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.

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,721
Miami (oh, Miami!)
I don't mind rebuilding years or bridge years.

I don't want to follow a team that's a bunch of year-to-year burn it down mercenaries (e.g., most of the Marlins history.)

I don't want to follow a team that tries to hold onto players at any cost. A few are fine, but I'm just not into watching a handful of grossly overpaid multi-millionares and their supporting cast of also-rans. (e.g., Angels.)
 

cornwalls@6

Less observant than others
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
6,249
from the wilds of western ma
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.
Since we had just the two choices, I picked championships. But this is really where I'm at as well. I'm not an entitled fan who thinks we have to be a playoff team every year, and win multiple titles. But with their resources, this team should never really have the number of god-awful, forgotten seasons they've had over the last 10 years. I can understand/tolerate one every once in a while. But most years, their minimum standard should be .500 or a little better, sniffing around a wildcard spot at least until Labor Day, if not into September. The wild inconsistency is baffling.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,548
I'm not an entitled fan who thinks we have to be a playoff team every year, and win multiple titles.
Why not? I am. Being in the playoffs is fun. Winning is fun. Winning multiple titles is more fun.

Following a losing team isn't noble, nor does it make you a "better" fan. It sucks. This year has been awful in terms of watching our favorite professional baseball team. Why is someone considered "entitled" or a "fair weather fan" for wanting their team to win?

JFC, has following sports in the modern time come to this? That you have to apologize for wanting your team to win every year? We're not John Henry. We're not Chaim Bloom. Your day-to-day existence is not predicated on whether the Sox are good in three years. The Boston Red Sox should be good every year. And we, as fans, should hold the team accountable to that. I get that there's a bigger picture here, but that shouldn't overlap the smaller picture, which is that the team should at the very least be in the hunt every year and at the barest of minimums be somewhat entertaining.
 

Archer1979

shazowies
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
7,872
Right Here
For awhile, I thought that every team has a cycle in which they could compete at a high level and have not so good years on the downward part of the cycle. Having a big budget helped to flatten out the years on the downward side for some teams... which is why it's good to be a Sox or a Yankee fan.

The largest difference is that the Yankee franchise is competitive year after year after year. They had one season where they were sellers, traded Chapman for the Cubs farm system, and then re-signed him in the off-season. That said, they've also played just good enough to get in the playoffs and have but one championship in the 21st century. However, and I really don't follow them to know much more than what gets posted here, they don't seem to be particularly well-run. But again, they are perennial playoff contenders.

Seems like a franchise like the Sox, with a large budget and a well run front office, could do just as well as the NYY every year and play well enough to compete for the WS championship... especially since the league has/doesn't have a salary cap.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,094
Why not? I am. Being in the playoffs is fun. Winning is fun. Winning multiple titles is more fun.

Following a losing team isn't noble, nor does it make you a "better" fan. It sucks. This year has been awful in terms of watching our favorite professional baseball team. Why is someone considered "entitled" or a "fair weather fan" for wanting their team to win?

JFC, has following sports in the modern time come to this? That you have to apologize for wanting your team to win every year? We're not John Henry. We're not Chaim Bloom. Your day-to-day existence is not predicated on whether the Sox are good in three years. The Boston Red Sox should be good every year. And we, as fans, should hold the team accountable to that. I get that there's a bigger picture here, but that shouldn't overlap the smaller picture, which is that the team should at the very least be in the hunt every year and at the barest of minimums be somewhat entertaining.
I may be misreading but everyone here wants the Red Sox to win every year. I don't think that's the issue I think the question here is what is reasonable to expect for a team with the Red Sox's resources. I agree with cornwalls above that the amount of truly awful seasons over the last 10-12 years is not acceptable for a team like the Red Sox. To their credit, they have offset these valleys with 2 awesome peaks in 2013 and 2018. I wouldn't trade the Red Sox's last 10 years for the Yankees' title-less ones...BUT...I do think we shouldn't have this crazy amount of season-to-season volatility either. Hopefully, Bloom is building a foundation that helps to prevent this going forward. I don't expect title contenders every year but we should pretty much be a playoff contender every year, especially now with the expanded format.
 

cornwalls@6

Less observant than others
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
6,249
from the wilds of western ma
Why not? I am. Being in the playoffs is fun. Winning is fun. Winning multiple titles is more fun.

