Which was the best team that the Red Sox have eliminated in the postseason?

[MentalDisabldLst]

So, amidst all the nostalgia for the 2004 ALCS, I was looking over the B-Ref page for the series and the teams, and I noticed something I should have remembered - although the MFY were 101-61 that year and won the division handily, their Pythagorean record was only 89-73, an incredible +12 overperformance from their fundamentals.  Was that the bigger paper tiger the Red Sox had ever taken apart?  I looked into it, and in fact they WERE the biggest overperformers that the Sox had ever defeated, only fractionally edging the 2008 Angels.
 
The question I had then was, "OK, so which was the best team the Red Sox have ever defeated?".  I went and got a bunch more info on those teams, and figured I'd put the results up and put it to a poll for SoSH to kick around.  Was it John McGraw's 1912 NY Giants?  The 105-win 2004 Cardinals?  Last year's Tigers?  Do we weight those teams' full regular seasons more heavily, or the momentum they had coming into our series against them?
 
 
...I was also surprised to learn that the Red Sox are 19-13 all-time in playoff series, though we've also dropped all 3 one-game playoffs we've been in.  Even at our low point after 2003, we were only 9-10 all-time, buoyed by winning the first 5 WS we played in.  Since 2003, the Sox are an incredible 10-3 in postseason series.  Golden age, indeed.

 

[tims4wins]

I voted last year's Tigers, primarily due to the combination of having a ridiculous rotation plus a couple of HOF-level boppers in the middle of the order, the likes of which really haven't been seen since Manny-Papi circa 2003-2004. The Tigers dominated the first 16 innings of that series and it may well have gone on to be a sweep if not for Papi.
 
Edit: adding team OPS+ and ERA+ would be a great data point...
 
Double edit: Detroit had a 111 OPS+ and 116 ERA+ last year as a point of comparison. 2004 St. Louis had a 107 OPS+ and 113 ERA+ so 2013 Detroit wins in both those categories
 
The 2004 MFY had a 111 OPS+ and 96 ERA+. They were a below average pitching team and probably don't belong in the discussion
 
Last year's Cardinals had a 102 OPS+ and 110 ERA+. Out.

 

[chrisfont9]

I always thought the 2004 Cardinals were a bit overrated thanks to a pretty mediocre starting rotation (Carpenter, Marquis, Suppan, Woody Williams, Matt Morris). The talent balance was pretty heavily tipped toward the AL at the time. I voted for last year's Tigers, though more because I thought they were a dangerous playoff team than a great overall squad.

 

[Laser Show]

I always thought the 2004 Cardinals were a bit overrated thanks to a pretty mediocre starting rotation (Carpenter, Marquis, Suppan, Woody Williams, Matt Morris). The talent balance was pretty heavily tipped toward the AL at the time. I voted for last year's Tigers, though more because I thought they were a dangerous playoff team than a great overall squad.

Yikes, I always remember the 04 Cardinals as a juggernaut. I mean with Pujols, Rolen, Edmonds, Walker in the middle of your order how can you not be? But that rotation..... woof. Granted, both are heavily influenced by the era of play they were in. It'd be MUCH harder to put together a lineup like that, and probably a bit easier to put together a better rotation.
 
I was originally going to vote for them, but after some consideration, I'll go with the 2013 Verlander Scherzers. Bonus points for kicking their asses during repeated dugout interviews and "How in the world did you beat God tonight?" questions.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Yeh, I don't think you can look at a season's worth of pitching stats to judge the strength of a playoff team. Pitching in the playoffs is a different animal:
 
- No 5th starter
- Starters as relievers
- Aces on short rest
- Playoff managing
 
There's a lot to be said for the 2013 Tigers given their starters playoff rotation.
 
Then again: Mussina, Lieber, Brown, Hernandez (ERA+ of 98, 110, 104 and 137) - backed up by the best closer in the history of baseball, is nothing to sneeze at. That's partially why I voted that team.

 

[Bergs]

I voted for the '13 Tigers, but the '04 mfy were the most terrifying. It felt like so much more was at stake, and those fuckers owned us for so long. Matsui, Sheffield, Williams, Posada, Jeter, A-Rod, and Giambi? That was a loaded team.

