Stake Your Claim: Championships? Or Consistent Competing?

What's your preference?

  • Titles Are What I Want. If you don't win the World Series, you lost

  • Consistency Is What I Want. I can't stand to see my team be non-competitive


Results are only viewable after voting.

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Lots (too much?) of discussion about the ping pong, up and down recent history of the Boston Red Sox. On the one hand, they've won 4 WS Titles in the 23 years of the 21st century (to pick a random starting date). No other team has as many titles as the Red Sox do. Nor do any other teams with WS titles have as many last place finishes as the Sox do.

Here are their finishes in the AL East since 2000*. I am going to assume 5th place for this year:

2000: 2nd
2001: 2nd
2002: 2nd
2003: 2nd
2004: 2nd - WS CHAMPS
2005: 2nd
2006: 3rd
2007: 1st - WS CHAMPS
2008: 2nd
2009: 2nd
2010: 3rd
2011: 3rd
2012: 5th
2013: 1st - WS CHAMPS
2014: 5th
2015: 5th
2016: 1st
2017: 1st
2018: 1st - WS CHAMPS
2019: 3rd
2020: 5th
2021: 2nd
2022: 5th

This equals:

1st: 5 times
2nd: 8 times
3rd: 4 times
4th: 0 times
5th: 5 times

Years like this (and 2020) suck. But years like 2004, 2007, 2013, and 2018 were pretty damn good.

To compare them to the two other franchises often considered models in the NL, the Dodgers and Cardinals, you get

Dodgers Cardinals
1st: 12 times 11 times
2nd: 5 times 7 times
3rd: 3 times 4 times
4th: 3 times 1 time
5th: 0 times 0 times

The Red Sox have been up top 13 out of 23 seasons
The Dodgers have been up top 17 out of 23 seasons
The Cards have been up top 18 out of 23 seasons.

Wow. That is great consistency for the Cards and Dodgers. 0 last place finishes (and the Cards are in a 6 team division, they have 0 5th OR 6th place finishes and have only been worse than 3rd once!

The Cards do have 2 Championships. The Dodgers have 1.

How about our fiercest rivals, the Yankees?

1st: 12 times
2nd: 8 times
3rd: 2 times
4th: 1 times
5th: 0 times

So 20 high finishes out of 23 years. Most impressive. Better than the Cards and Dodgers. And 2 World Series titles!

So which would you, as a fan, prefer? Ignore the laundry and the history. We're just talking about Titles vs. Consistently competing. There is something to be said for knowing your team is going to be competing every year.

* Edited from 2001, which was a typo, to 2000. And yes, date I started was semi-intentional. Ignoring all the Yankee prior victories by starting in 2001 felt like putting my thumb on the scale to make them look bad
 
Last edited:

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
7,298
The Red Sox boom or bust cycle seems very similar to the Giants; perhaps it’s a function of competing with the Yankees and Dodgers?

Championships are obviously fantastic and the goal. But in a way I think dreaming about a championship in that season is kind of the best part- like thinking your team could win throughout the year is exciting and makes each individual game on the way to that hypothetical journey interesting and worth watching.

Difficult to separate the two - if you are always competing, you should win some championships along the way. Of course, maybe being really lousy once in awhile makes the good seasons sweeter? If you are always good, you may end taking it for granted and then anything less than a championship is a failure, which doesn’t seem very fun.
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
10,947
Springfield, VA
Voted option B (consistently), but only because I've seen four titles already. Now it's more about the consistent entertainment value to keep my interest from year to year.

Pre-2004, I would definitely be voting A.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
32,487
Hingham, MA
Voted option B (consistently), but only because I've seen four titles already. Now it's more about the consistent entertainment value to keep my interest from year to year.

Pre-2004, I would definitely be voting A.
Yep.

An interesting comparison would be the Braves during their epic run but only 1 title, vs. the Giants with their 3 titles but a lot of crappy years surrounding those years.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
53,273
deep inside Guido territory
Is it too much to ask to be consistently good while winning a title every once in a while? I want what St. Louis has had. They haven't had a losing season since 2007 and have won a couple of titles in the last 15 years.
 

TapeAndPosts

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2006
497
I would not change the way the last 20 years unfolded. Obviously I don't like last place but would I replace what has happened with say, consistent first or second place with one WS title only? I would not.

But for the future, consistently being competitive is the best way to win titles anyway. I'd like some consistent excellence.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
20,005
I would not change the way the last 20 years unfolded. Obviously I don't like last place but would I replace what has happened with say, consistent first or second place with one WS title only? I would not.