Following a losing team isn't noble, nor does it make you a "better" fan. It sucks. This year has been awful in terms of watching our favorite professional baseball team. Why is someone considered "entitled" or a "fair weather fan" for wanting their team to win?

JFC, has following sports in the modern time come to this? That you have to apologize for wanting your team to win every year? We're not John Henry. We're not Chaim Bloom. Your day-to-day existence is not predicated on whether the Sox are good in three years. The Boston Red Sox should be good every year. And we, as fans, should hold the team accountable to that. I get that there's a bigger picture here, but that shouldn't overlap the smaller picture, which is that the team should at the very least be in the hunt every year and at the barest of minimums be somewhat entertaining.
Yeah, of course I’d love to win the WS every year. My point was, that doesn’t happen in the real world, and as such, I don’t rage about it, or quit following the team when it doesn’t . I do however expect a minimal level of competence most every year, and 5 last place seasons in 10 years is completely unacceptable to me.. Despite the 2 great championship years, and the playoff years, that were sandwiched in there. I don’t have any idea how you got me thinking I was being “noble” or a “better fan” for following a losing team from my post.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,548
I may be misreading but everyone here wants the Red Sox to win every year. I don't think that's the issue I think the question here is what is reasonable to expect for a team with the Red Sox's resources. I agree with cornwalls above that the amount of truly awful seasons over the last 10-12 years is not acceptable for a team like the Red Sox. To their credit, they have offset these valleys with 2 awesome peaks in 2013 and 2018. I wouldn't trade the Red Sox's last 10 years for the Yankees' title-less ones...BUT...I do think we shouldn't have this crazy amount of season-to-season volatility either. Hopefully, Bloom is building a foundation that helps to prevent this going forward. I don't expect title contenders every year but we should pretty much be a playoff contender every year, especially now with the expanded format.
The poster that I was replying to said he doesn't want to be an "entitled fan" as if that's a bad thing. What I was saying is that one shouldn't apologize for being an "entitled fan". We pay money (whether through tickets or TV) to watch the Boston Red Sox, we should get a product that's good. And with their resources and revenue, the Red Sox should be good every year. Anything less and it's unsatisfying. Why should we feel bad about wanting to watch the best team?

"The Process" and all that type of stuff is bullshit. Complete and total bullshit. It's a cooked-up, built-in excuse for bottoming out and running a team on the cheap. Fans should not accept this at all. Every year the front office should do everything that they can, squeeze every dime that they can to build a competitive team. Any excuses otherwise is a failing and they should be held accountable. I don't care about the Woo Sox. I don't care that David Hamilton has 69 (NICE!) stolen bases for the Sea Dogs. I don't care who's leading the Drive in home runs. It's nice that these teams are doing well, but the team that I truly care about absolutely sucks.

Yeah, of course I’d love to win the WS every year. My point was, that doesn’t happen in the real world, and as such, I don’t rage about it, or quit following the team when it doesn’t . I do however expect a minimal level of competence most every year, and 5 last place seasons in 10 years is completely unacceptable to me.. Despite the 2 great championship years, and the playoff years, that were sandwiched in there. I don’t have any idea how you got me thinking I was being “noble” or a “better fan” for following a losing team from my post.
Maybe I was reading too much into you saying that you didn't want to be considered an "entitled fan", because like I explained above, every fan should be an entitled fan.

And I wasn't saying that you were being "noble" or acting like a "better fan", I was talking about the royal we, the fans who do do that. Who think it's a badge of honor to say, "Yeah, I went to all 81 2012 Red Sox games, so I appreciate this championship more than you." Or think that they need to look at the game like a GM in order to appreciate the game more than the ham-and-egger who just wants the Sox to win today. I apologize if I wasn't clear enough.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,504
But most years, their minimum standard should be .500 or a little better, sniffing around a wildcard spot at least until Labor Day, if not into September. The wild inconsistency is baffling.
Why is it baffling? It seems very consistent with the fact that whatever reason, BOS has not been able to develop a steady flow of young, cost-controlled talent, in multiple years. Because of this - and while trying to manage the luxury tax - BOS has had to bring in veteran players to fill important roles, and they have gotten wildly variable results from these players.

