Could we be in for a Record Season?

twosevenkid

lurker
Jul 15, 2016
15
The Red Sox are off to their best start ever and we all wondering how long this will continue. We are also still in the first month so anything could happen. BUT, does anyone have any bold predictions for the club or players this year? Any records in reach? We have numerous players outperforming, but we also have some under performers and many starters yet to return.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best_Major_League_Baseball_season_win-loss_records

The current ML record for wins is 116 set by the 1906 Cubs and tied by the 2001 Mariners. Will they reach 117? The highest winning percentage of .763 also set by the 1906 Cubs. In 162 games to break, would translate to 124 victories.
 

twosevenkid

lurker
Jul 15, 2016
15
I should also add, our own club record for 1912, was 105 wins with a .691 winning %. In 162 games we'd need 112 wins to break. The last time we broke 100 wins was 1946 at 104
 

uk_sox_fan

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 11, 2006
1,161
London, England
Far, far, far too early for this post. If you want to start a thread which tracks how well this team is doing against various benchmarks (e.g. winning 100 games or an evolving eWin total) then, yes put something up. But please don't start something that would make everyone cringe to look at it after our first 4 game losing streak induces a bit of reality.
 

mt8thsw9th

anti-SoSHal
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
17,120
Brooklyn
Why oh why must people do this? Has everyone forgotten 2002?
First thing I thought of in the other thread(s) about the fast start with the new manager. That team was on a 114 win pace through June 6. Major difference being that I think the rotation is stronger 1-6 and the manager isn't a complete mental midget. That 2002 rotation was a total shitshow beyond Wakefield when he finally settled in as the #3.
 

Pitt the Elder

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 7, 2013
2,155
Won't the more important question be who is overperforming and underperforming expectations throughout the year? I think something like this thread we had last year comparing 2018 performance versus projected performance on a player-by-player basis will help us determine how *real* the current team performance is. What's encouraging about this hot start, IMO, is that nearly every player is performing within a reasonable projection of his performance, with the exception being Mookie (1.249 OPS) and smaller sample guys like Xander (1.111 OPS in 38 AB), Moreland (1.025 OPS in 31 AB), and Lin (.974 OPS in 16 AB). Of course, we all know Mookie is capable of an MVP-caliber season and the other three guys will normalize with more at-bats, but this lineup seems legit and we know starting pitching can be special.

Conversations about how many wins we'll have this season is premature, but evaluating players and their aggregate performance relative to our expectations should be fair game.
 

Wallball Tingle

union soap
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
2,066
If the season is a baseball game, and the Red Sox have scored 5 in the 1st, does it follow they will score 30+ in the game?
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
11,909
Silly thread this early in the year.

But thankfully, Mookie's ability to square up a fastball, or Sale's ability to paint a corner, is completely independent of a silly SOSH thread.
 

Soxfan in Fla

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 30, 2001
7,174
Obviously it looks like this team could be very good. The lineup is pretty stacked outside of catcher and 1-6 in the rotation looks to be very good. Kimbrel solifies thevprn. The one worry I have of a weak link is the 7th and 8th inning out of the pen.

The nice thing about a start this hot is they are building distance against the Yanks which could easily get them pressing sooner rather than later, especially considering their youth. Hope this keeps rolling for at least a couple more weeks before it maybe normalizes.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
13,858
Maine
I wonder how many Dodger threads like this there were last year
There was one on this site, but it was started on August 8 because on April 19, the Dodgers were only 8-8. Worth noting as well that after that thread was started, they finished the season 25-25.

I'm not one to worry about juju or mojo, but any thoughts of record breaking seasons when the season is barely 10% complete is premature and best left unspoken.
 

wilked

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
2,441
The 1/3 mark is the right time to at least ask that question.

If I have it right, that will be about June 1.

The 2/3 mark is the right time to answer the question.

If I have that right, it will be about Aug 1
 

InstaFace

MDLzera
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
15,012
Pittsburgh, PA
In 2004, we had a 16-1 stretch. That year ended well, and it was suggestive of the underlying quality of the team, but you can't extrapolate from extreme events.

This start is auspicious, but let's bear Winston Wolfe's maxim in mind.

edit: also, Bill Belichick thinks 15-2 is a pretty average season. Which should blow everyone's mind a little.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
22,333
I should also add, our own club record for 1912, was 105 wins with a .691 winning %. In 162 games we'd need 112 wins to break. The last time we broke 100 wins was 1946 at 104
For point of reference, to win 105 games, we're going to have win 90 games, which is a .621 winning percentage going forward, and also probably means that we would be qualifying for a playoff spot even if we went 0-17 instead of 15-2.

