Sometimes I forget the Red Sox didn't actually win the World Series last year....

Sometimes I forget the Red Sox didn't actually win the World Series last year....

Lot of hype for a team that may be third best in its own division.

I haven't seen a whole of articles about the Rays and their "ruthless balance". Truth be told, I think there's a not unreasonable scenario where both Sox and Yanks have some injuries/age issues and the Rays win the division by 5+ games.

I haven't seen a whole of articles about the Rays and their "ruthless balance". Truth be told, I think there's a not unreasonable scenario where both Sox and Yanks have some injuries/age issues and the Rays win the division by 5+ games.

Agree. The Rays have a ton of upside with guys like Jennings/Price/Davis/Hellickson/Upton. If 2-3 of them really click, and nobody else implodes (I'm looking at you Zobrist), they could win 95+ pretty easily.

The Yankees and Red Sox both have more downside, due to age. Although, I like the Yankees chances of dodging it better b/c their old guys are all HoF or near HoF talents, and those guys tend to age much better. But in a scenario where Jeter and Posada both get seriously hurt/suck, the Yankees could easily scuffle to win 85-88 games.

For the Sox, a collapse by Ortiz, and a regression to a 120 OPS+ by Youkilis, and the lineup become very pedestrian. Lot's of risk in their strength (the rotation) also. It wouldn't surprise me to see any or all of Wake/Buchholz/Dice-K have poor years. They wouldn't be bad, but would be in the high 80's as well.

There is the potential for some vulnerability against the best right-handed pitchers—power guys with a good breaking ball with command

This reminds me of the section in Ball Four about how the "book" on Tim McCarver was that Koufax got him out with high fastballs. Every line-up, even lefty heavy ones, are vulnerable to right handed power pitchers with good breaking balls and command.

are vulnerable to right handed power pitchers with good breaking balls and command.

i.e. Tim Lincecum.

Somewhere on Yawkey Way, I'm convinced, Red Sox computers stream green digital code 24 hours a day.

"Beeep..club John Lackey over the head with a sack of money. Put a 37 year old in CF...beep"

Not exactly Hannibal Lecteresque moves.

Truth be told, I think there's a not unreasonable scenario where both Sox and Yanks have some injuries/age issues and the Rays win the division by 5+ games.

There's also a not unreasonable scenario where the Rays guys that took unexpected Great Leaps Forward last year regress and the young guys don't click, and the Sox and Yanks finish 10-15 games up on Tampa. Such is the nature of a margin of error.

There is the potential for some vulnerability against the best right-handed pitchers—power guys with a good breaking ball with command

Is there any team who isn't vulnerable to pitchers like this?

...nobody else implodes (I'm looking at you Zobrist)...

Zobrist won't implode. Neither will Bartlett. But lots of people will think they did.

haven't seen a whole of articles about the Rays and their "ruthless balance".

The Red Sox were defined for decades for being Ruthless.

Ah, good one.

hehehe #11.

These are the Rays, they are tough and ruthless. These are the Red Sox, they are rough and toothless.

...meet the organizational goal of 95 victories within a division that's regularly baseball's best. Do that often enough, and it's only a matter of time, according to Sox thinking, before the yield is a World Series title

Hmm. Not sure this is really an organizational goal (I can't see Theo packing for a trip to Barbados once that "projection" is met), but anyway...

The question to ponder (I don't know the answer) is this:
Over a five year period, two teams go 475-335.
But one goes 95-67 every year.
The other goes 92-70, 92-70, 107-55, 92-70, 92-70.
(Or play with slightly different numbers to convey the idea of "loading up" on occasion.)
Which team actually has the best chance of securing a WS title?
And/or, which team will make the most money?

Quick analysis in response to #15. Since 1996 (first 162 game season since playoff expansion), there have been 27 teams that won 94-96 games, all but one (the 99 Reds) have made the playoffs. Since 1996, a 95 win team is approximately a median quality playoff team, so let's give them a 1/8 chance of winning the world series (in actually, only one of the 26 playoff teams with 94-96 wins has won the world series).

Team consistency = 5*(26/27)*.125 = 0.6 expected championships

There have been 27 teams since 1996 that have won 91-93 games, of which 7 missed the playoffs. This would be a below-average playoff team, so let's give them a 1/10 chance of winning the world series (in actually, 5 of the 20 playoff teams with 91-93 wins have won the world series).