Also, as I mentioned above, as soon as BOS realizes it's not going to be a title contender - which this year was in the summer - I'd want them to do what they need to do to position themselves for the future. And if that means losing a lot of games, no problem to me. Draft position matters.
 

cornwalls@6

Less observant than others
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
6,249
from the wilds of western ma
The poster that I was replying to said he doesn't want to be an "entitled fan" as if that's a bad thing. What I was saying is that one shouldn't apologize for being an "entitled fan". We pay money (whether through tickets or TV) to watch the Boston Red Sox, we should get a product that's good. And with their resources and revenue, the Red Sox should be good every year. Anything less and it's unsatisfying. Why should we feel bad about wanting to watch the best team?

"The Process" and all that type of stuff is bullshit. Complete and total bullshit. It's a cooked-up, built-in excuse for bottoming out and running a team on the cheap. Fans should not accept this at all. Every year the front office should do everything that they can, squeeze every dime that they can to build a competitive team. Any excuses otherwise is a failing and they should be held accountable. I don't care about the Woo Sox. I don't care that David Hamilton has 69 (NICE!) stolen bases for the Sea Dogs. I don't care who's leading the Drive in home runs. It's nice that these teams are doing well, but the team that I truly care about absolutely sucks.



Maybe I was reading too much into you saying that you didn't want to be considered an "entitled fan", because like I explained above, every fan should be an entitled fan.

And I wasn't saying that you were being "noble" or acting like a "better fan", I was talking about the royal we, the fans who do do that. Who think it's a badge of honor to say, "Yeah, I went to all 81 2012 Red Sox games, so I appreciate this championship more than you." Or think that they need to look at the game like a GM in order to appreciate the game more than the ham-and-egger who just wants the Sox to win today. I apologize if I wasn't clear enough.
I gotcha. And no apologies needed whatsoever. I actually think we mostly agree.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,105
Complete and total bullshit. It's a cooked-up, built-in excuse for bottoming out and running a team on the cheap. Fans should not accept this at all. Every year the front office should do everything that they can, squeeze every dime that they can to build a competitive team. Any excuses otherwise is a failing and they should be held accountable. I don't care about the Woo Sox. I don't care that David Hamilton has 69 (NICE!) stolen bases for the Sea Dogs.
The Red Sox had the 4th highest CB Tax number this year and were projected have a 61% chance of making the playoffs. On June 26 they were 42-31 and had an 80% chance of making the playoffs. I've been extremely of the JBJ trade and the amount of time it took to fix it with the Pham trade, so I don't give them an A on how they built this team. But the notion that they went cheap so they could bottom out is absurd.


https://legacy.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/al-east/boston-red-sox/
https://www.fangraphs.com/standings/playoff-odds?date=2022-04-06&dateDelta=
https://www.fangraphs.com/standings/playoff-odds?date=2022-06-26&dateDelta=
 
Last edited:

cornwalls@6

Less observant than others
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
6,249
from the wilds of western ma
Why is it baffling? It seems very consistent with the fact that whatever reason, BOS has not been able to develop a steady flow of young, cost-controlled talent, in multiple years. Because of this - and while trying to manage the luxury tax - BOS has had to bring in veteran players to fill important roles, and they have gotten wildly variable results from these players.

Also, as I mentioned above, as soon as BOS realizes it's not going to be a title contender - which this year was in the summer - I'd want them to do what they need to do to position themselves for the future. And if that means losing a lot of games, no problem to me. Draft position matters.
Baffling might’ve been the wrong word. Unacceptable probably more apt. Not having this kind of year every once in a while. That’s part of sports, where circumstances align to produce a terrible season for even one of the haves. But 5 in 10 years is absurd.
 

ShaneTrot

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2002
6,403
Overland Park, KS
It seems when they suck, it's because of injury. This is a strange year because they have had a million injuries and have had a huge drop in power from the last few years. As a 56-year-old Red Sox fan, this is one of the worst outfields in my lifetime. It's hard for me to believe how much this outfield sucks.
 

