SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
The Red Sox will retire Wade Boggs’ number on May 26
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 22, 2015 1:08:12 GMT -5
Exactly. As far as I am concerned, he lost that right the instant he signed with THEM. I really don't understand that line of thinking. The Red Sox didn't want him. The Yankees did want him. Once the Sox decided they didn't want him, he was free to sign with any team that wanted him - unlike the Sox, the Yankees wanted him and didn't think he was washed up. As much as I hate the Yankees, I give credit to them for making the right judgment that he still had a few productive seasons left in him. What's the problem? Tek and Wakefield were good Red Sox players, but I wouldn't retire their numbers. I wouldn't want to see the Sox reissue those numbers for a long time, but Tek and Wake were good players, but not all-time greats. Maybe down the road it gets retired the way Pesky's did (and Pesky was an underrated ballplayer in my opinion - how in the world does a guy like that get 100 walks/year - in addition to his .300 BA - batting BEFORE Ted Williams?) I guess that's if Tek and Wake spend the next 40 years with the team or something like that. It certainly wouldn't be based on their playing careers. Tony C is a tough call. In a way, I think Nomar merits consideration, too, but in both cases, I don't think I'd retire those numbers.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 22, 2015 1:54:12 GMT -5
redsoxchamps has it right. This is overdue. And they should have retired Evans and Tiant three years after they called it quits, before they became HOF eligible, and loudly stated their rationale: they retire numbers of players who are clearly HOF-worthy. That may have swayed some HOF voters.
I want to remind folks that the OF of the fan-voted all-time team was Williams, Yaz, and Dewey. Not Rice. And that's absolutely correct.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 22, 2015 7:08:54 GMT -5
Wow, don't know how I forgot 27 was already retired. haha
|
|
rjp313jr
Veteran
Posts: 14,014
Member is Online
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 22, 2015 8:05:10 GMT -5
Retire THESE numbers before Boggs. 3--Jimmie Foxx 7--Dominic DiMaggio 24--Dewey Evans 25--Tony C. 33-'Tek 49--Tim Wakefield Well that's just ridiculous. Tek and Wakefield are not retired numbers worthy. 24 should be retired for BOTH Dewey and Manny in a joint ceremony. Sorry, but I realize Evans was amazing and a case can be made for him to be a HOF player but Manny is a HOF player (although he won't get in for same reason Bonds and Clemens won't). Manny was the best RHH in Red Sox history. The guy was a beast and a pleasure to watch. For as "dumb" as people like to say he is, he's that smart and more in the box. The way he set up pitchers and dominated them was insane. God I miss watching him hit.
|
|
|
Post by h11233 on Dec 22, 2015 9:28:28 GMT -5
When I was a kid, Wade Boggs was my favorite player. I had a framed poster of him hanging at the head of my bed and it stayed there long after the wear and tear of throwing balls off my wall left the frame in shambles.
I remember the 1996 world series well. I was pulling for the Yankees to win because I was just a kid who wanted to see something good happen for someone I idolized. My dad was not pleased and chastised me for it, and that's probably the exact moment that I went from a kid who just loved the game to a cliche pre-2004 cynical red Sox fan.
