In my humble opinion, the notion of “building” a World Series champion in baseball is as mis-guided as the notion of “survival of the fittest” in biology.  In both cases, the final “winners” result more from circumstances that are beyond their control than any capacity that a team or species has developed to compete or survive.  Confused?  Bear with me and I’ll try to make it worth your while.

A key tenet of Darwin’s theory of evolution is the concept of natural selection, which essentially states that those species within a given niche that have better survival skills will ultimately dominate the niche at the expense of those species that are less well-adapted. Described in concert with the tenet of random mutation in his book “The Origin of Species,” Darwin accurately portrayed how the living world on earth came to be.  Groundbreaking though it was, Darwin’s tome introduced the ill-turned phrase “survival of the fittest” in his description of natural selection.  The problem with the phrase is that it suggests that the most superior species within a niche ultimately survive, when in fact that is very often not the case.  As a hypothetical to explain the concept, assume that there is an ant colony in Arlington that recently resulted from three freak mutations that produced ants that combine amazing reproductive rate with the ability to convert sunlight into energy (and thus have very limited needs for nourishment) and to preserve water to the point that they can withstand extensive droughts.  The colony is thriving and preparing to conquer the ant kingdom until a bulldozer in Jerry Jones’ fleet runs through the anthill, killing all that are inside.  The new ant species represented the fittest in its class, but due to poor timing and location failed to survive. In Darwin’s zeal to describe his new theory, he left out perhaps the most important tenet of evolution – that circumstances beyond a species’ control (aka luck) play an enormous role in determining the survivors. 

Every year baseball writers, fans, owners, and GMs make the same mistake as Darwin.  They obsess over the “piece(s)” that their teams need to win a World Series.  Oft-times trades are made or free agents are signed to add the ace, closer, and/or middle-of-the-order bat that a team “needs” to win a world series.  While building the perfect beast, teams often ignore the profound influence of luck that ultimately determine the champion.  How significant is the “luck” component of the championship equation?  I would argue that it is more important than having a dominant pitcher in your rotation or a bopper in the middle of your lineup.  I see that many of you are furrowing your brow, so I offer you the following paragraph.

Each year, thirty major league teams are built and compete over a 162 game schedule.  In my opinion, those 162 games are enough to minimize the influence of hot-streaks and cold ones, minor injuries, coaching gaffes, umpiring mistakes, etc. and reveal which teams have the optimal mix of talent and coaching as well as having been most successful in avoiding catastrophic injuries.  If you agree, then hopefully you will also agree that the team with the best regular season record is probably also the “best” team in the league.  If you are still with me, then you will probably be surprised to note that in the thirteen years since the institution of the wild-card and the expansion of the MLB playoffs, the team with the best regular season record has won the World Series only twice (Yankees in ’98, BoSox in ’07).  That is the same number of times that the team with the 2nd best and 4th best regular season records have won and half as often as champs that failed to rank among the top 5 in regular season wins (see below).  In fact, the rate at which the team with the best regular season record wins the World Series is only slightly higher than what you would expect if all eight teams in the playoffs had an equal chance of winning the title (15.4% vs 12.5%).  The simple explanation for this surprising result is that opponent matchups, hot- and cold-streaks, weather, untimely errors, minor injuries, coaching mistakes, media attention, family issues, and the baseball gods profoundly affect the outcome of a seven game series.  Force a single team to win three such series and the outcome becomes essentially random.  The Grand Unifying Principle of baseball and biology?  Luck profoundly affects the selection of "winners." 

World Series Champ     Regular season record  
1995 – Braves                                   #2
1996 – Yankees                                #3
1997 – Marlins                                   #4
1998 – Yankees                                #1
1999 – Yankees                                #3
2000 – Yankees                                #9
2001 – Diamondbacks                    #6
2002 – Angels                                    #4
2003 – Marlins                                   #7
2004 – Red Sox                                 #3

2005 – White Sox                               #2
2006 – Cardinals                              #13
2007 – Red Sox                                  #1

In the face of a chaotic world where luck disproportionately affects outcome, what is a poor GM to do?  The answer to this is simple.  Stack the deck by maximizing the number of times you make the playoffs.  Worry less about building the perfect team and more about creating a team that will contend for an extended period of time.  Recent history suggests your odds of winning a championship are much greater if you make the playoffs 4 or 5 times with the 4th or 5th best regular season record than if you make the playoffs once or twice with the best record in baseball.

Which brings me to the Rangers.  As has been noted ad nauseum on this blog and elsewhere, the Rangers have done an amazing job recently of acquiring and developing high-ceiling talent.  In my opinion, the organization currently boasts twenty players who will begin 2009 at AA or above who possess the talent to perform at above average to superstar levels in the major leagues (see below).  With only a few exceptions, all of these players are under team control for at least four years with many of them at least six years away from being free agents.  And there is more talent in the pipeline as the Rangers lower level minor league teams are stacked with prospects.  Assuming many of the young Rangers continue their current development paths (and assuming that they are able to resign their pending free agents and trade from their surplus of catchers for an equally talented, near ML-ready player or two), then it is very likely that the major league team will contend for the playoffs during at least a 3-6 year window beginning in 2011.

       Player (pos)          Yrs till FA           Ceiling   
(1)  Hamilton (OF)              4                       10 
(2)  Kinsler (2B)                 4-5                     10 
(3)  Davis (1B)                     6                       10 
(4)  Feliz (SP)                      6+                       9  
(5)  Holland (SP)                6+                       9   
(6)  Andrus (SS)                  6+                      9
(7)  Saltalamacchia (C)      5                        9 
(8)  Ramirez (C)                   6                        9  
(9)  Smoak (1B)                   6+                      9   
(10) McCarthy (SP)              3                        8   
(11) Hurley (SP)                   6                        7+  
(12) Teagarden (C)             6                        8   
(13) Borbon (CF)                 6+                      8
(14) Kiker (SP)                     6+                      8  
(15) Poveda (SP)                 6+                      8   
(16) Madrigal (RP)               6                        8  
(17) Young (SS)                   5                        8 
(18) Wilson (RP)                  3                        8 
(19) Francisco (RP)             2                        8   
(20) Blalock (1B)                  1                        8   
The 10-point scale used to rate talent in the table above uses a score of 7 for players performing on-par with other players in the league at their respesective position.

Perhaps better than any other, the Ranger fan base knows the many ways that a baseball organization can fail.  So how can Tom Hicks et al. short-circuit this pending golden age of Rangers baseball? 
(1) Fire Jon Daniels – Though he has his detractors, I don’t think that anyone can argue that the gains that this organization has made in accumulating and developing talent are a direct result of JD’s vision and execution.  The emphasis on scouting, international signings, and the draft as well as the expanded off-season development programs and team-building exercises all derive from the plan that JD instituted almost three years ago.  Firing JD now would eliminate the organization’s primary visionary and potentially set the team back several years as they try to adapt to a new vision.
(2) Take a short-term view on building the team – There is little doubt that the Rangers could field a very competitive team next year by signing a significant free agent pitcher and trading a number of high-end prospects for established major leaguers.  In my opinion, executing on such a plan would reduce the number of years that the team would be competitive and thus reduce the chances that they would win a title.
 
Be patient, Ranger fans.  Your time is nigh.  Appreciate the building process for the next couple of years and enjoy the fruits that will result beginning in 2011.