NoXInNixon

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
5,299
Let me make an analogy..

The most beautiful woman you have ever seen offers you the following two options:

1. You can sleep with me once, and you can finish.
2. You can sleep with me five times, but you don't get to finish.

I'd choose option 2. And so with my sports team. I'd rather watch five compelling seasons of a contending team, even if none of them went all the way, than have to sit through a bunch of unwatchable seasons, but one year they win a title.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,348
Nobody is entitled to their favorite stinking sports team winning a championship every year! WTF? I have lots of issues with the team (and sports in general) but these are privately owned teams. I feel pretty fucking lucky that Henry puts the amount of money he does into mostly trying to win on a regular basis. I want them to win a championship every year but if they don't... I'll get a little bummed out about it, but the insane rage from half the posters here is comical at best, but childish is what it really is. Basically... entitled. Nothing was worse than hearing MFY fans when I was in NY from '99 to '09 raging about that team. The owners spent a shit ton of money and they attempted to win every season and some bad decisions and some poor play (and for the most part, being outplayed by other teams) is why they couldn't win during that stretch. But the fans there screamed like they were supposed to win it every year and that it was their stinking right. They're the most privileged fans in all of sportsdom! Ownership ALWAYS wants to win and puts the money into it.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
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.
Great chart.

Among the three teams with better records than us, two have greater financial resources, and the other one is in a division where every other team is in the bottom half of the list.

It’s valid to worry about the next 20 years. The last 10 years haven’t been as good as the 10 before. The tactics the Sox used in the Epstein era have been copied by most other teams, or closed off by rule changes, and are therefore no longer sources of competitive advantage. And the current front office doesn’t (yet) have a demonstrated track record of consistent success. But there’s a widespread failure in these parts to recognize how good things have been here during current ownership’s tenure — measured not only by rings (which we’d all acknowledge involves at least a little luck), but also by consistent excellence.
 

Doug Beerabelli

Killer Threads
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
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.
Agreed this is best option, but it seems StL generally has had an easier run to "consistently good" every year than the Sox, or anyone else in AL East.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,278
Great chart.

Among the three teams with better records than us, two have greater financial resources, and the other one is in a division where every other team is in the bottom half of the list.

It’s valid to worry about the next 20 years. The last 10 years haven’t been as good as the 10 before. The tactics the Sox used in the Epstein era have been copied by most other teams, or closed off by rule changes, and are therefore no longer sources of competitive advantage. And the current front office doesn’t (yet) have a demonstrated track record of consistent success. But there’s a widespread failure in these parts to recognize how good things have been here during current ownership’s tenure — measured not only by rings (which we’d all acknowledge involves at least a little luck), but also by consistent excellence.
correct, I mean we are realize we could had frank mccourt as owner of the Red sox, or even Charles Dolan....

those would have ended in disaster for us
 

sezwho

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
1,952
Isle of Plum
[
Agreed this is best option, but it seems StL generally has had an easier run to "consistently good" every year than the Sox, or anyone else in AL East.
Still torn. I actually find the question very hard to conceptualize because I wouldn’t know my team will actually win/lose, it’s just that they mostly suck then catch lightning in a bottle or regularly knock on the door without entry.

Anyway, to help think through (anything but work) I kept returning to the football analogy of being a Bills fan or Jets fan. I picked Bills,

But growing up a Sox fan, I would have traded any amount of suckitude for that chip. Now? Taking annual competition. That said, I think I might reverse course again eventually.
 

Gdiguy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
6,233
San Diego, CA
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.
Yep

I'm still more of a Mets fan than Red Sox, and from that vantage point I can definitely attest - non-competitiveness sucks, and non-competitiveness over multiple years really really sucks

Even the Red Sox aren't a great example for this question, because like having 1 last place finish every once in a while is bad but not terrible. But from the perspective of 'do I actually want to watch baseball games on a nightly basis', once you hit 2 or 3 consecutive years of non-competitiveness (which I'll say is basically below-500 play), my interest level plummets (because really, do I want to spend 300 hours of my life this year watching a team that has zero chance of winning a title? no)
 

Papo The Snow Tiger

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 18, 2010
1,409
Connecticut
This is where I'm at also. There have been quite a few times this season where the Red Sox were literally painful to watch.
Let me make an analogy..