When I first read this headline I had that cynical knee jerk reaction... Then I remembered the kid that just wants something good to happen for a player that gave me a lot of good memories.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Dec 22, 2015 10:18:21 GMT -5
Its a bit wierd that they're retiring the number of a guy who didn't want to stay here and it seems the Red Sox were his least favorite team of the three. He didn't meet the requirement of ending your career with the Sox either. They could put him in the Red Sox HoF without retiring his number. #26 retired will just be laughable to Yankee fans. I don't think it's weird at all. First off, how do you know he didn't want to stay with the Sox? According to what I've read, he wanted to stay with the Sox and thought he had a verbal deal with Mrs. Yawkey, but then she had a stroke, he had a bad season, and Gorman didn't think he needed him with Scott Cooper around. As far as meeting the requirement of ending their career with the Sox, that's kind of silly. They gave Fisk a ceremonial do nothing job, but he really ended his career with the ChiSox. Pedro is back in the organization, but he really ended his career with the Phillies. Ted Williams ended his career managing the Senators/Rangers. Hate to break the news to you, but at one point during his managing/coaching career Mr. Red Sox himself, Johnny Pesky worked for the Yankee organization. Should we unretire his number, too? But if you're counting coaching as being back with the organization, I guess the Sox will need to unretire Bobby Doerr's number 1. Last I checked his last job in baseball was coaching for the Toronto Blue Jays. Get the point? It's a silly requirement. Why would Yankee fans find it "laughable" that Boggs' number 26 is retired with the Sox? Why would they care and why should Sox fans gave a crap what they think? If I had to venture a guess, they'd find it more "laughable" that the Sox waited this long to retire the number of a HOFer who hit .338 for their Sox organization and won 5 batting titles, yet the poor Red Sox fans, who now have 3 Championships in the past twelve seasons, can't get over the sight of Boggs celebrating the only Championship he'd ever win in his career because he did it with the Yankees. It's called a Red Sox fan's inferiority complex - and that's what will make Yankee fans laugh their butts off. Honestly, all this ridiculousness is because the Sox didn't sign him and he signed on with the enemy. It's not hard to figure. Your long-time team dumps you, you get ticked off, owe that original team nothing, and you sign with the enemy that wants you. If he had won the Championship with the Phillies, would any of this silliness be taking place? If the Sox (along with Cooperstown) ever decide to do right by Dwight Evans and Luis Tiant and retire their numbers, will you balk at Tiant's 23 going up to the rafters because Haywood Sullivan balked at giving Tiant two years so Tiant wound up a Yankee? Being a Red Sox great has absolutely nothing to do with the Yankees (even as much as I hate that team). I disagree with basically everything in this post. I don't think they need to be searching for reasons to retire people's numbers, but instead retire those that are truly deserving. By that I don't mean necessarily all baseball wise but also a model member of the franchise. If you don't understand the difference between ending your career with the Phillies (then coming back and working for the team) and parading around Yankee Stadium in a horse and publicly declaring your wish to go into the hall as a Devil Ray, I don't know what to tell you. I have no problem with Fisk or Pesky's number being retired but I wouldn't have any issue with them not being retired either. It isn't like Boggs was some great person or anything either. I see no reason to do it.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 22, 2015 12:28:20 GMT -5
I don't think it's weird at all. First off, how do you know he didn't want to stay with the Sox? According to what I've read, he wanted to stay with the Sox and thought he had a verbal deal with Mrs. Yawkey, but then she had a stroke, he had a bad season, and Gorman didn't think he needed him with Scott Cooper around. As far as meeting the requirement of ending their career with the Sox, that's kind of silly. They gave Fisk a ceremonial do nothing job, but he really ended his career with the ChiSox. Pedro is back in the organization, but he really ended his career with the Phillies. Ted Williams ended his career managing the Senators/Rangers. Hate to break the news to you, but at one point during his managing/coaching career Mr. Red Sox himself, Johnny Pesky worked for the Yankee organization. Should we unretire his number, too? But if you're counting coaching as being back with the organization, I guess the Sox will need to unretire Bobby Doerr's number 1. Last I checked his last job in baseball was coaching for the Toronto Blue Jays. Get the point? It's a silly requirement. Why would Yankee fans find it "laughable" that Boggs' number 26 is retired with the Sox? Why would they care and why should Sox fans gave a crap what they think? If I had to venture a guess, they'd find it more "laughable" that the Sox waited this long to retire the number of a HOFer who hit .338 for their Sox organization and won 5 batting titles, yet the poor Red Sox fans, who now have 3 Championships in the past twelve seasons, can't get over the sight of Boggs celebrating the only Championship he'd ever win in his career because he did it with the Yankees. It's called a Red Sox fan's inferiority complex - and that's what will make Yankee fans laugh their butts off. Honestly, all this ridiculousness is because the Sox didn't sign him and he signed on with the enemy. It's not hard to figure. Your long-time team dumps you, you get ticked off, owe that original team nothing, and you sign with the enemy that wants