First thing I thought of in the other thread(s) about the fast start with the new manager. That team was on a 114 win pace through June 6. Major difference being that I think the rotation is stronger 1-6 and the manager isn't a complete mental midget. That 2002 rotation was a total shitshow beyond Wakefield when he finally settled in as the #3.
2002 looks to me like a scheduling fluke, as prior to June 1, they played 21 games against TB, TOR, and BAL and went 17-4 (if I can count, which is never a sure thing) - they were 16-3, 13-6, and 13-6 respectively versus these teams over the season. Add in a 7-3 record against the NYY (they ended up 9-10 against them), and you can see why the 1st half of 2002 was so good.

That team was hurt by going 5-13 against the NL.
 

twosevenkid

lurker
Jul 15, 2016
15
https://www.mlb.com/news/hottest-team-starts-in-baseball-history/c-269855358

^ While we won't get "MOST CONSECUTIVE WINS TO START SEASON," here were the other milestones

BEST START THROUGH 25 GAMES
1955 Dodgers: 22-3
Final record: 98-55 (Won World Series)

BEST START THROUGH 40 GAMES
1984 Tigers: 35-5
Final record: 104-58 (Won World Series)

BEST START THROUGH 60 GAMES
1912 Giants: 48-11 (1 tie)
Final record: 103-48 (Lost World Series)

BEST FIRST HALF
1998 Yankees: 61-20 (.753 winning percentage)
Final record: 114-48 (Won World Series)

We're currently projecting 99 wins on fangraphs: https://www.fangraphs.com/depthcharts.aspx?position=Standings
 

uk_sox_fan

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 11, 2006
1,161
London, England
Taking from this ESPN article and expanding with a bit of research, there have been 7 previous teams in the past 100 years to have started the year 15-2 or 16-1 (the record for perfect starts are shared by the 1982 Braves and 1987 Brewers at 13-0 and the 1988 Orioles at 0-21).

  • Two of them won World Series Championships: the 1955 Brooklyn Dodgers and the 1984 Detroit Tigers
  • Three won the equivalent of 100 games out of 162: the 55 Dodgers (98-55 = 103.8/162), the 84 Tigers (104-58) and the 2003 SF Giants (100-61)
  • Four made the playoffs: the aforementioned Dodgers and Tigers + the '03 Giants lost the NLDS to the Marlins 3-1 and the 1981 A's (64-45 = 95.1/162) lost the ALCS 3-0 to the MFY after sweeping the Royals in the ALDS
  • Three failed to make the playoffs:
The 1918 NY Baseball Giants started 18-1 but ended up 71-53 (92.8-69.2 equivalent), 10 1/2 games behind the Cubs who lost to the Sox in the WS...
The 1987 Brewers started off 13-0, 17-1 and 20-3 but ended 3rd in the AL East at 91-71, 7 games behind Detroit and 5 behind Toronto
The 1966 Indians started 10-0 and 15-2 but were unable to finish better than 81-81, in 5th place (out of 10) in the AL and 17 games behind Baltimore.

So all told the 7 previous teams to start as hot as Boston this year combined to go 609-424 (.590 or 95.5-66.5 equivalent) with 3/7 achieving the 100-game equivalent level of excellence in the regular season and 2/7 winning it all.
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
52,416
San Andreas Fault
Silly thread this early in the year.

But thankfully, Mookie's ability to square up a fastball, or Sale's ability to paint a corner, is completely independent of a silly SOSH thread.
One of Mookie’s HRs in Tuesday night’s game was off a breaking ball. He was on it like a duck on a snail. Good to see for a guy that murders fastballs.
 

drbretto

Speaks Truth to Power
SoSH Member
Apr 10, 2009
10,506
Concord, NH
What is a nice thing to think about, is that we have a thread like this on the main page because the team is playing so well, we literally don't know what we have to criticize yet. There's not much else to even talk about right now.

I completely agree it's too early to tell anything. I remember 2002 very well. I think the problem there might have been complacency. After everyone realized it was a great start, they started playing like they're prepping for the world series in June. It's superstition to worry about the complacency of fans, but most of what makes fans fans is silly, so I like that most here aren't willing to hand this team 100 wins just yet. But I'm ok with celebrating this start. It's been a blast, and intuitively at least, it doesn't seem like it's all smoke and mirrors.

This was supposed to be a great team last year. They underperformed. Now they're rejuvenated, seem to have better managerial support and the kids are all a year more mature. It does seem like there isn't any particular part of the game they're weak at right now. Starting pitching is top notch. The bullpen is pretty solid, especially on the back end. They're currently #1 in most offensive categories. They've been solid defensively, and the bench has even been a big help while we're going through this stretch down a couple of men.