 

[TheoShmeo]

I voted Tigers, as well.  But the fact that Prince Fielder was a virtual automatic out and Miguel Cabrerra was hurting made them a little less formidable than they otherwise appear on paper.  Then again, that starting pitching staff...

 

[Saints Rest]

Yeh, I don't think you can look at a season's worth of pitching stats to judge the strength of a playoff team. Pitching in the playoffs is a different animal:
 
- No 5th starter
- Starters as relievers
- Aces on short rest
- Playoff managing
 
There's a lot to be said for the 2013 Tigers given their starters playoff rotation.
 
Then again: Mussina, Lieber, Brown, Hernandez (ERA+ of 98, 110, 104 and 137) - backed up by the best closer in the history of baseball, is nothing to sneeze at. That's partially why I voted that team.

In many ways, a team's ability to outperform Pythaogoras might (maybe worth a much more in-depth study) be indicative of a team's abilities in the playoffs, since, if I understand it correctly, the variance is often seen in the ability of one's bullpen.  And as the Royals are showing now, a bullpen can be a larger than normal factor in the playoffs due to built-in off-days.

 

[chrisfont9]

I voted Tigers, as well.  But the fact that Prince Fielder was a virtual automatic out and Miguel Cabrerra was hurting made them a little less formidable than they otherwise appear on paper.  Then again, that starting pitching staff...

Yeah, I definitely walked away from that series thinking they were a deeply flawed team that couldn't get out of its own way on the basepaths or on defense. But they're still the only team on that list I think we probably should have lost to. Them or the '86 Angels, but all I remember about that team was Mike Witt and a bunch of aging sluggers in their lineup. Wasn't Brian Downing, a former catcher, playing center for them?

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Before I even looked at the records, my first thought was "1912 Giants." A great team with a terrifying pitching staff.
 
Of the ones I've actually seen, I'd have to say the 2013 Tigers or the '04 Yanks. Though the '99 Indians would be a dark horse. My god, that lineup.

 

[Hee Sox Choi]

Of the ones I've actually seen, I'd have to say the 2013 Tigers or the '04 Yanks. Though the '99 Indians would be a dark horse. My god, that lineup.

My exact thinking.  Same 3.  I went with 04 Yanks but after reading the thread, I should have went with the 13 Tigers.  But it was close.  

 

[ehaz]

Their starting pitching was iffy but I'm still surprised that was a sweep.
 
Pujols (8.5 bWAR)
Edmonds (7.2 bWAR)
Rolen (9.1 bWAR)
 
I can't remember the last time a team had three quasi-Hall of Famers in the middle of their lineups in their primes.  
 
Edmonds - 14th all time in CF WAR
Rolen - 10th all time at 3B
Pujols - 2nd all time at 1B

 

[HriniakPosterChild]

The 105-win 2004 Cardinals?  

 
I remember sometime around 2003-04 that Theo said the Red Sox had done simulations that showed that playing in the NL would give a team's record a 10-win boost. I was scared of that team until we beat them. After that, yeah, they looked like a 95-win AL team.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

Was tempted to pick the 1912 Giants but settled on the 2004 Cardinals - just for the record mind you. They didn't seem that tough a team on close inspection.

 

[Mike F]

I would have voted, if the choice was there, for the 1946 Red Sox. Although it was more an injury to Dominic than anything else.

 

[C4CRVT]

I had to look up the 1912 NY Giants to find out a little more about them. By the numbers, they're the best, relative to the strength of the league the year the Sox eliminated them.
 
I mean, that would be the question right? Otherwise it's probably 04 Cards or Yankees. I'm throwing out 13 Detroit because of the injury to Miggy. If you went Field of Dreams style and they're all in transported in time to play a big tournament against each other in the exact physical shape they were during the time they played the Sox, my money on the 04 Yankees.

 

[MentalDisabldLst]

I would have voted, if the choice was there, for the 1946 Red Sox. Although it was more an injury to Dominic than anything else.

 
"which was the best team that eliminated the Red Sox in the postseason" might make an interesting 2nd poll.  But what I was going for here was, where was the greatest sense of "My god, how did we beat those guys?!".
 
2013 Tigers are getting a lot of recency bias and some of it is deserved, but history would suggest that the 1912 Giants may have been the most fearsome.  However, they were also probably facing the most fearsome Red Sox team of all time, too. +255 Run Differential, topping even our 2007 and 1949 squads.

