The Reds were no more "unlucky" last year as they were "lucky" in 2010. Cueto overperformed last year, they lost their best bullpen arm, lost a 2 WAR catcher, have a rookie SS, pretty much no LF or 3b, and the 3-5 slots of their rotation are league average at their best. Young does not equal good. That's a decent explanation of why their record (both Pythag and actual) is what it is--and not higher--but doesn't mean they won't still regress upward next year. That's like saying, "the Cubs won't be better next year because their rotation last year was weak." That's fascinating, but doesn't tell us anything about whether the rotation under or overperformed, and whether that over or underperformance is likely to continue. Moreover, I'm not saying the Reds will be better because they're "young"; I'm saying they're a decent bet to be better simply because, all things considered, they were the unluckiest team in the division last year. Youth or not, that's not likely to repeat itself absent outside evidence (e.g., Dusty's teams always underperform their run differential; certainly a possibility)...