The most beautiful woman you have ever seen offers you the following two options:

1. You can sleep with me once, and you can finish.
2. You can sleep with me five times, but you don't get to finish.

I'd choose option 2. And so with my sports team. I'd rather watch five compelling seasons of a contending team, even if none of them went all the way, than have to sit through a bunch of unwatchable seasons, but one year they win a title.
This is also where I'm at. There have been many times this season where the Red Sox were painful and frustrating to watch and remembering the glow of 2018 no longer diminishes the irritation. I'd also rather have a string of pleasant evenings with someone with that I find attractive.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,721
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Let me make an analogy..

The most beautiful woman you have ever seen offers you the following two options:

1. You can sleep with me once, and you can finish.
2. You can sleep with me five times, but you don't get to finish.

I'd choose option 2. And so with my sports team. I'd rather watch five compelling seasons of a contending team, even if none of them went all the way, than have to sit through a bunch of unwatchable seasons, but one year they win a title.
Option 3. You can laugh and tell her to get over herself.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,105
I know the Red Sox have had some very down years, but when was the last time they fielded a team that was simply not set up to win? Yes, I think 2020 deserves an asterisk, for all sorts of reasons ("let's have a mile race but only run the first 600 meters!), but even then they had a 40% chance to make the postseason per Fangraphs. They've never had anything close to a blow-it-up fire sale and their payroll has always been near the top. Which is to say, in terms of results, I will take the rings, but the way the Red Sox operate, it's a meaningless distinction. The level of being all in now (at the expense of the future) does fluctuate some, but even when that level drops a bit, like it did last year, they are still in good shape to make a postseason run, subject to the whims of injuries and randomness. They have never been subject to the boom/bust method of acquiring prospects, spending no money while letting them mature and then loosening up when the core is ready, only to sell them off when things get too expensive and start all over.
 

mjs

New Member
Mar 30, 2020
36
I voted for consistency. I want to have a reason to follow closely over the entire season. But if you asked this question pre-2004 or even pre-2007, I would have voted for championships (you know, "just once before I die"). Since the Sox have crushed the curse, I would prefer to see a consistently competitive team rather than yo-yo.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Yep

I'm still more of a Mets fan than Red Sox, and from that vantage point I can definitely attest - non-competitiveness sucks, and non-competitiveness over multiple years really really sucks

Even the Red Sox aren't a great example for this question, because like having 1 last place finish every once in a while is bad but not terrible. But from the perspective of 'do I actually want to watch baseball games on a nightly basis', once you hit 2 or 3 consecutive years of non-competitiveness (which I'll say is basically below-500 play), my interest level plummets (because really, do I want to spend 300 hours of my life this year watching a team that has zero chance of winning a title? no)
3 years of under .500 play is probably a bit much for my liking but I don't mind losing years every now and then. Depending on the context of the team, a losing year can even be somewhat fun if the team is fielding a young team that should improve together (aka 2015). Years like 2022 are definitely a drag though. There was very little to root for after the team fell out of contention. With Casas and Bello up (Wong's intriguing too), it's a little better.

I don't expect much from 2023 but I do expect it to be more enjoyable than this year and I expect it to build toward something. It's more fun to watch youth lose than proven commodities lose.

Some (a lot) of people think the process is fun, too. 2015 led to 2018. We watched that team grow and win a WS. Can a team be competitive every single year without having a mercenary type feel?

And what if the team has a really good chance at winning a WS in one particular year? Is it ok to mortgage some of the future for a significant chance at winning the title? If the Sox don't trade for Chris Sale, they are probably a better team in 19, 20, 21 and 22. Maybe even to the point where they were competitive every season.

