Dave Dombrowski

[Kimmi]

Yeah, I get that. But some teams are clearly better than their record. Some are not.

 

The franchises of Oakland, Minnesota and Atlanta have remarkably bad postseason records over the last 20 years or so. I don't think it's all randomness.

 

100% randomness? No. But probably more randomness than actual skill.

 

In short series, randomness is king.

[Kimmi]

If the Red Sox were 60-40 odds to win every series they played, there would be a 22% chance of them going all the way ... that's also very little chance. (and I think 60-40 is very steep odds for any baseball series)

 

Ha. Great minds...

 

I agree that 60-40 is too steep. I have it at 55-45, and even that may be a bit steep.

[Kimmi]

They were a longshot, though. Not impossible-longshots do come in sometimes.

 

I guess the only real question here is, how much better of a chance does the favorite actually have vs. the longshot.

 

By my calculations, the favorite has a 4% better chance of winning it all than the longshot.

[Kimmi]

The trades to get Sale and Kimbrel have worked out. Some of the young guys that were given up might still be stars, but 2018 championship is a done deal. The Carson Smith trade and Tyler Thornburg trade have not worked out. I think Thornburg will be given one more shot, but Smith era is over. The Kinsler trade also might be questionable, but the Pearse and Eovaldi trades were gold. JD signing at reasonable $$$$ has worked, and Price came up big in the ALCS and the WS. Without his effort I don't know ifv the Sox have enough pitching to get it done. Overall, DD's moves have more positives them negatives.

 

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

 

We have another World Series ring.

 

Dombrowski's moves have all been worth it.

[Bellhorn04]

By my calculations, the favorite has a 4% better chance of winning it all than the longshot.

 

I really do find this hard to believe.

 

The Red Sox have won it all 4 times in 15 years. Oakland, Minnesota and Atlanta combined have won it zero times since 1995 despite making the playoffs a whole bunch of times.

 

I think we had significantly better chances of winning than them because we were more stacked in all the different departments. Which resulted from our large payroll advantages and some smart GM's.

 

Just my opinion.

[Bellhorn04]

The numbers are actually pretty striking:

 

1996-2018

 

ATL 14 playoff eliminations + 1 Wild Card loss

OAK 7 playoff eliminations + 2 Wild Card losses

MIN 6 playoff eliminations + 1 Wild Card loss

 

Total 27 + 4 = 31

[notin]

The numbers are actually pretty striking:

 

1996-2018

 

ATL 14 playoff eliminations + 1 Wild Card loss

OAK 7 playoff eliminations + 2 Wild Card losses

MIN 6 playoff eliminations + 1 Wild Card loss

 

Total 27 + 4 = 31

 

But what have you learned from that? Those numbers span 23 seasons and those teams are all completely different players, managers, executives, etc. over that time frame. Might as well judge the Red Sox based on their post-season record from 1919 to 2003...

[Bellhorn04]

But what have you learned from that? Those numbers span 23 seasons and those teams are all completely different players, managers, executives, etc. over that time frame.

 

What doesn't change so much are things like payroll rank and strength of division.

[dgalehouse]

In general, the better athletes will tend to prevail over the lesser ones. In general, the better athletes will make more money than the lesser ones. This is a fact of life , as much as we would like to believe otherwise.

[iortiz]

The numbers are actually pretty striking:

 

1996-2018

 

ATL 14 playoff eliminations + 1 Wild Card loss

OAK 7 playoff eliminations + 2 Wild Card losses

MIN 6 playoff eliminations + 1 Wild Card loss

 

Total 27 + 4 = 31

 

It probably speaks volumes how weak Atlanta’s divisions were those days.

[Bellhorn04]

In the John Henry era, the Red Sox are 57-37 in the postseason (.606) - equivalent to a 98-64 regular season record.