My main reason for optimism is that this team looks like it could weather some of the potential issues the you can expect in a long, grueling season. We're not relying just one one superstar to push us through. This team has a lot of ways to be successful. I'm excited.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
11,909
One of Mookie’s HRs in Tuesday night’s game was off a breaking ball. He was on it like a duck on a snail. Good to see for a guy that murders fastballs.
The kid can play baseball. When you factor in every skill, he's right up there among the elite, wouldn't you say? Hits for average, hits for power, runs like the wind, and is a terrific baserunner (i.e., he's not just fast), plays great defense, has a good arm. Likable guy. He's only 25.
 

keninten

lurker
Nov 24, 2005
588
Tennessee
The Sox will have a hard time getting 100 wins. The better they play the more rest Cora can give all the starters. Especially if they have a large lead in September.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
13,858
Maine
The kid can play baseball. When you factor in every skill, he's right up there among the elite, wouldn't you say? Hits for average, hits for power, runs like the wind, and is a terrific baserunner (i.e., he's not just fast), plays great defense, has a good arm. Likable guy. He's only 25.
But does he *scare* anybody? /mazz
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
13,651
St. Louis, MO
2007 we got off to a phenomenal start, not quite like this, but we at one point had a 14 game lead over the Yankees. And we were pissing down our leg the final week trying to hold them off. Little bit of perspective.
 
Sep 13, 2006
690
The Sox will have a hard time getting 100 wins...
The '16 and '17 editions each won 93 games. Through 17 games their records were as follows:

2016: 8-9
2017: 10-7

The '78 Sox (who won 99 games) were 11-6 through 17 games.

The 100-win plateau may not be as high a mountain as some of you think it is.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
13,858
Maine
The 100-win plateau may not be as high a mountain as some of you think it is.
Then why has it been 72 years since it last happened for this team?

The goal isn't to win 100+ games, it's to finish with more wins than the team in second and then have success in the post-season.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
19,711
Then why has it been 72 years since it last happened for this team?
The goal isn't to win 100+ games, it's to finish with more wins than the team in second and then have success in the post-season.
A lot also depends on the how shitty or not shitty Baltimore and TB become. Are the Sox going to go a merely solid .667 (12-6) against one or both of them, or win a more unusual .833 15-3? Or will they have some trouble against a team that cant beat anyone?
Just finish first. Little else matters.
 

Pandemonium67

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
4,899
Lesterland
The old saying is you can't win the division in April, but you can lose it.

So far, the Sox have simply avoided losing the division. There's plenty of reason for optimism, but the rest of the story is yet to be written.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
The Sox will have a hard time getting 100 wins. The better they play the more rest Cora can give all the starters. Especially if they have a large lead in September.
Just remember that "this time it don't count ", and best record gets home field advantage in the WS. And the DH for those home games.

Also, who knows who was winning the Boston marathon this week after 3 miles?
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
68,206
Oregon
We could very well see a handful of 100 win teams this year, and a handful of 100 loss teams, because of so many stripped-down franchises. To me, that would lessen the achievement of any "record" season the Red Sox or anyone else sets.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
26,726
Hingham, MA
We could very well see a handful of 100 win teams this year, and a handful of 100 loss teams, because of so many stripped-down franchises. To me, that would lessen the achievement of any "record" season the Red Sox or anyone else sets.
Tanking may have really changed things. It’s like the opposite of the NFL parity
 

NJ_Sox_Fan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 2, 2006
6,831
NJ
At this point I am hoping for a run like the '84 Tigers who started at an incredible 35-5 pace, but I know that's not realistic.

However, other than tonight, between now and May 8th (Yankees) they really don't play a good team, unless you're a believer in the Jays (I am not), and then don't play another good team until May 31st (Astros).

A 30-10 or better start is pretty realistic IMO. That would require a 15-8 record in their next 23 games against the A's, Jays, Yanks, Rays, Royals, Rangers, As again, Jays, Os and then they move on to the Rays again and then Braves (yes I know that's more than the next 31 games).

Obviously anything can happen, but there isn't a series there besides the Yanks where I see a team that the Sox may have an issue with in taking that series.
 

TFisNEXT

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
11,024
For point of reference, to win 105 games, we're going to have win 90 games, which is a .621 winning percentage going forward, and also probably means that we would be qualifying for a playoff spot even if we went 0-17 instead of 15-2.


2002 looks to me like a scheduling fluke, as prior to June 1, they played 21 games against TB, TOR, and BAL and went 17-4 (if I can count, which is never a sure thing) - they were 16-3, 13-6, and 13-6 respectively versus these teams over the season. Add in a 7-3 record against the NYY (they ended up 9-10 against them), and you can see why the 1st half of 2002 was so good.

