the playoffs the way they are.

You could add in 03 (and possibly 02) and you might have something. If 08 is a good year, then you've got something like a dynasty probably.

The 02 team was amazing, and amazingly mismanaged.

Going back to Dice-K, I just noticed that in 245.1 career IP, he has allowed zero unearned runs. That is certainly something. His ERA doesn't do him justice.

His BB rate this year was greatly inflated by his most recent start, in which he was quite ill and walked 8 in 5 IP. After accounting for that, it's still be high, but not ridiculous-high.

NBA is about home-court. Lotta series to win, but if you have it....
NHL is about hot goalie.

MLB, you can't have either series-pummeler.

Yankees' great postseason run was mainly:
- Rivera untouchable+Torre maximizing his IP when it mattered;
- consistent starting pitching;
- just enough luck to cover any rough spots.

I doubt any MLB franchise can match it in the next 50 years unless you somehow have a franchise winning 120 games a year for a while.

In trying to think of a team to compare the 2004/2007 Red Sox to, I thought of the 64/67 Cardinals - same spacing, the Cards' threw in another pennant in 68 which I could see the Sox doing this year. No one called them a dynasty, as far as I know, but they were a good team.

Are you kidding? They beat the '67 Red Sox. Sure, it took them seven games, but they did it. Plus, they vanquished the '64 Yanks. Dynasty.

Seriously, Bob Gibson covers up a multitude of sins.

I'll never understand what happened in 2002. That was one of the most tragic wastes of a great team ever.

I'll never understand what happened in 2002.

i'll give you a hint.. it rhymes with Bony Snark

I really like the 1964 and 1967 Cardinals comparison; I guess if you think they were a dynasty, so are the Red Sox. I would count neither.

Re 79, I agree that the Yankees post season success from 1996-2000 (or 2001) was pretty singular. One interesting aspect is that two of the champions (1996 and 2000) were arguably two of the weakest Yankees teams of the Torre era!

random people who played for the 2002 Red Sox: Rickey Henderson, Josh Hancock, Benny Agbayani, Dustin Hermanson, Freddy Sanchez, Cliff Floyd, and Carlos Baerga

Yankees' great postseason run was mainly:
- Rivera untouchable+Torre maximizing his IP when it mattered;
- consistent starting pitching;
- just enough luck to cover any rough spots.

I doubt any MLB franchise can match it in the next 50 years unless you somehow have a franchise winning 120 games a year for a while.

Right... because those Yankee teams won 120 games a year for a while.

Right... because those Yankee teams won 120 games a year for a while.

I believe he is saying only a team which wins 120 will be able to overcome the Yankees fortunate breaks/dominant closer/consistent starting pitching.

I'll never understand what happened in 2002.

They were 13-23 in one runners, for one. Grady Little's fault, partly.