[Fan_since_Boggs]

What happened to David Price is really amazing. Last year, it looked like Price was headed toward TJ Surgery, a complete free agent bust. This year, Price is really good in the regular season and then after that first start against the Yankees in the playoffs, Price turned into staff ace. I don't know if the Red Sox win the World Series without Price, not with Sale's shoulder issue. Someone had to step up and assume the role of staff ace and Price did that. He was so remarkable, pitching on short rest like he was Bob Gibson with Bob Gibson's arm.

 

The fears of Tommy John Surgery are now in the distant past. No one can criticize this free agent signing again--championships are so difficult to win and Price helped carry the Red Sox over the finish line. Remarkable.

[Kimmi]

I really do find this hard to believe.

 

The Red Sox have won it all 4 times in 15 years. Oakland, Minnesota and Atlanta combined have won it zero times since 1995 despite making the playoffs a whole bunch of times.

 

I think we had significantly better chances of winning than them because we were more stacked in all the different departments. Which resulted from our large payroll advantages and some smart GM's.

 

Just my opinion.

 

That doesn't really say that any of those teams had a much less chance of winning the World Series than any other team though. Any team entering the playoffs has a much larger chance of being eliminated than they have of winning it all. The Red Sox have been very good, but at the same time, they have been lucky.

 

A different bounce of the ball could have made the difference in winning any of those championships.

[moonslav59]

That doesn't really say that any of those teams had a much less chance of winning the World Series than any other team though. Any team entering the playoffs has a much larger chance of being eliminated than they have of winning it all. The Red Sox have been very good, but at the same time, they have been lucky.

 

A different bounce of the ball could have made the difference in winning any of those championships.

 

It would have taken quite a few differing bounces to flip any of those series.

[Kimmi]

In the John Henry era, the Red Sox are 57-37 in the postseason (.606) - equivalent to a 98-64 regular season record.

 

Looking at the World Series Champs beginning in 2000:

 

19 Championships

 

The AL won 10, the NL won 9.

 

The team with the best record from the regular season won 5 times, or 26.3%. (2007 Sox, 2009 Yanks, 2013 Sox, 2016 Cubs, 2018 Sox)

 

The team with the worst record from the regular season won 4 times, or 21.1%. (2000 Yanks, 2006 Cards, 2011 Cards, 2014 Giants)

[Kimmi]

What happened to David Price is really amazing. Last year, it looked like Price was headed toward TJ Surgery, a complete free agent bust. This year, Price is really good in the regular season and then after that first start against the Yankees in the playoffs, Price turned into staff ace. I don't know if the Red Sox win the World Series without Price, not with Sale's shoulder issue. Someone had to step up and assume the role of staff ace and Price did that. He was so remarkable, pitching on short rest like he was Bob Gibson with Bob Gibson's arm.

 

The fears of Tommy John Surgery are now in the distant past. No one can criticize this free agent signing again--championships are so difficult to win and Price helped carry the Red Sox over the finish line. Remarkable.

 

It's amazing to think he started this season as a big unknown health-wise. I'm not sure if the elbow will be an issue going forward or not, but Price delivered what he came here to deliver. He is my WS MVP, no disrespect to Pearce.

[dgalehouse]

I don't think athletic competition is subject to the same rules of randomness and luck as are games of chance. It is not like flipping a coin or spinning a wheel. It is entirely different. Muhammad Ali would have beaten Buster Mathis 100 times out of 100. No amount of randomness would have helped Buster.

[Kimmi]

It would have taken quite a few differing bounces to flip any of those series.

 

Not necessarily. One differing bounce can change the outcome of a game, which in turn can change the outcome of an entire series. And it isn't limited to just bounces.

 

One example: 2004 ALCS, my memory fails me as to who was at bat and the exact inning, but a ground rule double hit by a Yankee player kept a runner who was on first base from scoring. Had the ball stayed in play, the run would have scored easily. If I'm not mistaken, the game would have been over, and the Red Sox would have been done.