How much future competitiveness is one willing to sacrifice for a title? Maybe the answer should be 0.

edit: Of course, in reality the answer to this question is to be competitive every single year. The playoffs are a crapshoot and the more you make it, the more likely you are to win a title. But that's not how the question is asked. Give me 10 chances to win a title over 5 chances.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,278
3 years of under .500 play is probably a bit much for my liking but I don't mind losing years every now and then. Depending on the context of the team, a losing year can even be somewhat fun if the team is fielding a young team that should improve together (aka 2015). Years like 2022 are definitely a drag though. There was very little to root for after the team fell out of contention. With Casas and Bello up (Wong's intriguing too), it's a little better.

I don't expect much from 2023 but I do expect it to be more enjoyable than this year and I expect it to build toward something. It's more fun to watch youth lose than proven commodities lose.

Some (a lot) of people think the process is fun, too. 2015 led to 2018. We watched that team grow and win a WS. Can a team be competitive every single year without having a mercenary type feel?

And what if the team has a really good chance at winning a WS in one particular year? Is it ok to mortgage some of the future for a significant chance at winning the title? If the Sox don't trade for Chris Sale, they are probably a better team in 19, 20, 21 and 22. Maybe even to the point where they were competitive every season.

How much future competitiveness is one willing to sacrifice for a title? Maybe the answer should be 0.
but that does not even guarantee anything, I mean SD is a prime example, they have gone all on in the past few trade deadlines, and look what it has goten them?

no WS wins
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
I know the Red Sox have had some very down years, but when was the last time they fielded a team that was simply not set up to win?
Pre-Wildcard era, I'd say. The Hobson seasons were a kinda dark time.

While we might disagree with their methods/choices on occasion, it's been a really really long time since we could look at the Sox and not see a good faith effort to be competitive from the front office/ownership. Even the last place finishes of late have more or less started with high hopes, either due to the perceived quality of the roster or the promise of young prospects, only to have injuries and under-performances dash those hopes. One could argue that the seasons that have opened with the lowest expectations/fan morale over the last couple decades were the 2013 and 2021 seasons, which turned into really pleasant surprises.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
but that does not even guarantee anything, I mean SD is a prime example, they have gone all on in the past few trade deadlines, and look what it has goten them?

no WS wins
Well, that's why I said maybe the answer should be 0.

This question is too results orientated with a sample size that's so small.
I think another way to ask this question is if in the next 20 years, the Padres make the playoffs 18 times and the Red Sox make it 8 times, which team would you think ends up with more WS titles? Which team would you want to be?

The answer is pretty obvious. Now, when you change the question to 18 times/0 WS wins vs 8 times/2 WS wins, people will take the latter every time. And why wouldn't they? We already know the results. I don't think that really tells us anything about the future though. The Yankees and Dodgers are going to win some WS titles if they keep making the playoffs. The team that makes the playoffs the most in the 21st century should probably win the most WS titles. It won't always work like that but unless you think the playoffs aren't mostly a crapshoot, the best way to win a WS is with repeated chances.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,423
Not here
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.
Yeah, this.

We've been very lucky in that every time we're the best team in baseball, we've won the World Series. The OP presupposes a false dichotomy. Consistent excellence is how you win championships. The 2013 Championship came out of nowhere, but the 2004, 2007, and 2018 championships all came in stretches where we made the playoffs three straight years. With twelve rounds of playoffs (or whatever) being consistently excellent gives a team a bunch of chances to get hot at the tight time.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Yeah, this.

We've been very lucky in that every time we're the best team in baseball, we've won the World Series. The OP presupposes a false dichotomy. Consistent excellence is how you win championships. The 2013 Championship came out of nowhere, but the 2004, 2007, and 2018 championships all came in stretches where we made the playoffs three straight years. With twelve rounds of playoffs (or whatever) being consistently excellent gives a team a bunch of chances to get hot at the tight time.
The OP was only asking which you'd prefer: Seesaw results with 4 championships or consistent playoff appearances with fewer championships.
 

LoweTek

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 30, 2005
2,183
Central Florida
Let me make an analogy..

The most beautiful woman you have ever seen offers you the following two options:

1. You can sleep with me once, and you can finish.
2. You can sleep with me five times, but you don't get to finish.

I'd choose option 2. And so with my sports team. I'd rather watch five compelling seasons of a contending team, even if none of them went all the way, than have to sit through a bunch of unwatchable seasons, but one year they win a title.
I agree. I would select 2. It's always about the experience, not necessarily the finish. Sometimes the finish, all too soon, shortens the experience. Or, eh, something like that.
 