 

[cannonball 1729]

No love for the three-time defending champion 1975 A's?  Not only did the Sox beat the A's, they swept them.

 

[Leather]

I voted last year's Tigers, primarily due to the combination of having a ridiculous rotation plus a couple of HOF-level boppers in the middle of the order, the likes of which really haven't been seen since Manny-Papi circa 2003-2004. The Tigers dominated the first 16 innings of that series and it may well have gone on to be a sweep if not for Papi.
 
Edit: adding team OPS+ and ERA+ would be a great data point...
 
Double edit: Detroit had a 111 OPS+ and 116 ERA+ last year as a point of comparison. 2004 St. Louis had a 107 OPS+ and 113 ERA+ so 2013 Detroit wins in both those categories
 
The 2004 MFY had a 111 OPS+ and 96 ERA+. They were a below average pitching team and probably don't belong in the discussion
 
Last year's Cardinals had a 102 OPS+ and 110 ERA+. Out.

 
You shouldn't compare AL and NL teams using OPS+ that includes pitchers for the NL teams, though.   
 
2013 Cardinals had a 109+ OPS+ for non pitchers.
 
The 2004 Cardinals (my vote) had a non pitcher OPS+ of 114, and an ERA+ of 113.

 

[mauf]

Are BP third-order wins available for prior years?
 
I think the 2013 Tigers had something like 105 third-order wins. I don't recall any team having that high a total (though obviously those advanced stats only go back so far). And with so much of the Tigers' strength focused in those top three SPs, their greatness was actually magnified in a short series.

 

[Leather]

But the question isn't "Which was the hardest team for the Sox to beat in the Playoffs?"  It's "Which was the best team..."
 
Granted, the answer could very well be the same, but I don't know how far down that road we want to go.

 

[chrisfont9]

 
"which was the best team that eliminated the Red Sox in the postseason" might make an interesting 2nd poll.  But what I was going for here was, where was the greatest sense of "My god, how did we beat those guys?!".
 
2013 Tigers are getting a lot of recency bias and some of it is deserved, but history would suggest that the 1912 Giants may have been the most fearsome.  However, they were also probably facing the most fearsome Red Sox team of all time, too. +255 Run Differential, topping even our 2007 and 1949 squads.

How do you even begin to assess the 1912 Giants? Run differential shows how much better they were compared to other 1912 teams, but what does that even mean? I'm fine with having them in there, this is fun to discuss, but I'm not sure what to do with the information.
 
I do like the 1-2 of Mathewson and Marquard, and it's nice to remember Fred Merkle for making good plays, though.

 

[chrisfont9]

Are BP third-order wins available for prior years?
 
I think the 2013 Tigers had something like 105 third-order wins. I don't recall any team having that high a total (though obviously those advanced stats only go back so far). And with so much of the Tigers' strength focused in those top three SPs, their greatness was actually magnified in a short series.

Could it be argued that their baserunning ineptitude was equally magnified? I'd argue yes, since they lost three one-run games and the fourth loss included that classic rally-killing moment where Fielder beached himself about ten feet from third base. They were a fascinating team, and if they were 100% healthy I don't know how that one turns out.

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

Are BP third-order wins available for prior years?
 
I think the 2013 Tigers had something like 105 third-order wins. I don't recall any team having that high a total (though obviously those advanced stats only go back so far). And with so much of the Tigers' strength focused in those top three SPs, their greatness was actually magnified in a short series.

 
Their major weakness, just like this year, was the bullpen. Seven earned runs in 12 2/3 IP, including two(!) notable grand slams. Compare that to Boston's 1 ER over 21 IP. 

 

[Hank Scorpio]

Voted for the 2013 Tigers for reasons listed above.
 
And the Tigers starting pitching did not disappoint.
 
First time for each starter:
 
Sanchez: 6 IP, 0 hits, 0 runs, 6 walks, 12 strikeouts
Scherzer: 7 IP, 2 hits, 1 run, 2 walks, 13 strikeouts
Verlander: 8 IP, 4 hits, 1 run, 1 walk, 10 strikeouts
Fister: 6 IP, 8 hits, 1 run, 1 walk, 7 strikeouts
 
...looks like the makings of a sweep. It's amazing we came away with a split of those first four games. Papi's grand slam was huge, but the series win was also in large part thanks to John Lackey's Game 3 effort.

