This is the best Red Sox team...ever.

[Pedroia's Itchy Nose]

They have not hit or had good relief pitching vs good teams. They are limping to the finish with a big lead.
Anyway I know the positive thinking crew with jump on me, (100 wins! etc) but the Sox have one win in 5 games vs the Astros and Yankees scoring 15 and giving up 29. They have a .679 ops ins September and .753 against. Take out the three game 2019 Blue Jays open tryout and it is worse.

And the Sox have been running out sub-par lineups in many of these games, sometimes resting a bunch of the regular starters at once and consistently being very cautious about injuries. Cora hasn't been shy about giving a bunch of marginal bullpen guys plenty of opportunities. The team that we've seen over the last couple of weeks is just not the same team that we are likely to see in the playoffs. That isn't to say there aren't some concerning signs -- it's just foolish to think that suddenly the team has turned into a pumpkin in the last month of the season when they've effectively had the luxury of treating these games like Fall Training.

I know. They could fold in the division series rather quickly unless they figure some things.

Yeah, and so could any team. I doubt any postseason team has a better than 75% shot to win their series against any other post-season team, and even that sweet 75% indicates a 25% chance of folding rather quickly. Even if the Sox hitting gets hot and the pitching goes back to "normal", the Sox could still lose if the A's or Yankees get hot too and catch more breaks than the Sox do.

Ironically, Sox fans can look to the 2000 Yankees for some measure of comfort.

And if you prefer less anecdotal evidence, you can take comfort in Jay Jaffe's attempt to find a relationship between late season performance and postseason performance (he failed to find anything) or Chris Bahr's more recent piece looking at second-half records compared to post-season performance (hot second half teams and cold second half teams performed near identically in the playoffs). There may also be some more recent studies, but this is what I found after a quick search.

 

[InsideTheParker]

I was very interested by the comments in last night's game thread about the reason Price pitches poorly in Yankee Stadium being due to his insistence on pitching outside to batters trained to put such pitches in the right porch stands. If this is true, what does it say about either the pitching coach, the manager, or Price?
If Michael Kay thinks that, that doesn't make it right, but a number of Soshers seemed to agree. I wish I could know what the coaching staff thinks. I sometimes worry that they, like the players, might be coasting a bit on the record so far.

 

[jon abbey]

I was very interested by the comments in last night's game thread about the reason Price pitches poorly in Yankee Stadium being due to his insistence on pitching outside to batters trained to put such pitches in the right porch stands. If this is true, what does it say about either the pitching coach, the manager, or Price?
If Michael Kay thinks that, that doesn't make it right, but a number of Soshers seemed to agree. I wish I could know what the coaching staff thinks. I sometimes worry that they, like the players, might be coasting a bit on the record so far.

But Michael Kay is just wrong, which is not unusual. Price’s previous start in NY where he allowed five HRs, one was pulled far down the LF line, two were blasted to center, and two to right but neither were cheap. Furthermore this Yankee team is mostly right-handed and have only hit 12 HRs all season at home of under 350 feet (porch shots), 3 of those happened to be last night (so only 9 total coming in).

 

[Al Zarilla]

Ironically, Sox fans can look to the 2000 Yankees for some measure of comfort. After taking two of three games against the Blue Jays on Sept. 12-14, the 84-60 Yankees proceeded to go 3-14 down the stretch, losing series to the still-powerful Indians as well as the far less impressive Jays, Rays and O's. They hit .240 with a .671 OPS over their final 21 games, the pitching staff had a 7.24 ERA, and they put up a minus-84 run differential during that stretch (72-156). As many of us remember, the Red Sox utterly failed to capitalize on this, playing out the string at a perfectly mediocre 9-9 and finishing 2.5 games back (6 games back of the wild-card Mariners). Once in the postseason, the Yankees survived a tough five-game series against the A's (hmmm ... prophetic?) before regaining their swagger in the ALCS, dropping the opener before pasting the Mariners four games to two to win the AL pennant and then prevailing in the hard-fought Subway Series in five games against the Mets. Last I checked, Yankees fans don't dock the 2000 team style points or put an asterisk next to that year on their 'Got Rings?' t-shirts.