Seels

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
4,948
NH
Depends. Do the teams that don't win have interesting things about them? The 1996-2003 teams were fun to watch and didn't win.

The problem with years like this is that they're not just non-competitive, they're also just fucking boring, and it's hard looking at the roster and seeing more than 3-4 guys who will be on the roster that next competes. Why should I pay $30 a month for NESN and invest 3-4 hours a night to watch Nick Pivetta Rich Hill and Bobby Dalbec?

And barring something changing up the roster rather significantly, it's hard to see 2023 being any different.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
Depends. Do the teams that don't win have interesting things about them? The 1996-2003 teams were fun to watch and didn't win.

The problem with years like this is that they're not just non-competitive, they're also just fucking boring, and it's hard looking at the roster and seeing more than 3-4 guys who will be on the roster that next competes. Why should I pay $30 a month for NESN and invest 3-4 hours a night to watch Nick Pivetta Rich Hill and Bobby Dalbec?

And barring something changing up the roster rather significantly, it's hard to see 2023 being any different.
The 1996-2003 Sox were fun to watch because of two or three players: Pedro, Nomar, Manny. I have just as much fun watching Devers or Bogaerts hit as I did Nomar or Manny. I'll grant that no pitcher is appointment viewing like peak Pedro, but Whitlock and Bello and Pivetta have their moments. And there's little chance that watching Trot Nixon or Jason Varitek or Jose Offerman was more compelling than Verdugo or Kike or JDM (well, vintage JDM not shell of himself current JDM).

I posit that it isn't necessarily the make up of the roster that makes the current team less fun so much as we've all changed over the course of 20-25 years. Nearly everything was more fun when we were 20 than it is when we're 40.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
The 1996-2003 Sox were fun to watch because of two or three players: Pedro, Nomar, Manny. I have just as much fun watching Devers or Bogaerts hit as I did Nomar or Manny. I'll grant that no pitcher is appointment viewing like peak Pedro, but Whitlock and Bello and Pivetta have their moments. And there's little chance that watching Trot Nixon or Jason Varitek or Jose Offerman was more compelling than Verdugo or Kike or JDM (well, vintage JDM not shell of himself current JDM).

I posit that it isn't necessarily the make up of the roster that makes the current team less fun so much as we've all changed over the course of 20-25 years. Nearly everything was more fun when we were 20 than it is when we're 40.
Baseball was more fun to watch back then because of steroids and video game offense.
 

Yelling At Clouds

Post-darwinian
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,407
Depends. Do the teams that don't win have interesting things about them? The 1996-2003 teams were fun to watch and didn't win.

The problem with years like this is that they're not just non-competitive, they're also just fucking boring, and it's hard looking at the roster and seeing more than 3-4 guys who will be on the roster that next competes. Why should I pay $30 a month for NESN and invest 3-4 hours a night to watch Nick Pivetta Rich Hill and Bobby Dalbec?

And barring something changing up the roster rather significantly, it's hard to see 2023 being any different.
This is the post that comes the closest to my thinking. I don’t need them to win the WS every year, I don’t mind the occasional losing season. Usually what I say is that I just don’t want them to be embarrassing (like 2012 or 2014-15). This year’s team isn’t embarrassing, but they aren’t very interesting.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
This is the post that comes the closest to my thinking. I don’t need them to win the WS every year, I don’t mind the occasional losing season. Usually what I say is that I just don’t want them to be embarrassing (like 2012 or 2014-15). This year’s team isn’t embarrassing, but they aren’t very interesting.
The 2015 team finished the year 33-26 with a run differential of +71. It also had Betts, Xander, Shaw, Bradley, Matt Barnes and Eduardo Rodriguez establishing themselves as MLB players. Noe Ramirez, Henry Owens, Blake Swihart, Devin Marrero and Brian Johnson were interesting on some level, too. If a team is going to finish 78-84, I heavily prefer it to be a team like 2015 over 2022. It also landed us Jay Groome with the 12th pick, even if it didn't work out. Not shockingly, the team would go on to win 90+ games each of the next 3 years. It wasn't hard to get excited about the future of the 2015 Red Sox. It was on the field and it was good. In 2022, it's in the minors.
 