[Kimmi]

I don't think athletic competition is subject to the same rules of randomness and luck as are games of chance. It is not like flipping a coin or spinning a wheel. It is entirely different. Muhammad Ali would have beaten Buster Mathis 100 times out of 100. No amount of randomness would have helped Buster.

 

I don't know anything about boxing, but I don't think any other sport is as random as baseball.

[jacksonianmarch]

Baseball is the only sport where a 70% fail rate is considered good. The low likelihood of hitting success lends to its ridiculous randomness

[moonslav59]

Not necessarily. One differing bounce can change the outcome of a game, which in turn can change the outcome of an entire series. And it isn't limited to just bounces.

 

One example: 2004 ALCS, my memory fails me as to who was at bat and the exact inning, but a ground rule double hit by a Yankee player kept a runner who was on first base from scoring. Had the ball stayed in play, the run would have scored easily. If I'm not mistaken, the game would have been over, and the Red Sox would have been done.

 

I disagree. We'd have had to have had numerous differing bounces to change the outcome.

 

BTW, we did have a "bad bounce" in a way, when Kinsler over ran that grounder.

[sk7326]

I don't think athletic competition is subject to the same rules of randomness and luck as are games of chance. It is not like flipping a coin or spinning a wheel. It is entirely different. Muhammad Ali would have beaten Buster Mathis 100 times out of 100. No amount of randomness would have helped Buster.

 

A missile right hand landing can - indeed boxing is the land of the ten-run homerun, where you can lose every second of a fight until Boom!

 

But yes, there is less randomness - physical domination is hard to overcome.

 

With baseball those gaps are not the same. There ARE gaps, but they are relatively small. And with the outsized importance of pitching, the gaps are often temporary.

[sk7326]

I disagree. We'd have had to have had numerous differing bounces to change the outcome.

 

BTW, we did have a "bad bounce" in a way, when Kinsler over ran that grounder.

 

4 of the 5 Astros games were on the table in the 8th. The Dodgers could have won games 2 and 5 with a break here and there. "The inches we need are everywhere" ;-) But they are inches.

[moonslav59]

4 of the 5 Astros games were on the table in the 8th. The Dodgers could have won games 2 and 5 with a break here and there. "The inches we need are everywhere" ;-) But they are inches.

 

My point was, there would have had to have been more than one differing bounce. Thanks for the evidence that proves my point.

[dgalehouse]

No MLB baseball team is ever going to go undefeated, or even remotely close to it. The odds on any baseball game are relatively small . There is a reason for that. And it truly is a game of inches. But the breaks go both ways. A team as dominant , over a long season , as this year's Red Sox is not lucky. It is a matter of ability. They were clearly the best team , and they won it all.

[Dojji]

4 of the 5 Astros games were on the table in the 8th. The Dodgers could have won games 2 and 5 with a break here and there. "The inches we need are everywhere" ;-) But they are inches.

 

If you spend all your time worrying about the things that could go wrong you'll never get out of bed in the morning. Yes, it was possible for a string of random events to screw the Red Sox over. It didn't happen. They were clearly the better team on paper and they won. Stop borrowing trouble.

[iortiz]

It could go the other way too. Ex. The Sox should have won game 3 of the WS.

 

In the end the best team won, and it was not even close.

[sk7326]

If you spend all your time worrying about the things that could go wrong you'll never get out of bed in the morning. Yes, it was possible for a string of random events to screw the Red Sox over. It didn't happen. They were clearly the better team on paper and they won. Stop borrowing trouble.

 

I am grateful for every title ... the Red Sox were the best team in the league. The 162 game season was the best evidence of that.

[moonslav59]

It's the totality of it all.

 

108 wins in a division with the Yanks and the Rays.

 

11-3 in the playoffs vs very tough opponents in a league known for great top 4-5 teams.

[Bellhorn04]

The Red Sox have made the playoffs 10 times since JH bought the team and won it all 4 times - 40%. Luck or strength?