I remember that year down the stretch and actually wanting them to finish it off and clinch. I can't for the life of me remember why now, unless it was that the Red Sox weren't putting up enough of a fight and fer crissakes get the agony over with.

 

[reggiecleveland]

As for Micahel Kay and the 200 Yanks, he said they were exception to the rule of teams that finish poorly and win it all. He was citing anothers article. He was reasoning that the 2018 Yankkes were not a good bet to "turn it on" when games mattered and that the 2000 Yankees had confidence and assurred people when asked they would turn it on and did. Kat also said the 2018 Red Sox seemed more like the 2000 Yankees than the 2018 Yankees.

(Sits back and watches people faced with the narrative they prefer means agreeing with Michael Kay)

 

[chrisfont9]

As for Micahel Kay and the 200 Yanks, he said they were exception to the rule of teams that finish poorly and win it all. He was citing anothers article. He was reasoning that the 2018 Yankkes were not a good bet to "turn it on" when games mattered and that the 2000 Yankees had confidence and assurred people when asked they would turn it on and did. Kat also said the 2018 Red Sox seemed more like the 2000 Yankees than the 2018 Yankees.

(Sits back and watches people faced with the narrative they prefer means agreeing with Michael Kay)

The 2000 Yankees were sitting on three championships in four years, so if you consider "getting hot" as kind of a shorthand for "feeling confident and able to concentrate on playing correctly" then it's not really a good comparison to most teams; they had a unique form of confidence in their favor. I'm more comforted by any evidence that how teams play in the last month doesn't correlate one way or the other, that it's just up to the team and its makeup to focus and play their best once October starts. We have no idea about this Sox team, but they've had the division wrapped up for a while so it's probably not worth getting too wrapped up in September results.

 

[reggiecleveland]

There is no way any of you guys arguing would say this series didn't matter if they pounder the Yankees twice and clinched. You would understandably be pleased and your confidence would be raised.

 

[JohntheBaptist]

There is no way any of you guys arguing would say this series didn't matter if they pounder the Yankees twice and clinched. You would understandably be pleased and your confidence would be raised.

Well yeah. They've won 103 games, their ability to dominate the regular season isn't in question. As far as their playoff picture goes, this series *isn't* make-or-break.

It'd be fun to sweep them here, but then the 2000 Yankees scenario hasn't even happened yet--it's two games.

I don't know what anyone else is saying specifically but 103 wins to this point means that pounding them would feel good, but losing and having 10 games left means a shoulder shrug is pretty fair.

Being worried is certainly anyone's right, I don't think anyone feeling like they're rooting for an excellent team is out of line either, though.

 

[RedOctober3829]

Yeah, I'm sure that's got the Sox shaking in their cleats.

Where do you even come up with this shit?

The reason I said that about the Yankees is because of the fact they had a long track record of postseason success with that group while this Red Sox group does not. It's easy for a group like the late 90's-early 2000's Yankees to shrug off a bad month in the regular season and head into the playoffs with supreme confidence in themselves. That mindset doesn't guarantee they'll go on to win it all or even win a round, but my point was that if any team could think that and it actually coming true it was that team.

I'm sure a 100-plus win team like the Red Sox has the same kind of confidence in themselves that if there was a bad stretch to end the season they can put it behind them because of the large sample size of winning during the season. But until this group make a World Series run there will be questions surrounding them in the postseason.

 

[Pedroia's Itchy Nose]

There is no way any of you guys arguing would say this series didn't matter if they pounder the Yankees twice and clinched. You would understandably be pleased and your confidence would be raised.