But for the future, consistently being competitive is the best way to win titles anyway. I'd like some consistent excellence.
I mean, what the Patriots did is what we all wish would happen. 20 straight years of excellence, with 9 championship game appearances and 6 titles. Outside of the 40s and 50s Yankees, nobody is doing that in baseball ever.
 

brs3

sings praises of pinstripes
SoSH Member
May 20, 2008
5,122
Jackson Heights, NYC
Consistency with level of play and roster turnover. It's easy to get on board with new players during a successful(e.g. in actual contention throughout the year), and it's frustrating to watch turnover not long after a title.

Between 1998-2011, the team was almost always in contention. Was there an organizational shift beginning with 2012 & Bobby V where year to year roster construction determined whether we were watching blah for the latter part of the season? What was done differently before 2012 where the team consistently competed for decades?

I don't have answers, but the being a fan of this team has been a rollercoaster for a decade, far different than the decade or two before it.
 

Mr Jums

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 26, 2009
514
Somerville
I voted titles but it depends what each one means. If you gave me the choice of over a 20 year period 4-5 titles and the rest of the time they were in last place or they make the playoffs every year and win maybe 1 title I pick the former every time. If the team is bad (like this year) I still enjoy watching and can dream on the prospects that will make the next great team. And the memories of a championship have a lot better shelf life than say 2016-2017 when they finished first twice and didn't really go anywhere, I don't think about those teams at all yet I still watch highlights of the championship teams. Finally I find the close but no cigar (think last year) much more frustrating and difficult to deal with than a season like this one where my expectations are minimal. I suspect I'm an anomaly with that last one though.

But if it's 20 year period with 4-5 championships and the rest is last place versus 20 years with consistent competitiveness and 2-4 because as others have said when you're competitive you're going to win more, then that seems like more of a no-brainer towards consistency.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
6,552
Boston, MA
Sometimes a truly shitty team is more entertaining than one that's merely mediocre. Watching Abraham Almonte try to play centerfield last night was hilarious. In order of preference it would be a great team, a good team that wins, a terrible team, and a boring mediocre team. I guess that makes me a Group A person, but I watch most games regardless.
 

deanx0

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2004
2,355
Orlando, FL
If you gave me the option of 6 titles and 12 last place finishes (and the rest somewhere in the middle) over the next 50 years for the Sox vs 1 title and 0 last place finishes for the Yankees, I would sign up gladly.

I am OK with boom or bust if it continues to allow us to win more titles than the Yankees. Petty? Sure, but decades of hearing "1918" and "27 titles!" will do that to you.
 

The Filthy One

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 11, 2005
3,148
Los Angeles
And the memories of a championship have a lot better shelf life than say 2016-2017 when they finished first twice and didn't really go anywhere, I don't think about those teams at all yet I still watch highlights of the championship teams.
This is exactly where I'm at. I couldn't tell you a single thing that happened in the regular season in 2016, for instance, but that team finished in first. 2017...I think Sale struck out 300 people, which was kind of cool. But same deal. The title years kind of force a retrospective on the season in the best possible way. You can rewatch the games, watch those movies they make about the season, etc. Maybe I'd feel differently if I went to Fenway a lot or had season tickets. Maybe I'd feel like I was being personally ripped off or something.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
If you gave me the option of 6 titles and 12 last place finishes (and the rest somewhere in the middle) over the next 50 years for the Sox vs 1 title and 0 last place finishes for the Yankees, I would sign up gladly.

I am OK with boom or bust if it continues to allow us to win more titles than the Yankees. Petty? Sure, but decades of hearing "1918" and "27 titles!" will do that to you.
I don‘t think I could have expressed my feelings better than this.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
I don't know how to answer this question. Making the playoffs 20 years in a row with no title is definitely not what I want.

Winning a WS once every 10 years and not making the playoffs the other 9 is not what I want either. I'd probably prefer that over the former.

What good is consistency if it never results in winning a WS? Eventually it would become extremely annoying.
 

brandonchristensen

Loves Aaron Judge
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2012
36,145
The problem is it shouldn’t be either or.
There’s no reason for the team to play like little leaguers every other year. It’s rare the team is not built to compete, they just don’t execute on an embarrassing level.

