Including all of the prior Red Sox teams.The '18 Red Sox would beat every one of those teams.
Really good thought experiment (I may have to get a more recent OOTP to try this out):98 Yankees vs 18 red sox
99 Yankees vs 04 red sox
96 yankees vs 07 red sox
00 yankees vs 13 red sox
01 yankees vs 08 red sox
1918 Red Sox 1998 Yankees
C Sam Agnew 5-11 185 Jorge Posada 6-2 215
1B Stuffy McInnis 5-9 162 Tino Martinez 6-2 205
2B Dave Shean 5-11 175 Chuck Knoblauch 5-9 175
SS Everett Scott 5-8 148 Derek Jeter 6-3 195
3B Fred Thomas 5-10 160 Scott Brosius 6-1 200
LF George Whiteman 5-7 160 Chad Curtis 5-10 175
CF Amos Strunk 5-11 175 Bernie Williams 6-2 180
RF Harry Hooper 5-10 168 Paul O'Neill 6-4 200
P Babe Ruth 6-2 215 Andy Pettite 6-5 235
Pretty sure the OP was referring to the 2018 Red Sox.I decided to look at the first of those proposed matchups: the 1998 Yankees against the 1918 Red Sox. Two teams separated by eighty years. Before looking at the stats, I wondered -- would the more recent team be so much bigger and stronger than the earlier team that it's not worth the trouble? After a few minutes with baseball-reference.com, I made the following little list of starters:
So, yes, on average, the modern team is both taller (3.5 inches) and more massive (by 26 pounds) than its early counterpart. Are those differences large enough to make the contest unfair? Hmmm. I don't know.Code:1918 Red Sox 1998 Yankees C Sam Agnew 5-11 185 Jorge Posada 6-2 215 1B Stuffy McInnis 5-9 162 Tino Martinez 6-2 205 2B Dave Shean 5-11 175 Chuck Knoblauch 5-9 175 SS Everett Scott 5-8 148 Derek Jeter 6-3 195 3B Fred Thomas 5-10 160 Scott Brosius 6-1 200 LF George Whiteman 5-7 160 Chad Curtis 5-10 175 CF Amos Strunk 5-11 175 Bernie Williams 6-2 180 RF Harry Hooper 5-10 168 Paul O'Neill 6-4 200 P Babe Ruth 6-2 215 Andy Pettite 6-5 235
Two particular features of the lineups grabbed my attention: first, the pitchers are in each case both the tallest and heaviest players on each team. And second, Derek Jeter was 6-3? That's only 1 inch shorter than Cal Ripken, Jr., who was considered by many to be too tall to play shortstop. I suppose that some people might say that explains a lot about Jeter's prowess in the field, but he did remain at the position for a long time.
Alas, I don't have time to do any real statistical analysis, but I thought some might find this brief peek at the relative sizes of players from different eras to be interesting.
This is the funniest thing I've seen all day.Pretty sure the OP was referring to the 2018 Red Sox.
I totally read 18 and thought 1918 as well. And then I saw the 13 and thought, well that's weird, why 1913, why not 1912?Pretty sure the OP was referring to the 2018 Red Sox.
Ranking these teams...98 Yankees vs 18 red sox
99 Yankees vs 04 red sox
96 yankees vs 07 red sox
00 yankees vs 13 red sox
01 yankees vs 08 red sox
Terry Francona vs Grady Little, thoughTo throw a wrinkle into the discussion... '03 Red Sox vs '08 Red Sox? The two that got to Game 7 but didn't get over the ALCS hump. I think the '03 offense was superior but pitching might be a push.
I don't think you can really compare teams in this way because the level of competition changes from year to year but for the record, the 1998 Yankees took their foot off the gas at a ridiculous 92-30 in the regular season (22-18 after that to end up with 114 wins). The 2018 Red Sox lost their 31st game almost a month earlier, they were 69-30.1. 2018 Red Sox - Sox get the edge here because they could have won probably 115+ games but clearly took their foot off the gas the last month
2. 1998 Yankees
Fair points, Jon. That Yankee team was insanely good.I don't think you can really compare teams in this way because the level of competition changes from year to year but for the record, the 1998 Yankees took their foot off the gas at a ridiculous 92-30 in the regular season (22-18 after that to end up with 114 wins). The 2018 Red Sox lost their 31st game almost a month earlier, they were 69-30.