I'd be pleased, but it wouldn't really meaningfully affect my confidence. If you've seen any of my recent posts on the topic, I that confidence of any outcome in the postseason is silly. People talk like they are 90% sure the Sox are going to make the ALCS or that they are 90% sure that the Sox are going to go out in the ALDS in 4 games or less. I don't buy it. There is a good chance that the Sox will win and also a good chance that they will lose, and the outcomes of basically all of these September games (barring injuries) barely moves the needle at all.

 

[Adrian's Dome]

The reason I said that about the Yankees is because of the fact they had a long track record of postseason success with that group while this Red Sox group does not. It's easy for a group like the late 90's-early 2000's Yankees to shrug off a bad month in the regular season and head into the playoffs with supreme confidence in themselves. That mindset doesn't guarantee they'll go on to win it all or even win a round, but my point was that if any team could think that and it actually coming true it was that team.

I'm sure a 100-plus win team like the Red Sox has the same kind of confidence in themselves that if there was a bad stretch to end the season they can put it behind them because of the large sample size of winning during the season. But until this group make a World Series run there will be questions surrounding them in the postseason.

People like you will be insufferable if they lose in the postseason. Every excuse and "I told you so!" will come out of the woodwork.

Sometimes, baseball teams just lose games and it's not a greater indication of anything. ESPECIALLY when it's against other good baseball teams.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Here's a crazy possibility. It's a bit unlikely because of the 3 remaining H2H games, but not impossible: the Sox could finish 10 games ahead of a 100-win team. It happens if the Yankees sweep Baltimore, take three of four from TB, and then one of the remaining three with the Sox, while we take two of three in all our remaining series. We end up 110-52 and the Yankees 100-62.

I'm guessing that has never happened.

 

[Rough Carrigan]

Probably not but the 1961 Tigers won 101 games and finished 8 games back.

 

[SirPsychoSquints]

QUOTE="Savin Hillbilly, post: 3017734, member: 34027"]Here's a crazy possibility. It's a bit unlikely because of the 3 remaining H2H games, but not impossible: the Sox could finish 10 games ahead of a 100-win team. It happens if the Yankees sweep Baltimore, take three of four from TB, and then one of the remaining three with the Sox, while we take two of three in all our remaining series. We end up 110-52 and the Yankees 100-62.

I'm guessing that has never happened.[/QUOTE]

2001 A's 102 wins behind the Mariners 116

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

2001 A's 102 wins behind the Mariners 116

These $#@% 116-win teams keep messing me up!

 

[SirPsychoSquints]

These $#@% 116-win teams keep messing me up!

If you extend it more broadly, the 1998 Yankees had 114 and the Astros (in the NL Central, mind you) had 102. Aside from those two years, I don't think there exists a team with 110 wins or more while another team had 100 or more while still being 10 fewer than the first team.

Of course, only 6 teams have won 110 games. So far.

 

[Rasputin]

Then there is no mountain

The goal is to win the World Series as many times as possible before you die.

Unless you plan on dying soon, the time betwixt now and then is long and often uninteresting.

Mountains break up the monotony.

 

[Margo McCready]

Then there is.

Excellent.

 

[AB in DC]

The 1912 Sox won 105 games out of 154.

The 2015 Sox just hit 105 wins in, yes, their 154th game.

 

[Soxfan in Fla]

So we throw the hungover JV squad out there and still win. Impressive.

 

[jaytftwofive]

The 1912 Sox won 105 games out of 154.

The 2015 Sox just hit 105 wins in, yes, their 154th game.

I was just about to post that. So far the 1912 and 1946 Sox had better winning percentages then this 2018 club.

 

[jaytftwofive]

If you extend it more broadly, the 1998 Yankees had 114 and the Astros (in the NL Central, mind you) had 102. Aside from those two years, I don't think there exists a team with 110 wins or more while another team had 100 or more while still being 10 fewer than the first team.

Of course, only 6 teams have won 110 games. So far.