I’m thrilled with the titles, but the sprinkled in bad seasons are inexplicable how frequent and how similar they are. It’s like they fully forgot how to play ball.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
The problem is it shouldn’t be either or.
There’s no reason for the team to play like little leaguers every other year. It’s rare the team is not built to compete, they just don’t execute on an embarrassing level.
find me a team who is consistent AND wins lots of titles and I will agree with you. SF Giants kind of follow the Red Sox mold. If you can’t find a team who does both then yiu have to pick one of these as your realistic options
 

brandonchristensen

Loves Aaron Judge
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2012
36,145
find me a team who is consistent AND wins lots of titles and I will agree with you. SF Giants kind of follow the Red Sox mold. If you can’t find a team who does both then yiu have to pick one of these as your realistic options
Im saying that there’s no reason this team should be sub500. Sub 600 sure. Not making playoffs - no problem.

But they often play like a little league club when the team is often full of all stars. When the level of play is so laughably bad it’s hard to care about the players.

I’m fine with not making the playoffs, but I’m not fine with them collectively sucking beyond just slumping ball.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Im saying that there’s no reason this team should be sub500. Sub 600 sure. Not making playoffs - no problem.

But they often play like a little league club when the team is often full of all stars. When the level of play is so laughably bad it’s hard to care about the players.

I’m fine with not making the playoffs, but I’m not fine with them collectively sucking beyond just slumping ball.
But those sub .500 years should allow the team to restock the farm system with top end picks like Marcelo Mayer, which allows them to compete the other years.
 

brandonchristensen

Loves Aaron Judge
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2012
36,145
But those sub .500 years should allow the team to restock the farm system with top end picks like Marcelo Mayer, which allows them to compete the other years.
In theory yes. We will see how it works out.
Regardless, I want to see a team compete day to day and look like they’re trying. We don’t get that a lot in seasons like this.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
17,379
Pittsburgh, PA
Here are their finishes in the AL East since 2001. I am going to assume...

How about our fiercest rivals, the Yankees? ... And 2 World Series titles!
Uh, aside from 2009, what was the other one? I seem to remember things not quite going to plan for the pinstriped pinatas in 2001, and it not being a bed of roses ever since.
 

BravesField

lurker
Oct 27, 2021
145
What did Iceman say in the movie Top Gun? "The plaque for the alternates is down in the ladies' room".

Play to win, not to be consistent.
 

RG33

Certain Class of Poster
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2005
6,677
CA
I really can’t understand any other argument other than “championships”.

We have had in some form or fashion “compete consistently without actually winning” as Red Sox fans for 86 years.

This feels to me like asking “Make 4% a year consistently with no volatility” or “Make 10% over the long haul with volatility”. There will always be folks in the former bucket who feel that is the better way to go, it’s just. . . . That they’re wrong.
 

AlNipper49

Huge Member
Dope
Apr 3, 2001
43,296
Mtigawi
I'm 100% for the consistency plan. Do not get me wrong, I wouldn't change the last 25 years under any circumstances. Part of the enjoyment that I get is paying attention to the entire well-oiled machine. I like that one day I can check out the minor leagues and the next day I could go out and look at who would be available next year as a free agent. I guess a lot of what type of fan that I am is driven by what the Sunday Globe sports page used to be - there were 3 or 4 full pages on the exact state of union of all things Red Sox.

Winning titles is cool and all but to tell you guys all the truth, after finally winning a bunch I forgot about them a week or two after they happened. Even the big ones.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Uh, aside from 2009, what was the other one? I seem to remember things not quite going to plan for the pinstriped pinatas in 2001, and it not being a bed of roses ever since.
I chose 2000 instead of 2001 semi-intentionally, to make them look better.

I did have fun at the Yankee Clubhouse store in Manhattan in the summer of 2008 asking if they had any "Recent World Series Videos for sale". I may have been wearing a 2004 ALCS T shirt at the time.

Edit: I see I said 2001 in the body of the post, but I did use 2000 in the data. Fixing the original post
 
Last edited:

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
22,516
But those sub .500 years should allow the team to restock the farm system with top end picks like Marcelo Mayer, which allows them to compete the other years.
The Boston Red Sox are not your 401k. Watching years of bad baseball is not an investment in anything other than shitty baseball. This "take the long view" stuff is a weird way to look at entertainment.

Like I won't sit down and watch five shitty Star Wars movies if the pay off is the sixth one is great. Why would you expect the same from your local professional sports team?
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
15,989
A GM should build first for consistent winning. The 2004 and 2007 titles came during a period of consistent contention. 2018 was the culmination of a steady rise in 2016 and 2017 seasons. Even 2013 returned a core that were part of the prior period of contention.

When the team is close, then it’s time to push the chips into the middle of the table. Theo bringing in Schilling in 2004, trading for Beckett, or DD signing JD are examples that paid off; may not always work (A Gonzalez), but not all moves will work.

As a fan, I want to vote for both. But Flags Fly Forever.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
82,402
Oregon
Neither option fits my view.