JFK35

New Member
Jun 12, 2022
110
North Shore
For those saying “Why can’t it be both?” and “Is it too much to ask for both”. Yes it can be both and should be both and no it’s not too much to ask but that’s not the point of the thread. The OP asked a hypothetical question - saying “I want both (no kidding?!?) doesn’t contribute to the conversation at all

For me? It’s without question CHAMPIONSHIPS. This is Boston, not Cincinatti. Anyone remember the ‘19 Bruins season for anything OTHER than the choke in Game 7? Give me the championship every time. The roll coaster of emotions, the feeling of pure elation like you’re a kid all over again when it’s finally won. The hats and tshirts. Wall to wall media coverage of the title. Millions lining Boylston and Copley with confetti flying…

Yeah give me that over 10 straight years of “competing”
 

Yelling At Clouds

Post-darwinian
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,407
The 2015 team finished the year 33-26 with a run differential of +71. It also had Betts, Xander, Shaw, Bradley, Matt Barnes and Eduardo Rodriguez establishing themselves as MLB players. Noe Ramirez, Henry Owens, Blake Swihart, Devin Marrero and Brian Johnson were interesting on some level, too. If a team is going to finish 78-84, I heavily prefer it to be a team like 2015 over 2022. It also landed us Jay Groome with the 12th pick, even if it didn't work out. Not shockingly, the team would go on to win 90+ games each of the next 3 years. It wasn't hard to get excited about the future of the 2015 Red Sox. It was on the field and it was good. In 2022, it's in the minors.
Sure, I do remember that team being fun once everyone was up and hitting (in my memory, it was late July when this started happening, but that’s probably incorrect). But all that only happened after Plan A with Pablo Sandoval and Hanley Ramirez and the He’s the Ace rotation* all flamed out so spectacularly. But perhaps labeling it an “embarrassment” in totality is unfair.

* - in retrospect, maybe not so far removed from what some teams are doing now?
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
For those saying “Why can’t it be both?” and “Is it too much to ask for both”. Yes it can be both and should be both and no it’s not too much to ask but that’s not the point of the thread. The OP asked a hypothetical question - saying “I want both (no kidding?!?) doesn’t contribute to the conversation at all

For me? It’s without question CHAMPIONSHIPS. This is Boston, not Cincinatti. Anyone remember the ‘19 Bruins season for anything OTHER than the choke in Game 7? Give me the championship every time. The roll coaster of emotions, the feeling of pure elation like you’re a kid all over again when it’s finally won. The hats and tshirts. Wall to wall media coverage of the title. Millions lining Boylston and Copley with confetti flying…

Yeah give me that over 10 straight years of “competing”
You get me.

But there is always room for

55569
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,510
Rogers Park
Why not? I am. Being in the playoffs is fun. Winning is fun. Winning multiple titles is more fun.

Following a losing team isn't noble, nor does it make you a "better" fan. It sucks. This year has been awful in terms of watching our favorite professional baseball team. Why is someone considered "entitled" or a "fair weather fan" for wanting their team to win?

JFC, has following sports in the modern time come to this? That you have to apologize for wanting your team to win every year? We're not John Henry. We're not Chaim Bloom. Your day-to-day existence is not predicated on whether the Sox are good in three years. The Boston Red Sox should be good every year. And we, as fans, should hold the team accountable to that. I get that there's a bigger picture here, but that shouldn't overlap the smaller picture, which is that the team should at the very least be in the hunt every year and at the barest of minimums be somewhat entertaining.
I dunno, man. I’m having fun. Just to pick a few moments, Franchy Cordero’s walk off grand slam was baseball magic. Brayan Bello and Kutter Crawford coming up and gaining their footing has been amazingly fun to root for. Trevor Story is an eminently watchable player on both sides of the ball. Duran’s promise and (thus far) disappointment has been a compelling storyline.

Pitching injuries and offensive slumps derailed what should have been a good-not-great team. It wouldn’t be the first time that’s happened.

One just watches a bad team differently, that’s all.