I remember that in 98. In the NL the Braves won 106, the Stros 102 and the Padres 98. The Red Sox had the 2nd most wins in the AL with 92. I really thought the Astros adding Randy Johnson to an already good pitching staff had a real shot at beating the Yanks. But they lost to the Padres and of course the Braves lost again in the NLCS. Johnson was almost signed sealed and delivered to the Indians but Cashman got in to block it by pretending they wanted Johnson. Then the Mariners wanted to much so he bowed out and the Stros got him. Cashman and the Yanks didn't really want Randy. They just didn't want him to go the Tribe. They did not want to face the Indians with him in their rotation.

 

[jaytftwofive]

The reason I said that about the Yankees is because of the fact they had a long track record of postseason success with that group while this Red Sox group does not. It's easy for a group like the late 90's-early 2000's Yankees to shrug off a bad month in the regular season and head into the playoffs with supreme confidence in themselves. That mindset doesn't guarantee they'll go on to win it all or even win a round, but my point was that if any team could think that and it actually coming true it was that team.

I'm sure a 100-plus win team like the Red Sox has the same kind of confidence in themselves that if there was a bad stretch to end the season they can put it behind them because of the large sample size of winning during the season. But until this group make a World Series run there will be questions surrounding them in the postseason.

Agree, that 01 Yankees team was better then the 00 Yanks that won the WS with what 86 wins? They added Messina and Soriano. We got David Cone after his what......4-14 season?!

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

The goal is to win the World Series as many times as possible before you die.

You have this tattooed on your forehead, don’t you?

 

[Rasputin]

You have this tattooed on your forehead, don’t you?

Don't be silly, I couldn't see it if it were on my forehead. I have it tattooed on the inside of my eyelids.

 

[DegenerateSoxFan]

Well, after a 154 game season, this edition wins the AL Pennant by a game, 105-49 vs. 104-50 over Williams’ ‘46 crew. If they win the series, I think we have to seriously consider them for best Sox team ever.

 

[dynomite]

Well, after a 154 game season, this edition wins the AL Pennant by a game, 105-49 vs. 104-50 over Williams’ ‘46 crew. If they win the series, I think we have to seriously consider them for best Sox team ever.

Actually if they win the World Series I think people will have to argue about where they stand among all baseball teams ever — certainly among teams in the modern era.

If give them, say, 109 or 110 regular season wins and add a championship to their resume, we’ll have a great time placing them behind (or among) the ‘98 Yankees (ugh), the ‘67 Cardinals (ugh), the ‘75 Reds (ugh), the ‘86 Mets (ugh), and others.

Let’s hope we get to have that conversation in about a month!

 

[lapa]

I don’t see that it’s a string argument when Houston has a fair edge in expected wins and by ‘smell test’ is ahead of this years Red Sox abc that’s not even factoring in the ‘right now’ uncertainties over Sale, Price (vs NYY where he might get 2 starts), bullpen etc

This years team is not a contender for best red sox team in the past 15 years never mind ever. But it’s been a damn fun one to watch and a successful one - so far. I hope everyone will remember what a great run they had during the season if they don’t go all the way

 

[Adrian's Dome]

This years team is not a contender for best red sox team in the past 15 years never mind ever.

Uh, yes, it is. By almost any statistical measure.

 

[In my lifetime]

This years team is not a contender for best red sox team in the past 15 years never mind ever.

I am not sure how anyone can come to this conclusion at this point in the season. There are 11 wins that are needed in October. If the RS manage to get those 11, then they certainly can be considered one of the best if not the best RS team ever.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

I don’t see that it’s a string argument when Houston has a fair edge in expected wins and by ‘smell test’ is ahead of this years Red Sox abc that’s not even factoring in the ‘right now’ uncertainties over Sale, Price (vs NYY where he might get 2 starts), bullpen etc

This years team is not a contender for best red sox team in the past 15 years never mind ever. But it’s been a damn fun one to watch and a successful one - so far. I hope everyone will remember what a great run they had during the season if they don’t go all the way

The Sox have been in cruise control for awhile now which has affected their run differential, which affects their expected wins total. I'm not sure you can just compare the 2 and say Houston is better because of it. Houston is still playing meaningful baseball games because of the Athletics. The Redsox are sitting half their starters.