Now that I've seen four WS titles, I don't get as jazzed about wanting the next one to the point where anything less ruins my winter. Sure, I'll join in the excitement when it comes ... if it comes while I'm still exhaling and excreting ... but my following the Red Sox has evolved into being more interested in team-building and individual players developing.

That should lead me toward the consistency option, but to tell the truth I've been fascinated by this season -- how each of the management decisions and non-decisions along the way have manifested themselves into moments on the field. The Little League Home Run last night can be traced back to multiple decisions made by the organization ... culminating in that moment.

I'm equally as fascinated by what the offseason brings, how it will demonstrate the approach of management, as well as continue to alter the perception of the organization among the fanbase.

I'm just glad to be following a team that is neither among the Pirates and Royals of the world, nor among the upper crust like the Yankees and Dodgers.

Maybe it is "a weird way" to follow a sports team, but it's what I find interesting about doing so.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
17,379
Pittsburgh, PA
I think maybe another way to ask this question is to throw some probabilities around. Lose, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're offering us the choice of:

Scenario A:
- 60% chance winning season
- 50% chance playoffs
- 20% chance WS Championship (an absurd conversion rate in the playoffs, btw)

Scenario B:
- 90% chance winning season
- 75% chance playoffs
- 10% chance WS Championship

...Those scenarios roughly corresponding to the 21st century experiences of the Red Sox vs the Cards/Dodgers/Yankees.

And I'll admit that's a hard decision, when you put numbers like that on it. It's not like rooting for the team in Scenario A is terrible, you're still having a good season more often than not, but every so often you get a season that's a chore. In exchange, you get more parades and trophies and deep runs in the playoffs when you do make it. In Scenario B, you're pretty much always enjoying watching the team throughout the season, they're rarely a disappointment, but they end up being legendary a lot less often.

With those numbers, I'm still undecided. Will give it some thought.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
The Boston Red Sox are not your 401k. Watching years of bad baseball is not an investment in anything other than shitty baseball. This "take the long view" stuff is a weird way to look at entertainment.

Like I won't sit down and watch five shitty Star Wars movies if the pay off is the sixth one is great. Why would you expect the same from your local professional sports team?
You won't, plenty of other people will watch anything with Star Wars in the title. Do you think losing over and over again in the playoffs would be entertaining? I'm sure everyone would love to make the playoffs 15 yeas in a row with no titles. There would be no complaining at all about how the Sox do just enough to make the playoffs but not to win titles.

It's like neither answer is the correct one.
 

Sausage in Section 17

Poker Champ
SoSH Member
Mar 17, 2004
1,625
If the Sox didn't play in the AL East, I don't think they would have as many last place finishes. Unlike St. Louis, we don't have Pittsburgh and Cincinnati to mop the floor with the last 20+ years.

And even this year, they were competitive for awhile. Yeah, they've been essentially out of it since late July, but it's not like this team had no hope. I don't think anyone thought they'd go as far as last year, but if this year's version of the Sox played in 1996 or so, I would have been irrationally hoping they might pull it out, and still clinging to the desperate hope of seeing just ONE championship. For me anyway, 4 titles in less than 20 years has made me less desperate, less reactionary, and more able to tolerate things when they aren't breaking the Sox' way. We'll get 'em next year...

edit- and it's nice to remember that with 4 titles in a 30 team league, we've already exceeded our "share" of titles for this century with 78 years to go!
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
22,516
You won't, plenty of other people will watch anything with Star Wars in the title. Do you think losing over and over again in the playoffs would be entertaining? I'm sure everyone would love to make the playoffs 15 yeas in a row with no titles. There would be no complaining at all about how the Sox do just enough to make the playoffs but not to win titles.

It's like neither answer is the correct one.
That's kind of my point about Star Wars, plenty of people will watch anything with Star Wars in the title, but that doesn't mean that they should.

The Playoffs are exciting. Is it better when they win? Of course. But making the playoffs means that they had a great season with plenty of terrific games over the 162. The flip side is this year and it sucked. 2020 sucked. And most of 2015 sucked. As did 2014, 2012 and the end of 2011. The one thing that all of those teams have in common is that they play dumb, dead ass baseball and you have six months of that. And not only that, but when you're in the midst of one of those seasons, the immediate future looks bleak. I think that 2023 is going to be just as bad as 2022.

At least when you're in the playoffs you have hope.