There have been 4 teams with 105+ wins and 8 with 103+ wins. All have made the playoffs, and are among the best playoff teams. Interestingly, only one 105+ win team has won the WS, and only two 103+ win teams. So let's go with a practical maximum of 25% chance of winning the WS no matter how good the team is.

Team inconsistency = 4*(20/27)*.1 + .25 = 0.55 expected championships

That's pretty close, within the margin of error of my assumptions, which I think are quite reasonable.

There is the potential for some vulnerability against the best right-handed pitchers—power guys with a good breaking ball with command

This reminds me of the section in Ball Four about how the "book" on Tim McCarver was that Koufax got him out with high fastballs

Yes, and it also reminds me of the section in The Boys of Summer when Roger Kahn is needling Gil Hodges with, "You couldn't hit the good right-handers," and Hodges wryly replies, "Nobody hit the good right-handers."

I strongly feel that the 95-win-a-year concept, particularly in a division with the Yankees, is the way to go. Why?

1) The marginal cost of going from a 95-win team to a 105-win team - on a semi-regular basis - is astronomical, and not one that any team except the Yankees can afford to shoot for. If one thinks the 2010 team is a 95-win team, what could they have done to become a legit 105-win contender? Sign Holiday? Trade for Halladay? Both? More than that?

2) The advantage of the extra 10 wins is, arguably, not all that significant. You basically get two advantages: home field in a deciding game of a series, and the choice (if you're the top seed) of what day you'll start the first round (which could include having the choice of a series with an extra off day in it, for example). For a team with a weak #4 and #5 starter, this could be significant...but if you're winning 105 games, you probably have a pretty good #4 starter, no?

3) You've got more margin for error. If you're shooting for 95 wins, and in June you realize you're on a pace for, say 91 wins, you can make a deal to strengthen your team to the 95-win level. The Red Sox did this last year with Victor Martinez. If a team realizes in late May that they are losing too many games early to reach their 105-win goal, they have to make changes very early in the season, because they can't afford to fall 5 or 10 games off a 105-win pace. You have less margin for error, and you are forced to make decisions earlier than you would otherwise.

Over a five year period, two teams go 475-335.
But one goes 95-67 every year.
The other goes 92-70, 92-70, 107-55, 92-70, 92-70.
(Or play with slightly different numbers to convey the idea of "loading up" on occasion.)
Which team actually has the best chance of securing a WS title?

The Yankees. Duh.

3) You've got more margin for error. If you're shooting for 95 wins, and in June you realize you're on a pace for, say 91 wins, you can make a deal to strengthen your team to the 95-win level. The Red Sox did this last year with Victor Martinez. If a team realizes in late May that they are losing too many games early to reach their 105-win goal, they have to make changes very early in the season, because they can't afford to fall 5 or 10 games off a 105-win pace. You have less margin for error, and you are forced to make decisions earlier than you would otherwise.

I think the opposite. If you're shooting for 98 or 100, or whatever the Yankees are shooting for, and you under-perform up to a full CD, you don't have to do anything, you can still take the wild card at 93-95.

Thanks for the calcs and analysis, DCA and SBPT; good work. I think I agree that if there's a difference it's likely to be small. Revenue implications might tip the balance one way or another, too: perhaps making the playoffs more reliably delivers more bucks.

On the marginal cost of "loading up," I'm not sure how that'd work. The baseball labor market is pretty thin in any given year, so that limits the feasibility of such a strategy, but I would think it's theoretically possible to "shift" 12 wins from 4 years into 1 year at much the same cost/win; the real world often confounds theory, however.

Meanwhile, Javy Vazquez is in mid-season form.

21: Ole P! Where ya' been? How are you?

Thanks, teddy -- and a thanks also to the Esteemed Oracle, who also sent out a hello earlier. Thanks for rememberin'.
I have been good but preoccupied with travel & other sporting things (horseracing if you can believe it) and distracted from sabermetrics a while.
Hope to spend more time among thinking fans this summer, though.
Best wishes to all for an enjoyable season; can't wait for Opening Day.

Well, if OleP is back, I may have to start showing up more often. Yay!