 

[tims4wins]

Those numbers are insane. 27 IP, 24 baserunners, 42 (!!!) Ks, 3 runs. And a 2-2 series split. Um, ok?

 

[Max Venerable]

1912 Giants.  They had the best pitching and offense in the NL, and Chisty Mathewson, Rube Maquard and a rookie Jeff Tesraeu, who led the league with a 173 ERA+ that season.  Verlander, Scherzer and Sanchez is good, but not that good.
 
Detroit, by comparison, was 2nd in runs scored and third in runs allowed, and much closer to the middle of the pack in both cases.

 

[Comfortably Lomb]

Those numbers are insane. 27 IP, 24 baserunners, 42 (!!!) Ks, 3 runs. And a 2-2 series split. Um, ok?

 
Detroit's bullpen was a gas can.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

How do you even begin to assess the 1912 Giants? Run differential shows how much better they were compared to other 1912 teams, but what does that even mean?

 
Um....pretty much what run differential always means?
 
I'm not sure I understand your perplexity. I mean, sure, we didn't see them, so we have no observations to supplement the numerical information or the wonderful anecdotal accounts of many of these players in The Glory of Their Times. And the numerical information is less plentiful in some respects. But there's still plenty of evidence that they were a juggernaut.
 
They were a bit like the 2013 Red Sox in that they didn't beat you with superstars but with a relentless lineup of versatile, above-average players. Chief Meyers had a career year, catching 122 games and posting an insane--for the dead-ball era--.441 on-base percentage. The infield of Merkle, Larry Doyle, Art Fletcher and Buck Herzog was regarded as defensively brilliant and Merkle and Doyle were good hitters as well, with decent power for the era (both over 10 HR). The outfield of Red Murray, Fred Snodgrass and Beals Becker was, again, strong on both sides of the diamond though not dominant in any one aspect of the game. And on the bench were future stars George Burns and Heinie Groh as well as a solid fourth outfielder in Josh Devore. It was a deep, good team.
 
And then of course the pitching. Marquard was no Hall of Famer but he was magnificent that year, and then Mathewson, Tesreau, and a typically fine season by Doc Crandall, perhaps the game's first notable relief specialist.

 

[chrisfont9]

 
Um....pretty much what run differential always means?
 
I'm not sure I understand your perplexity. I mean, sure, we didn't see them, so we have no observations to supplement the numerical information or the wonderful anecdotal accounts of many of these players in The Glory of Their Times. And the numerical information is less plentiful in some respects. But there's still plenty of evidence that they were a juggernaut.
 
They were a bit like the 2013 Red Sox in that they didn't beat you with superstars but with a relentless lineup of versatile, above-average players. Chief Meyers had a career year, catching 122 games and posting an insane--for the dead-ball era--.441 on-base percentage. The infield of Merkle, Larry Doyle, Art Fletcher and Buck Herzog was regarded as defensively brilliant and Merkle and Doyle were good hitters as well, with decent power for the era (both over 10 HR). The outfield of Red Murray, Fred Snodgrass and Beals Becker was, again, strong on both sides of the diamond though not dominant in any one aspect of the game. And on the bench were future stars George Burns and Heinie Groh as well as a solid fourth outfielder in Josh Devore. It was a deep, good team.
 
And then of course the pitching. Marquard was no Hall of Famer but he was magnificent that year, and then Mathewson, Tesreau, and a typically fine season by Doc Crandall, perhaps the game's first notable relief specialist.

That's probably more helpful than statistics. My question about run differential has to do with how do you assess such a number when the league was so different -- how much talent was there? How balanced were teams? etc. But whatever, this description is more helpful anyway.

 

[PAB1353]

Themselves, in 2003.  F you Grady Little!

 

[steveluck7]

1999 Indians is my vote. First team to score 1,000 runs. Manny, Lofton, Justice, Thome, both Alomars, plus Dave Roberts.

 

[phenweigh]

 
where was the greatest sense of "My god, how did we beat those guys?!".
 