If the Sox didn't play in the AL East, I don't think they would have as many last place finishes. Unlike St. Louis, we don't have Pittsburgh and Cincinnati to mop the floor with the last 20+ years.
Yeah, we had the Orioles and the Blue Jays and the Rays each taking turns on the suck train for us to fatten up on. C'mon.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
32,487
Hingham, MA
Neither option fits my view.

Now that I've seen four WS titles, I don't get as jazzed about wanting the next one to the point where anything less ruins my winter. Sure, I'll join in the excitement when it comes ... if it comes while I'm still exhaling and excreting ... but my following the Red Sox has evolved into being more interested in team-building and individual players developing.

That should lead me toward the consistency option, but to tell the truth I've been fascinated by this season -- how each of the management decisions and non-decisions along the way have manifested themselves into moments on the field. The Little League Home Run last night can be traced back to multiple decisions made by the organization ... culminating in that moment.

I'm equally as fascinated by what the offseason brings, how it will demonstrate the approach of management, as well as continue to alter the perception of the organization among the fanbase.

I'm just glad to be following a team that is neither among the Pirates and Royals of the world, nor among the upper crust like the Yankees and Dodgers.

Maybe it is "a weird way" to follow a sports team, but it's what I find interesting about doing so.
I hear you on this. I'm this way with the Pats. I find it more interesting to discuss and figure out what's going on when they're losing than when they're winning. It's kind of like how talk radio gets more callers for negative events than positive, I guess.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
35,980
AZ
Baseball is different to me from the other sports. They play every day and they play when other sports don't. And they play for a long time.

The other sports have so many teams make it or like the NFL has so much parity and so many games that you can stay invested in the season pretty easily.

But when your team is very bad in baseball, it sucks. I don't need them to be championship caliber every year and I don't even need them to be serious championship contenders, but I need them to be exciting. I need there to be great players that I root for to do amazing things. That feeling you have when you start counting . . . two more days until Pedro or three more batters before Papi. At least I need some of that.

Going a full year without much of that is tough. And the Sox have had a few of those. Yes, they are much easier to endure when you've got some championships or at least some near championship runs sprinkled in. But it's a hefty toll to pay for that.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
43,146
That's kind of my point about Star Wars, plenty of people will watch anything with Star Wars in the title, but that doesn't mean that they should.

The Playoffs are exciting. Is it better when they win? Of course. But making the playoffs means that they had a great season with plenty of terrific games over the 162. The flip side is this year and it sucked. 2020 sucked. And most of 2015 sucked. As did 2014, 2012 and the end of 2011. The one thing that all of those teams have in common is that they play dumb, dead ass baseball and you have six months of that. And not only that, but when you're in the midst of one of those seasons, the immediate future looks bleak. I think that 2023 is going to be just as bad as 2022.

At least when you're in the playoffs you have hope.



Yeah, we had the Orioles and the Blue Jays and the Rays each taking turns on the suck train for us to fatten up on. C'mon.
come on....
Do I really need to post this again lol


NL West
2020: two teams above 500
2019 two teams above 500
2018 3 teams above 500
2017 3 teams above 500
2016 2 teams above 500
2015 two teams above 500
2014: two teams above 500
2013 two teams above 500

Al east:
2020: three teams above 500
2019 thee teams above 500 (two with 90+ wins)
2018 3 teams above 500 (3 with 90+ wins)
2017 2 teams above 500 (2 with 90+ wins)
2016 FOUR teams above 500
2015 THREE teams above 500
2014: THREE teams above 500
2013 FOUR teams above 500 (2 with 90+ wins)


AL central
2021: one team above .500
2020: 3 above 500
2019: 2 above 500, and one with a damn .200 Winning % and one with a .300%
2018, 1 above .500
2017- 2 above 500
2016- 3 above 500
2015- 3 above 500

seriously, as much as I hate the rays and Jays, you stick them in the AL central and they most likely run away with the division, ...
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
22,516
come on....
Do I really need to post this again lol


NL West
2020: two teams above 500
2019 two teams above 500
2018 3 teams above 500
2017 3 teams above 500
2016 2 teams above 500
2015 two teams above 500
2014: two teams above 500
2013 two teams above 500

Al east:
2020: three teams above 500
2019 thee teams above 500 (two with 90+ wins)
2018 3 teams above 500 (3 with 90+ wins)
2017 2 teams above 500 (2 with 90+ wins)
2016 FOUR teams above 500
2015 THREE teams above 500
2014: THREE teams above 500
2013 FOUR teams above 500 (2 with 90+ wins)


AL central
2021: one team above .500
2020: 3 above 500
2019: 2 above 500, and one with a damn .200 Winning % and one with a .300%
2018, 1 above .500
2017- 2 above 500
2016- 3 above 500
2015- 3 above 500

seriously, as much as I hate the rays and Jays, you stick them in the AL central and they most likely run away with the division, ...
Now go back to 2003. The Rays were terrible. The O's were terrible. The Jays weren't much better. The OP said "in the last 20 years".
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
But for the future, consistently being competitive is the best way to win titles anyway. I'd like some consistent excellence.
Exactly right. You maximize championships by making the playoffs every year, and ideally avoiding the play-in game. What the Red Sox have done in the past decade is unsustainable; you’re not going to win titles in 40% of your playoff appearances over the long haul.