 

[sheamonu]

106 wins - unless you believe in * following a record (like Maris in '61) this is going to be a difficult number to dispute when answering the question posed by this thread's title. Not impossible mind you - but having put more runs on the board than the opposition that many times is a very compelling argument. This isn't diving, figure skating or gymnastics. W's matter.

 

[InstaFace]

Red Sox record for the earliest to get to +200 run diff is game 119 (1912 team). The 2018 edition is at +194 after 114 games so could set a new mark. Here's the season RD graph for this year vs 10 of the top Sox seasons by game number (not all-inclusive but tried to get the most significant ones):

View attachment 22503

Can we get a refresh? At +220 with 5 games left, we'll probably top 1950 for 3rd place among RS squads (+223), we might even top 1949 for 2nd (+229), but it's pretty clear we're coming nowhere close to 1912 for top RS run diff of all time (+255). And that 1912 team had 3 in-their-prime HOFers on it.

 

[mdipalma78]

Can we get a refresh? At +220 with 5 games left, we'll probably top 1950 for 3rd place among RS squads (+223), we might even top 1949 for 2nd (+229), but it's pretty clear we're coming nowhere close to 1912 for top RS run diff of all time (+255). And that 1912 team had 3 in-their-prime HOFers on it.

Three? Speaker, Hooper and who am I missing?

 

[JohntheBaptist]

Joe Wood

 

[lurker42]

Can we get a refresh? At +220 with 5 games left, we'll probably top 1950 for 3rd place among RS squads (+223), we might even top 1949 for 2nd (+229), but it's pretty clear we're coming nowhere close to 1912 for top RS run diff of all time (+255). And that 1912 team had 3 in-their-prime HOFers on it.

Honest question: might we someday be able to say that about the 2018 team as well? Sale and Kimbrel are in their primes, and both seem to have legitimate HOF chances. Mookie is just entering his prime, and is trending in the right direction.

Price is exiting his prime, but with some longevity has an outside chance. Pedroia's injuries have probably dashed his hopes, but a bounceback and/or some "leadership credit" on some 2019-2022 teams might push him over the line. I know they're not in-their-prime HOFers, but I thought was worth mentioning.

I really think this is probably the best Sox team ever.

 

[lapa]

They’re well ahead of their pythag stats and have IMO too many holes to be considered the best in recent years, they’ve certainly performed the best in terms of achievements that’s clear. I guess it’s semantics on what ‘best’ means. I just have a hard time saying that because Xander is the only really great infielder and mookie is the only great outfielder. jD is great. Ben10 is very good. Sale at full strength is great. Kimbrel has been great. I’m not trying to piss on anyone’s party I love how the team has played and achieved and that won’t change if we don’t go all the way

I go back to the coin argument. Just because I have a lucky coin that came up heads 70% of the time this week I’m not going to throw out my weighted coin that I know will land 60% heads as it’s biased (that’s a terrible way to try and explain my position). They’ve achieved great things (so far) I just don’t think they are actually the best Red Sox team of the past 15 years. It’s all just hot air at the end of the day, you either use specific stats to show an order (no one can argue then eg most wins, whatever) or you’re using some other less objective measure which tends to fan the flames of fan discussion ( and some might say where the fun is)

Sure by many metrics this team is the best (wins) but by others they are not (pythag expected wins for example ). There’s zero point having a discussion about this if the argument is ‘here is the quantifiable metric we shall use to evaluate best’ is there. The only scope for a discussion or argument is in fuzzier or intangible quantities and qualities
So no I stand by my opinion that this isn’t the best Red Sox team of the last 15 years never mind all time