The answer for to that question for me is definitely the 2013 Tigers, because those may be my exact words when it happened.  Their starting pitching performed at a mind-blowing level.  Granted, Miggy was hobbled, but that was still a very formidible offense.  Sure, the bullpen wasn't a strength, they ranked 12th in the AL in reliever ERA, but the Sox were 10th so it's not like it looked like a big advantage for the Sox going into the series.  Of course it turned out that way.  And how often is baserunning such a deciding factor? 
 
Props must go to the 1912 Giants based on the numbers, but only based on the numbers it's hard to assess the quoted question.  Plus from 1910-1918 the NL only won one world series, so it could be the NL was weak compared to the during that era.  Also considering that era, it's quite possible gambling shennanigans played a part in the outcome.  Anyway, I'm not trying to denegrate the 1912 Giants, it's just that I can't go there on numbers alone and I'm trying to justify why I should ignore them.

 

[BoSox Rule]

Torn between the 04 Cards and last years Cards and Tigers. Ended up going 04 Cards which I am surprised more people went with the 04 Yankees over them, probably because of that heart attack of an ALCS. But I think if the Yankees pull that one out they get smoked by the Cards powerhouse offense, they didn't have Pedro or Schilling.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

That's probably more helpful than statistics. My question about run differential has to do with how do you assess such a number when the league was so different -- how much talent was there? How balanced were teams? etc. But whatever, this description is more helpful anyway.

 
Sorry, now I see where you were going. I was assuming we were answering the question "which was the best team relative to its contemporary competition" that the Sox ever beat in a postseason series, not which was the best team in absolute terms. I think it's a given that modern teams would beat early teams, just because there is such a larger pool of players to choose from, and scouting and development and physical training have progressed so much. But I don't know how you quantify that, so I was sticking to the relative version of the question, for which run differential seems just as relevant in 1912 as now.

 

[m0ckduck]

I remember sometime around 2003-04 that Theo said the Red Sox had done simulations that showed that playing in the NL would give a team's record a 10-win boost. 

 
I started a thread around this same topic a year ago yesterday, but limited the candidates to AL teams only for exactly this reason-- it seems too hard to gauge NL talent across leagues when so many of the NL teams we beat either (a) played a century ago or (b) played during a recent period of gross AL/NL inequality. 
 
Among vanquished AL foes, my vote went to the '13 Tigers. However...
 

Yeah, I definitely walked away from that series thinking they were a deeply flawed team that couldn't get out of its own way on the basepaths or on defense. But they're still the only team on that list I think we probably should have lost to. 

 
... I'm surprised the '03 A's don't get more respect along these lines-- a whole parade of things had to go wrong for us to eek that series out.
 
I remember coming out of last year's exercise also feeling that two slightly overrated teams are the '04 Yanks  (89 win pythagorean record) and the '99 Indians (great lineup, yes, but also a product of an extreme offense-friendly environment). 

 

[tims4wins]

Cleveland had relatively bad pitching in 99

edit: 102 ERA+

offense had a 111 OPS+ - product of era/stadium. They were very good offensively but not otherworldly

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Torn between the 04 Cards and last years Cards and Tigers. Ended up going 04 Cards which I am surprised more people went with the 04 Yankees over them, probably because of that heart attack of an ALCS. But I think if the Yankees pull that one out they get smoked by the Cards powerhouse offense, they didn't have Pedro or Schilling.

 
First of all, NL teams have to be discounted, because...
 
The 2004 Yankee post-season lineup had 6 regulars with more than 20 home runs, and 2 more players with ~15 home runs in 106 games. Everyone except Clark and Sierra had an OPS+ > 100 (the Sox also had 7 players >100) with Sheffield at 141, Matsui at 137 and Slappy at 131. 
 
That team scored 897 runs (including 242 home runs) and gave up 752 runs (182 home runs).
 
They were ranked 2nd in runs scored (Red Sox 1st),  1st in home runs (tied with the White Sox) and 2nd in OPS (Red Sox 1st).
 
The offensive matchup really tested the Red Sox who had the ungodly Manny and Ortiz, but weakened in the rest of the lineup.
 
I already gave my opinion about post-season pitching in general and the Yankees in particular. I still think the 2004 Yankees represented the toughest matchup...but I guess that wasn't the question..."What Was the Best Team?"
 
Regardless, I'm promoting my choice.

 

[foulkehampshire]

The 2003 Redsox eliminated themselves. Why isn't this an option?