I voted for the first option in the poll because from a backward-looking perspective, I wouldn’t trade our last 20 years for the Yankees’ or Cardinals’ last 20 years.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,154
02130
The thing here is that the playoffs are a crapshoot so I'd prefer to be in contention every year than be boom or bust. The Red Sox have made 11 playoffs in 20 years and gotten somewhat lucky in winning 4 WS among those 11 appearances. But , 6 of those appearances came in the first 7 years of that run, and in many of the non-playoff years they were pretty bad with no chance to get into the playoffs (nor were they very fun to follow).

I think in 2007 and 2018 they were clearly the best team in the league, but obviously all the playoff runs could have gone a different way. The Yankees were in the playoffs 15 times during that span and only won once.

So, this is really presenting a false choice. Titles are what we want, but the best way to maximize your chances of a title is to be consistently competitive and make the playoffs more often. If there was a way to load up every 5 years and win the WS but suck the rest of the time, I guess that would be an interesting question but it doesn't work like that; you can have an amazing team and you're vulnerable to whatever might happen in a short series.

I do strongly support the idea of a presidents' trophy that would reward the best team in the league in the regular season, so that we can be more like European soccer and have a tournament and a league cup that are both celebrated trophies, but then you'd need balanced schedules.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
27,572
If my team isn't going to win the title, I'd like them to finish in last place because that's how they get the best players.

But that's just me.
 

Sausage in Section 17

Poker Champ
SoSH Member
Mar 17, 2004
1,625
Now go back to 2003. The Rays were terrible. The O's were terrible. The Jays weren't much better. The OP said "in the last 20 years".
Actually, I'll use the original dimensions:

MLB Team Stats, 2000 - 2022
[TH]Rank[/TH] [TH]Team[/TH] [TH]Record[/TH] [TH]Win Percentage[/TH] [TH]Made Playoffs[/TH] [TH]Playoff Series Wins[/TH] [TH]Titles[/TH]
1 New York Yankees 2096-1503 58.2% 18 18 2
2 Los Angeles Dodgers 2027-1575 56.3% 13 14 1
3 St. Louis Cardinals 2015-1585 56.0% 15 17 2
4 Boston Red Sox 1977-1625 54.9% 11 16 4
5 Atlanta Braves 1945-1654 54.0% 13 6 1
6 Oakland Athletics 1902-1699 52.8% 11 2 0
7 Los Angeles Angels Formerly: Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, Anaheim Angels 1886-1717 52.3% 7 5 1
8 San Francisco Giants 1880-1720 52.2% 8 13 3
9 Cleveland Guardians Formerly: Cleveland Indians 1860-1739 51.7% 7 3 0
10 Houston Astros 1836-1766 51.0% 9 14 1
11 Philadelphia Phillies 1825-1776 50.7% 5 6 1
12 Minnesota Twins 1806-1796 50.1% 9 1 0
13 Toronto Blue Jays 1801-1800 50.0% 3 3 0
14 New York Mets 1800-1802 50.0% 4 5 0
15 Chicago White Sox 1800-1803 50.0% 5 3 1
16 Seattle Mariners 1791-1811 49.7% 2 2 0
17 Chicago Cubs 1788-1813 49.7% 8 7 1
18 Tampa Bay Rays Formerly: Tampa Bay Devil Rays 1772-1827 49.2% 7 7 0
19 Milwaukee Brewers 1764-1839 49.0% 6 2 0
20 Texas Rangers 1762-1842 48.9% 5 4 0
21 Arizona Diamondbacks 1741-1861 48.3% 5 5 1
22 Washington Nationals Formerly: Montreal Expos 1730-1871 48.0% 5 4 1
23 San Diego Padres 1701-1903 47.2% 3 1 0
24 Cincinnati Reds 1696-1905 47.1% 4 0 0
25 Colorado Rockies 1682-1922 46.7% 4 3 0
26 Miami Marlins Formerly: Florida Marlins 1674-1925 46.5% 2 4 1
27 Detroit Tigers 1665-1933 46.3% 5 6 0
28 Pittsburgh Pirates 1605-1992 44.6% 3 1 0
29 Baltimore Orioles 1603-1997 44.5% 3 2 0
30 Kansas City Royals 1587-2016 44.0% 2 6 1



I think my point survives. Sure the Orioles have sucked. But the collective suckage of Pitt/Cin>than that of Bal/Tam, and it's not that close.