Of course the other scope for argument or discussion is ‘does this or that quantity’ belong as a metric to evaluate the best but it still boils down to the same thing

Either you present a quantity as a metric for best and accept it (ergo zero room for discussion ) or you argue / discuss the metric or you present another metric or parameter you cannot easily quantify or define (ergo room for discussion)
I think the Sox have gotten the most out of their big part players at the right times (relative to some random distribution) and they’ve obviously also exceeded their expected wins. I think Houston is a ‘better’ team right now even if wins say otherwise. By the same token I think the 2007 Red Sox were probably better than this team. I have a soft spot for 2003s team even before 2004, and 2018 has definitely come into that group of ‘extremely fun to watch and root for’, if they dominate the post season I’d have to rethink but I think I’d still be left with the gut feeling (fan opinion not presented as facts folks) that somehow they just got the hot or lucky hands in just the right combo to support the true stars and when I think of best all time I’m more likely to go with powerhouse teams that seem to have elite level performance in many more positions on the roster

 

[m0ckduck]

The thing about going all-in on Pythagorean Expected Wins as the metric of true talent: do we then get to celebrate the 2002 Red Sox for winning the AL East and being the second-best team in baseball?

It feels like there's a Fundamental Attribution Error thing happening, where when a team underperforms its expected record, it's due to intrinsic factors (absence of a certain know-how... or effective closer... or competent manager), but when a team outperforms expected record, it's due to dumb luck and they don't deserve credit for it.

 

[HowBoutDemSox]

Joe Wood

Interestingly, Smoky Joe was never elected to the Hall of Fame, presumably due to a lack of longevity (he certainly had a dominant peak).

 

[InstaFace]

Interestingly, Smoky Joe was never elected to the Hall of Fame, presumably due to a lack of longevity (he certainly had a dominant peak).

Don't know how I missed that - just scanned right through and mentally put him in that column.

Either way, 1912 was his best year and he was #5 in MVP voting, though with 344 innings (10.2 bWAR), he put in a bit more work than Sale this year.

 

[Ted Cox 4 president]

Back in the early 1980s, Smoky Joe Wood’s son mounted a campaign to have his father elected to the HoF. I corresponded with him briefly after seeing a reference in the Globe, and he was kind enough to get his father’s autograph for me. Smoky Joe was back in the limelight after Roger Angell wrote about watching the Yale-Saint John’s playoff game between Ron Darling and Frank Viola while in Smoky Joe’s company. There’s great stuff on Smoky Joe in The Glory of Their Times.

 

[BuellMiller]

Don't know how I missed that - just scanned right through and mentally put him in that column.

Either way, 1912 was his best year and he was #5 in MVP voting, though with 344 innings (10.2 bWAR), he put in a bit more work than Sale this year.

If I looked at b-r right, he was one of 5 different Red Sox pitchers who had at least one 10+ pitching-bWAR season. There are also 5 different batters. And 2 players who combined for 10 WAR (pitching and batting).

Spoiler: Answers

Cy Young (12.8 1901, 10.0, 1902)
SJ Wood (10.2 1912, also had 1.3 bWAR batting)
Lefty Grove (11.4 1936)
Roger Clemens (10.5, 1990)
Pedro (11.7, 2000)

Tris Speaker (10.1 1912)
Ted Williams (10.9 1946, 10.6, 1941-42,
Yaz (12.5 1967, 10.5 1968)
Rico Petrocelli (10.0 1969)
Mookie Betts (10.7 (so far), 2018)

Babe Ruth (10.4 1916 (8.8 pitching, 1.6 batting)
Wes Ferrell (10.9 1935 (8.4 pitching, 2.5 batting)

(Also, for a good way to kill ten minutes, here's a fun quiz: https://www.sporcle.com/games/ThruTheFire88/highest-war-red-sox). I got 40/50. (And it only took me half that time trying to get #2's name spelled right).