 

[chrisfont9]

... I'm surprised the '03 A's don't get more respect along these lines-- a whole parade of things had to go wrong for us to eek that series out.

The 2003 A's had Hudson-Zito-Mulder and Foulke, which masked a pretty forgettable lineup (Tejada, Durazo, Chavez and Ramon Hernandez did most of the damage). I think there's an argument to be made about their overall quality, and as to the specifics of the series, if Jermaine Dye plays a decent RF in Fenway, we probably don't get out of that trap.
 
Was that the Moneyball team that won 20 straight? Or was that the 2002 team?

 

[Al Zarilla]

The 2003 A's had Hudson-Zito-Mulder and Foulke, which masked a pretty forgettable lineup (Tejada, Durazo, Chavez and Ramon Hernandez did most of the damage). I think there's an argument to be made about their overall quality, and as to the specifics of the series, if Jermaine Dye plays a decent RF in Fenway, we probably don't get out of that trap.
 
Was that the Moneyball team that won 20 straight? Or was that the 2002 team?

2002, and don't post like that in the 2015 OF Discussion thread! LOL.

 

 

[HriniakPosterChild]

The 2003 A's had Hudson-Zito-Mulder and Foulke, which masked a pretty forgettable lineup (Tejada, Durazo, Chavez and Ramon Hernandez did most of the damage). I think there's an argument to be made about their overall quality, and as to the specifics of the series, if Jermaine Dye plays a decent RF in Fenway, we probably don't get out of that trap.

 
If Eric Byrnes goes back and tags home plate instead of starting a shoving contest with Varitek...
 
If Tejada hadn't given up on the base paths after Mueller's obstruction...
 
If Varitek hadn't maneuvered Chavez into an obstruction call that allowed Varitek's run to score...
 
If Tim Hudson hadn't gotten into an altercation in a local night spot the night before he pitched in Fenway...

 

[chrisfont9]

 
 
If Eric Byrnes goes back and tags home plate instead of starting a shoving contest with Varitek...
 
If Tejada hadn't given up on the base paths after Mueller's obstruction...
 
If Varitek hadn't maneuvered Chavez into an obstruction call that allowed Varitek's run to score...
 
If Tim Hudson hadn't gotten into an altercation in a local night spot the night before he pitched in Fenway...
 

Right!
 
Why does it seem the Sox' postseason escapades always include an unbelievable amount of drama?
 
Byrnes' was the worst. It's like he didn't even care if he scored, his ankle hurt and he was mad. That's all that mattered.

 

[smastroyin]

 
The offensive matchup really tested the Red Sox who had the ungodly Manny and Ortiz, but weakened in the rest of the lineup.
 

 
The 2004 team was deeper than you are giving credit for.  I think you may be inflluenced by the 2005 and most the 2006 teams which really were the Manny Ortez show.
 
Just in ordinal ranking of OPS+ of the playoff starters:
 
BOS - Manny Ramirez 152
BOS - David Ortiz 145
NYY - Sheffield 141
NYY - Matusi 137
NYY - ARod 131
NYY - Posada 131
BOS - Trot Nixon 123
BOS - Jason Varitek 121
BOS - Johnny Damon 117
BOS - Kevin Millar 117
NYY - Derek Jeter 114
NYY - Bernie Williams 108
BOS - Mark Bellhorn 107
BOS - Bill Mueller 106
NYY - Tony Clark 95
NYY - Tony Clark 95
NYY - John Olerud 94 (101 NYY only)
BOS - Orlando Cabrera 74 (97 BOS only)
 
You may have just taken a cursory look at BB-ref and not realized they list Kapler (77) and Reese(46) as the starters in RF and SS, which makes them look more lopsided.

 

[JGray38]

1999 Indians is my vote. First team to score 1,000 runs. Manny, Lofton, Justice, Thome, both Alomars, plus Dave Roberts.

Minor nit to pick- they're the last team to score 1000. 6 other teams have, including the 1950 Red Sox. That said- yeah murderer's row lineup, but Dave Burba, Charles Nagy as your 2-3 staters isn't striking fear in anyone.