Also- The AL East has 3 of the top 13 winningest teams, the NL Central...just 1.
 
Last edited:

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
32,487
Hingham, MA
MLB Team Stats, 2000 - 2022
[TH]Rank[/TH] [TH]Team[/TH] [TH]Record[/TH] [TH]Win Percentage[/TH] [TH]Made Playoffs[/TH] [TH]Playoff Series Wins[/TH] [TH]Titles[/TH]
1 New York Yankees 2096-1503 58.2% 18 18 2
2 Los Angeles Dodgers 2027-1575 56.3% 13 14 1
3 St. Louis Cardinals 2015-1585 56.0% 15 17 2
4 Boston Red Sox 1977-1625 54.9% 11 16 4
5 Atlanta Braves 1945-1654 54.0% 13 6 1
6 Oakland Athletics 1902-1699 52.8% 11 2 0
7 Los Angeles Angels Formerly: Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, Anaheim Angels 1886-1717 52.3% 7 5 1
8 San Francisco Giants 1880-1720 52.2% 8 13 3
9 Cleveland Guardians Formerly: Cleveland Indians 1860-1739 51.7% 7 3 0
10 Houston Astros 1836-1766 51.0% 9 14 1
11 Philadelphia Phillies 1825-1776 50.7% 5 6 1
12 Minnesota Twins 1806-1796 50.1% 9 1 0
13 Toronto Blue Jays 1801-1800 50.0% 3 3 0
14 New York Mets 1800-1802 50.0% 4 5 0
15 Chicago White Sox 1800-1803 50.0% 5 3 1
16 Seattle Mariners 1791-1811 49.7% 2 2 0
17 Chicago Cubs 1788-1813 49.7% 8 7 1
18 Tampa Bay Rays Formerly: Tampa Bay Devil Rays 1772-1827 49.2% 7 7 0
19 Milwaukee Brewers 1764-1839 49.0% 6 2 0
20 Texas Rangers 1762-1842 48.9% 5 4 0
21 Arizona Diamondbacks 1741-1861 48.3% 5 5 1
22 Washington Nationals Formerly: Montreal Expos 1730-1871 48.0% 5 4 1
23 San Diego Padres 1701-1903 47.2% 3 1 0
24 Cincinnati Reds 1696-1905 47.1% 4 0 0
25 Colorado Rockies 1682-1922 46.7% 4 3 0
26 Miami Marlins Formerly: Florida Marlins 1674-1925 46.5% 2 4 1
27 Detroit Tigers 1665-1933 46.3% 5 6 0
28 Pittsburgh Pirates 1605-1992 44.6% 3 1 0
29 Baltimore Orioles 1603-1997 44.5% 3 2 0
30 Kansas City Royals 1587-2016 44.0% 2 6 1



I think my point survives. Sure the Orioles have sucked. But the collective suckage of Pitt/Cin>than that of Bal/Tam, and it's not that close.
One thing this table makes clear is how much the Sox have maximized their opportunities, with 16 playoff series wins in 11 appearances (1.45 per appearance). Only the Giants with 13 in 8 (1.63) and Astros with 14 in 9 (1.56) have been more opportunistic.
 

Sausage in Section 17

Poker Champ
SoSH Member
Mar 17, 2004
1,625
To me it also makes clear that if you're complaining about the Sox lack of consistency.....

...then you're looking too hard for things to complain about. There aren't many doing it better than them, but for some that's still not good enough.
 
Last edited:

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
4,889
Ideally both. I do wonder if being in the same division as the Yankees will lead to boom or bust cycles though.
But it seems that everyone here is mostly voting “consistency”…. So I guess they all support Bloom then? Cool! So be patient and let things play out and stop posting like MFY fans that “want it now”!!!
The goal has been the Dodgers… not the Rays. And that takes some time and growing pains. Not blowing it all on $37.5M a year 31 year old behemoths and oft injured fragile pitchers.
 

LoweTek

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 30, 2005
2,108
Central Florida
So in the past 21+ seasons 50% of the teams won at least 50% of their games.

