Money? Market size? Personnel? Dumbass GMs? Luck? Those are the answers I came up with in three seconds. Let's see what eludes Cafardo.
"One American League scout just shakes his head when you mention teams that don't hit. Teams like San Diego and San Francisco and Toronto and Seattle."Those teams are pussies. Come on Giants, hit some home runs, will ya?
"Which is why a team like Boston stands out. It has balance. It can score and it can pitch. Is this such a hard formula for general managers to implement?"Yes. Very hard actually.
There are currently only three teams in MLB that are top ten in ERA and Runs scored: the Cubs, D-backs and A's. The Cubs are number seven in all of baseball in terms of highest payroll. While the D-backs (#23) and A's (#28) are small market teams, they have smart front offices and young players playing very well at the moment. It remains to be seen if those two are in the top ten at seasons end.
Last year, only three teams were top ten in both ERA and Runs. Boston (world series champs, #2 payroll) was number two and four, Cleveland (lost in ALCS, #23) was number five and eight Atlanta (missed playoffs, #13) was number six and nine.
So yeah, it's really freaking hard to have a team that has balanced pitching and hitting. Money does help, though.
"'I don't understand why there aren't more lineups like Boston's in the league, because they've got it right.'"
You mean more teams with a $130 million+ payroll? A team with an elite farm system pumping cheap, talented players into the team year after year? A team that throws money at high-profile free agents that may or may not be good, but can get away with it anyway? A team with a ridiculously rabid fan base, outrageous ticket prices, one hundred plus years of history, it's own "nation," TV network and tons of marketable super stars? A lineup with All-Stars at nearly every position?
Note to Kansas City Royals: become Boston Red Sox, a.s.a.p.