 

[Max Venerable]

Out of the teams so far discussed in depth, I'd rank the pitching staffs as:
 
#1 1912 NYG (Mathewson, Tesreau, Marquard, Ames)
#2 2003 OAK (Mulder, Hudson, Zito, Foulke)
#3 2013 DET (Scherzer, Sanchez, Verlander, Benoit)
 
Of these, the Giants have the best top end arms by a good distance.  The average of their top four starters is a 151 ERA+.  For comparison, Oakland's is 136 and Detroit's is 135.  Both Oakland and Detroit had good closers those seasons (Foulke and Benoit), but with Complete Games in over 50% of the Giants' best starters' starts, not sure that should be factored in as an advantage. 

 

[54thMA]

No love for the three-time defending champion 1975 A's?  Not only did the Sox beat the A's, they swept them.

 
They got my vote
 

 

[cannonball 1729]

 

 
 

... I'm surprised the '03 A's don't get more respect along these lines-- a whole parade of things had to go wrong for us to eek that series out.
 

 
 
 

The 2003 A's had Hudson-Zito-Mulder and Foulke, which masked a pretty forgettable lineup (Tejada, Durazo, Chavez and Ramon Hernandez did most of the damage). I think there's an argument to be made about their overall quality, and as to the specifics of the series, if Jermaine Dye plays a decent RF in Fenway, we probably don't get out of that trap.
 
 

Of course part of the reason that the series was so close was because of self-inflicted wounds.  Gump left Burkett in to give up the lead in game 4, he proctored and then buried BH Kim, he pinch-hit Adrian Brown for Trot in game 1 (because he got outmaneuvered on lefty-righty matchups), he even put in a defensive replacement for the hottest hitter on the team (Todd Walker) in the sixth inning of game 5 (which was particularly awesome when that defensive replacement knocked heads with Johnny Damon and sent the latter off on a stretcher).  The A's put up a fight, but they were certainly getting help from the opposing manager.

 

[smastroyin]

The 2013 Tigers remind me a lot, BTW of the best Red Sox team not to make the post-season in the modern era - the 2002 Red Sox.
 
2nd in the league in R/G, 3rd in OPS (4th OPS+).  3rd in RA/G and ERA (1st in ERA+).  They made the right deadline deals in picking up Embree and Floyd who were both great for them.  They called up the right guy and got great performance in Casey Fossum when they needed Wakefield in the pen.  Among qualifiers, they had the top 3 starters in the league by ERA+, they were 1st, 4th, and 7th in FIP.  But of course, the offense was absolutely destroyed (despite their ranking) by Tony Clark's putrid year and the second base freakshow (Rey Sanchez being Rey Sanchez, Jose Offerman being done, Carlos Baerga being a really really dumb signing).  
 
Maybe other teams would consider those 2002 Sox a formidable playoff opponent if they'd gotten that far.  They finished 7 games behind Pythag though I suspect 3rd order would only put them at about 97 wins or so based on the underlying stats - I don't have a BP sub to check though.
 
2004 erased game 7 of 2003 for a lot of people, me included, but it also erased the annoyance of that season that should-have-been-and-wasn't.

 

[bob burda]

 
They got my vote
 

I wanted to go with the 75 Oakland club too, but they were really uneven - no starting pitching beyond near HOF caliber Blue and Holtzman (and hence Holtzman on 2 days rest), some outstanding players (Jackson, Tenace, Rudi), good defense (when not losing balls in the fall glare at Fenway)  and three good heavily utilized bulpen guys, but nothing beyond the strengths. 
 
I'm taking the '04 Cardinals.  What the '04 Cardinals and '75 A's share is that the Sox never really let them in those series....both teams were in a few of the games, e.g. Oakland led early in Game 2 and had an aborted "comeback that never was" in Game 3, and the Cardinals were tough in a see-saw Game1, but neither team was ever in those series.  Those were good teams that got hit, went down early, and did not recover. 
  
I would concede that on paper, the 1912 Giants are probably the one, but the reference points are all too far off to have meaning for me....e.g. we just don't have good game film, or any kind of image of what made Christy Mathewson so good, or highly nuanced accounts of John McGraw's excellence as an in game manager (unlike Earl Weaver, or Tito). 
 
The actual toughness of the opponent in the series is a different issue, and so is the degree to which they might have been  terrifying....on the terrifying level, the '99 Cleveland team was outstanding; they could make a 23-7 game seem almost close (never has a 13 or 16 run lead felt like a "two posession game").