The luck thing holds less water the longer the timespan. "Well-run" does not disqualify a team from being lucky. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. The Twins have had some good talent, but certainly no behemoths until recently (imho Morneau & Mauer are the two best position players to come out of that system in the past decade or so). I think the Twins had more than their share of good luck in the regular season, and probably an undue amount of bad luck in the postseason. I don't see why it has to be 'lucky' vs. 'well-run'... I think it's both, but many people adhere to the belief that you create your own luck, so now my head is spinning. EDIT: For a little gardenburger to my argument (in honor of Prince, no meat)... 2002: 94-67, AL Central Champs (+ 8 Pythag.; 103 team OPS+, 108 team ERA+) 2003: 90-72, AL Central Champs (+5 Pythag.; 102 OPS+, 103 ERA+) 2004: 92-70, AL Central Champs (+5 Pythag.; 95 OPS+, 117 ERA+) 2005: 83-79, 3d place AL Central (-1 Pythag.; 88 OPS+, 119 ERA+) 2006: 96-66, AL Central Champs (+3 Pythag.; 101 OPS+, 113 ERA+) Nothing overwhelming in there offensively, but obviously some lights-out pitching from 2004-'06. I think that, typically, 90+ win teams have better than league-avg. offense... which is where the idea that the Twins had some good luck in the regular season comes in. But I have to check into that theory some more before I can say whether or not it appears to hold up.