 

[Bergs]

(Also, for a good way to kill ten minutes, here's a fun quiz: https://www.sporcle.com/games/ThruTheFire88/highest-war-red-sox). I got 40/50. (And it only took me half that time trying to get #2's name spelled right).

That's impressive. I only got 28. 3-4 of them I feel like a moron for not getting, the rest I never saw play, so they are not there in my brain sufficiently for unaided recall.

Edit: And at least I knew how to spell #2, so I have that going for me.

 

[uk_sox_fan]

 

[uk_sox_fan]

Can we get a refresh? At +220 with 5 games left, we'll probably top 1950 for 3rd place among RS squads (+223), we might even top 1949 for 2nd (+229), but it's pretty clear we're coming nowhere close to 1912 for top RS run diff of all time (+255). And that 1912 team had 3 in-their-prime HOFers on it.

As far as final numbers go I have these 8 as the top Run Diffs:

1912 +255 (154 games)
1949 +229 (155 games)
1950 +223 (154 games)
2018 +220 (157 games + 5 games remaining)
2007 +210 (162 games)
1903 +198 (156 games)
1946 +198 (156 games)
2013 +197 (162 games)

At 154 games 2018 were at +218, 2013 at +181 and 2007 at +197

This year's addition did set the record for earliest above +200 at Game 117 (2 games faster than 1912). They hit +225 after Game 129 but then treaded water a bit and peaked at +226 after game 147. The game previous to their peak (146) was the last time they led all Sox teams (+225).

 

[Beale13]

I love this team and it's one of the best I've seen in my lifetime, but I think you have to deduct a couple points based on the blatant lack of competitive balance in the AL this year. The quickest and dirtiest illustration of which being the fact that Houston is going to hit 100 wins, Yankees only need to go 4-2 to hit 100, and even the A's could get there if they win their last five games. Has there ever been a year where 3 or 4 teams hit 100 wins from the same league?

 

[SirPsychoSquints]

I love this team and it's one of the best I've seen in my lifetime, but I think you have to deduct a couple points based on the blatant lack of competitive balance in the AL this year. The quickest and dirtiest illustration of which being the fact that Houston is going to hit 100 wins, Yankees only need to go 4-2 to hit 100, and even the A's could get there if they win their last five games. Has there ever been a year where 3 or 4 teams hit 100 wins from the same league?

Wow - I think the answer is "no."

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

But the Sox play those teams! 19 times for the Yankees!

A great NL team this year wouldnt have had to play more than maybe 6 games against 100 win teams

 

[SirPsychoSquints]

I love this team and it's one of the best I've seen in my lifetime, but I think you have to deduct a couple points based on the blatant lack of competitive balance in the AL this year. The quickest and dirtiest illustration of which being the fact that Houston is going to hit 100 wins, Yankees only need to go 4-2 to hit 100, and even the A's could get there if they win their last five games. Has there ever been a year where 3 or 4 teams hit 100 wins from the same league?

Closest:

1. 2002 AL, there were teams that won 103/103/99
2. 1998 NL, 106/104/98
3. 1962 NL, 103/102/98 (only 10 teams)

 

[Al Zarilla]

I love this team and it's one of the best I've seen in my lifetime, but I think you have to deduct a couple points based on the blatant lack of competitive balance in the AL this year. The quickest and dirtiest illustration of which being the fact that Houston is going to hit 100 wins, Yankees only need to go 4-2 to hit 100, and even the A's could get there if they win their last five games. Has there ever been a year where 3 or 4 teams hit 100 wins from the same league?

There were two 100+ loss teams in the American League in 1912, our “other best year.” Yankees and St. Louis Browns. That’s 2 out of 8 teams of course. So, in a 154 game schedule, that’s 44 games against garbage teams. No apologies or caveats for this year, at least compared with 1912.