Uh no. Because the Yankees gave up the same amount of runs as the Sox. So relative to the 2018 Sox, they pitched a lot better in comparison to the league. The difference in runs scored in 1998 v 2018 explains the difference in the offensive runs scored. It does not explain why the 1998 Yankees gave up the same amount of runs as the 2018 Sox in a much more hitter friendly environment. C'mon.runs scored by the average team in the AL 1998 (5.01) v 2018 (4.53) basically accounts for the half-run .difference in run differential between the 2 teams.
offenses in general declined over the past 20-something years
Roids
The point was, using data, in this case run differential, from two different era, and one (the late 90's) that was notable for extreme offensive production was not the best stastical indicator that one team was more dominant than another.Uh no. Because the Yankees gave up the same amount of runs as the Sox. So relative to the 2018 Sox, they pitched a lot better in comparison to the league. The difference in runs scored in 1998 v 2018 explains the difference in the offensive runs scored. It does not explain why the 1998 Yankees gave up the same amount of runs as the 2018 Sox in a much more hitter friendly environment. C'mon.
You completely are missing the point. They scored more due to the offensive era, so the offenses were comparable. But they gave up the same amount of runs despite the offensive era. Therefore their pitching was roughly a half run better per game than the Sox. Run differential is run differential. It might have been inflated by ~10% due to the different era (5 vs 4.5), but that would only explain like 8 runs out of the 80 in variance. This isn't a difficult concept.The point was, using data, in this case run differential, from two different era, and one (the late 90's) that was notable for extreme offensive production was not the best stastical indicator that one team was more dominant than another.
Ok how is this.Don't get upset that I pointed out the apples and oranges nature of your 1998/2018 comps. The comps are misleading at best to draw the conclusion of inter-era supremacy. But If you want to make apples and orange comps, that's fine, fresh fruit is good, just bring enough for everyone.
It’s an interesting question. There were far more “good” teams in 1998 and far more “horrible” teams in 2018. So while the top tier of competition was better in 2018 - reflected in the playoff run against 100+ win teams - the regular season may have been a bit easier. Does b-ref have historic strength of schedule anywhere? There’s no doubt the Sox 2018 playoff run was way more impressive than the Yankees 98 run (I think the Yankees beat teams with 98, 89, and 88 wins vs the Sox with all 3 teams over 100?).I did those #s too out of curiosity.
You're comping teams 20 years apart. Its irrelevant using run differnential stats to determining which team, both excellent and among the alltime great teams, might fair against one another.
What I found interesting and not sure how to attack it, or just let it lie, was in '98 the Sox were the 2nd best team in the AL with 92 wins, (26 games behind the Ys). no other AL team had 90+ wins. The competitive balance was whacked relative to 2018, where in the AL, the Astros (103 wins) Ys (100) As (97) were all legit WS-worthy teams. How if at all would that impact run differential?
u are right but the 84 tigers couild give the 75-76 reds a gameJ-man poses an impossible question answerable only by the certaint roll of Stratomatic dice and perhaps the unwaiverable faith and loyalty of Red Sox and Yankee fans.
I'm not sure who would have won between the best of breeds, the 1998 Ys or the 2018 RSox, but as a Sox partisan, I will note perhaps no other team ever beat teams as formidable and as fucking good and as decisively as the Sox did to the 100-win Ys, 103-win Astro's and then NL Champ 92-win Dodgers. Including the post-season records that is 3-100 win teams the Sox beat. I'm not sure that had ever been done.
As an impartial observer I can say pretty definitively that neither the Sox nor Yankees could beat the 1975/1976 Reds, which may have been the best team pre-1998 Ys, I've seen.
Yup, they certainly could. They had that unreal start, I wondered if they'd ever lose 2 in a row. The 69-70-Orioles could also give anyone a game(except maybe the '69 Mets), the Os were also an alltime great team.u are right but the 84 tigers couild give the 75-76 reds a game