As for the 2022 Red Sox, they failed at the two key strengths necessary to win:
  1. Three consistently effective, durable starters
  2. Three consistently effective back of the bullpen pitchers
The bullpen coughed up up far too many games from my observation. Starters were lacking in depth.

Red Sox had all the offense and defense (excluding pitching) they needed to be competitive.

It was the pitching.

I want consistently competitive or at least heading in the competitive direction quickly. With this, championships will come.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
10,631
I don't really understand this question. MLB playoffs are incredibly high variance, so consistently contending gives you the most chances to win the most titles.

If you're essentially asking: A genie shows up today and tells you you can have 4 Sox titles but also a handful of bad seasons or you can have 0 or 1 title but be in the mix nearly every season, and then once you decide the genie will make you forget the wish ever happened, I can't imagine picking the second option.

I'd also argue that in the grand scheme this year really doesn't "suck". I mean, they're probably going to finish around .500 and draft somewhere in the low teens, and were in the playoff mix for most of the season when preseason they were a borderline playoff team. If that's a sucky year then we have it pretty damn good.
 

Mueller's Twin Grannies

critical thinker
SoSH Member
Dec 19, 2009
9,061
While I can appreciate the desire to see the team make the dance more often than not, the cold, hard logic is that it only benefits ownership and the vendors. It's not going to make anyone more or less interested in signing here on a year-to-year basis.

The Red Sox are not an expansion team. They aren't a mid- or small-market team. They are one of the premiere franchises in MLB, in all of sports. People want to play here for the money, for the crowds, and for the chance to win a title every few years (using the last 18 as a sample size). Making the playoffs is guaranteed, now, technically, for about a third of the league, so most team's odds are pretty good by default.

When they WIN titles, that's when the fans truly benefit the most (until they raise ticket prices the next year), because flags fly forever. Anything short of a title is a failure by default. Failure doesn't have to have a pejorative tone to it, though it often does, but if the goal is a title - and I'm sure it is for the players and coaching staff - then not winning one is failing to meet that goal.

But nobody likes seeing their team eliminated from the playoffs, at any point in the season. If the result of the end of the season is heartbreak, disappointment, or a merciful end to the suffering, then the fans aren't happy. They can by positive about the future, but, as the feller says, there was no joy in Mudville when the mighty Casey struck out.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
15,989
In the other thread, someone brought up the comparison of the Dodgers vs Red Sox over the past 10 years (also added Houston):

Red Sox: 2 WS titles in 2 visits, 5 playoff appearances, 5 DNQ's (4 in last place) with a 6th on the way.

Dodgers: 1 WS title in 3 visits, 9 playoff appearances (with a 10th on the way), 1 DNQ (2012).

Houston: 1 WS title in 3 visits, 6 playoff appearances (with a 7th coming), 4 DNQ's.

Looking back, I would take the Red Sox hands down. I was in Fenway for the 6th game of 2013, and that is something I will never forget for as long as my brain cells function. And the 2018 romp was satisfying. And 5 playoff appearances in the course of 10 years is going to be better than what the average MLB team will muster.

Looking forward 10 years is a different story. You cannot win a WS if you don't contend. And the Dodgers seem primed for annual contention for at least the next few years. One of the key points about the Red Sox is that in their past down years, things did not seem as bleak as they do now:

2012 was bad. But then they shed some payload and signed some players. Didn't expect a title in 2013, but they still had guys like Pedroia, Ellsbury, a healthy Papi, Lester, Buchholz, and a John Lackey coming back from TJ. Regression and injury took their tool in 2014, but they did prime themselves for an eventual reload.

The 2015 vibe was weird with the disastrous Sandoval and Hanley signings. But the team's prospects were already generating excitement with the appearance of Betts joining JBJ and Bogaerts.

The expected departure of Betts did cast a shadow when the 2019 season ended, and the 2021 ALCS appearance did not seem like it was going to start a run of sustained success. Right now, the Sox best prospects seem like they are a long way from making a contribution, and it will likely be another 3 or 4 drafts from having anything approaching the Dodgers or Yankees farm pipeline. Yet the team has too many holes to patch via trade or free agency (and there are likely to be far fewer stars reaching UFA status going forward). So I really think it may be a few years before we see a team that is regularly in contention.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
20,235
Rogers Park
I think now that we’ve had *several* WS titles, consistent competitiveness should be the new goal. That will likely yield some titles, too.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
10,631
Right now, the Sox best prospects seem like they are a long way from making a contribution, and it will likely be another 3 or 4 drafts from having anything approaching the Dodgers or Yankees farm pipeline.
2 of their 3 best prospects are literally on the team right now and their 4th best prospect could see time in Boston next season.