That team was hurt by going 5-13 against the NL.
The 2002 slide started against the D-backs I recall very well. They were swept at home in Fenway by them....they concluded June with something like a 2-9 stretch where the only two wins were games pitched by Pedro Martinez. That stretch is also the last time they would ever see first place in the AL East that season.
 

Laser Show

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 7, 2008
5,008
They better be stocking up on wins now. September schedule has the Mets, the Astros, the Blue Jays, the Yankees twice, and the Indians.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
I'd say that you can look at the Celtics this season and see how valuable it was to them that they banked a bunch of wins early on, when they got unusually hot and much of the league was still working out stuff. The Sox are banking wins like mad now, which is great insurance against what might come later. We all know the importance of avoiding the Wild Card.

The Fangraphs projection cited above is based on individual performances. It's interesting to think about who might out-play their projections, with prime candidates being the dinged-up bounce-back guys (Hanley, Xander, Price, Pedroia, Mookie I guess) and the wild-pendulum-swing guys (Porcello, also Hanley).

The flip side is that it's hard to identify anyone who might underperform. Of course everyone can, and injuries occur, but absolutely nobody was playing with house money last year and is naturally due for a regression, were they? You could say Devers, being young, or Martinez, being new to the team, or even Sale, wearing down again -- those are the only players for whom you can think of a reason why they might underperform. Plus the bullpen, because bullpen guys are always all over the place.

So, 99 wins is the current expectation. The floor is anywhere from really low in case of injuries everywhere, but if reasonably healthy it's probably still close to 90 wins. And the ceiling, where several players bounce back all season, is ... I almost don't dare to say it. It's pretty high.
 
Sep 13, 2006
690
However, other than tonight, between now and May 8th (Yankees) they really don't play a good team, unless you're a believer in the Jays (I am not), and then don't play another good team until May 31st (Astros).

A 30-10 or better start is pretty realistic IMO. That would require a 15-8 record in their next 23 games against the A's, Jays, Yanks, Rays, Royals, Rangers, As again, Jays, Os and then they move on to the Rays again and then Braves (yes I know that's more than the next 31 games).

Obviously anything can happen, but there isn't a series there besides the Yanks where I see a team that the Sox may have an issue with in taking that series.
Chris "Mad Dog" Russo on High Heat today noted that the Sox sole extended stretch of games against good teams doesn't come until Sept. and stated something to the effect that "they may be 20 games up by then, so it might not even matter."

He's referring to the 15-game stretch commencing on Sept 7th. It runs as follows:

9/7 - 9/9 - home vs Houston
9/11 - 9/13 - home vs Toronto
9/14 - 9/16 - home vs NYM
9/18 - 9/20 - @ NYY
9/21 - 23 - @ CLE

Other than that 15-game stretch, there are only a few other instances where they even play 2 or 3 good teams back-to-back, They are as follows:

5/8 - 5/10 - @ NYY
5/11 - 5/13 - @ TOR

5/28 - 5/30 - @ TOR
5/31 - 6/3 - @ HOU

6/26 - 6/28 - home vs LAA
6/29 - 7/1 - @ NYY
7/2 - 7/4 - @ WAS

8/2 - 8/5 - home vs NYY
8/7 - 8/9 - @ TOR

The schedule bodes well.
 

Adrian's Dome

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2010
4,424
When you get ahead of yourself, the only thing coming is a record amount of injuries.

Pray the Tommy John gods are on our side and enjoy the ride.
 

Pilgrim

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2006
2,287
Jamaica Plain
The thing I remember most about the hot start in 2002 was that people kept saying stuff like "if they go .500 from here, they will still win 90-whatever games!"

And starting at 40-17, thats exactly what they did. I cringe whenever I hear that formulation
 

Philip Jeff Frye

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2001
7,815
First thing I thought of in the other thread(s) about the fast start with the new manager. That team was on a 114 win pace through June 6. Major difference being that I think the rotation is stronger 1-6 and the manager isn't a complete mental midget. That 2002 rotation was a total shitshow beyond Wakefield when he finally settled in as the #3.
First thing I thought when I saw "new manager" here was Morgan Magic in 1988. That team started 14-6, but sputtered to 43-42, which got John McNamara fired. New manager Joe Morgan won his first twelve games and nineteen of his first twenty. What did a 19-1 stretch get us? A team that won 89 games and made trip to the postseason, only to get promptly swept by the A's. It's great that the team is off to a hot, even historic start, but it doesn't mean a lot yet.

The karmic implications of this thread are worrisome.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
7,753
The team has gotten off to an amazing start and is so likable and fun all the way around, so there's nothing wrong with daydreaming a little and imagining great things ahead.