you. If he had won the Championship with the Phillies, would any of this silliness be taking place? If the Sox (along with Cooperstown) ever decide to do right by Dwight Evans and Luis Tiant and retire their numbers, will you balk at Tiant's 23 going up to the rafters because Haywood Sullivan balked at giving Tiant two years so Tiant wound up a Yankee? Being a Red Sox great has absolutely nothing to do with the Yankees (even as much as I hate that team). I disagree with basically everything in this post. I don't think they need to be searching for reasons to retire people's numbers, but instead retire those that are truly deserving. By that I don't mean necessarily all baseball wise but also a model member of the franchise. If you don't understand the difference between ending your career with the Phillies (then coming back and working for the team) and parading around Yankee Stadium in a horse and publicly declaring your wish to go into the hall as a Devil Ray, I don't know what to tell you. I have no problem with Fisk or Pesky's number being retired but I wouldn't have any issue with them not being retired either. It isn't like Boggs was some great person or anything either. I see no reason to do it. In the Globe today, he talked about how much he loved playing for the Red Sox and how badly he wanted to keep playing for the Red Sox, and how much this means to him. The Sox broke his heart and showed no remorse. After the way the Sox treated him, it would have made me think less of him if he didn't do the stuff you hate. Did you really expect him not to sign with the Yankees after we rejected him? Did you really expect him not to celebrate with the Yankees when he won? Did you really think he'd say he wanted to have the Sox logo on his HOF plaque when the Sox had acted like he never existed, from the day he was eligible for free agency? When a guy breaks up with a good woman for no good reason, and wants nothing to do with her, and he's clearly out of line (he's taken up with that Cooper dame who's younger but not half the woman she was), and the woman keeps on professing her love for him, what do you think of her? Isn't that pathetic? If she gets on with her life and finds a new guy and they have a kid that her asshole ex was never able to give her, aren't you happy for her? Boggs was apparently a guy who could not keep his equipment inside his jeans with any regularity. That's a character flaw, but it's one that's been shared by a great many otherwise admirable and accomplished men. He worked tirelessly to become the best at his craft in the face of enormous and universal skepticism (it's worth remembering that he was eligible for the Rule 5 draft after he hit .306 / .396 / .364 at age 22 in AAA, and nobody took him.) When he was spurned by the team that he loved, he moved on with pride intact. And now that the Sox are making things right, he's not holding a grudge. If you're half the man he is, you should feel lucky.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Dec 22, 2015 13:04:56 GMT -5
We can agree to disagree here. I'd say its a hard no and a lot would agree me. Wouldn't want Clemens in either. There are other ways to honor a player and the Red Sox HoF is one of several options.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 22, 2015 13:19:19 GMT -5
In the Globe today, he talked about how much he loved playing for the Red Sox and how badly he wanted to keep playing for the Red Sox, and how much this means to him. The Sox broke his heart and showed no remorse. After the way the Sox treated him, it would have made me think less of him if he didn't do the stuff you hate. Did you really expect him not to sign with the Yankees after we rejected him? Did you really expect him not to celebrate with the Yankees when he won? Did you really think he'd say he wanted to have the Sox logo on his HOF plaque when the Sox had acted like he never existed, from the day he was eligible for free agency? When a guy breaks up with a good woman for no good reason, and wants nothing to do with her, and he's clearly out of line (he's taken up with that Cooper dame who's younger but not half the woman she was), and the woman keeps on professing her love for him, what do you think of her? Isn't that pathetic? If she gets on with her life and finds a new guy and they have a kid that her asshole ex was never able to give her, aren't you happy for her? Boggs was apparently a guy who could not keep his equipment inside his jeans with any regularity. That's a character flaw, but it's one that's been shared by a great many otherwise admirable and accomplished men. He worked tirelessly to become the best at his craft in the face of enormous and universal skepticism (it's worth remembering that he was eligible for the Rule 5 draft after he hit .306 / .396 / .364 at age 22 in AAA, and nobody took him.) When he was spurned by the team that he loved, he moved on with pride intact. And now that the Sox are making things right, he's not holding a grudge. If you're half the man he is, you should feel lucky. Wade Boggs gave Boston a ten-year, 70-win peak and the city has never forgiven him for it.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 22, 2015 13:41:33 GMT -5
Weren't there some shenanigans about the Rays paying Boggs to go into the HOF as a Ray?
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 22, 2015 13:57:50 GMT -5
We can agree to disagree here. I'd say its a hard no and a lot would agree me. Wouldn't want Clemens in either. There are other ways to honor a player and the Red Sox HoF is one of several options. I have trouble equating Wade Boggs' accomplishments or even Roger Clemens' accomplishments with those of Tommy Harper or Don Zimmer or Eddie Kasko or George Scott or Jerry Remy. There's a lot lower threshold to be a Red Sox HOFer than to have your number retired.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Dec 22, 2015 21:59:33 GMT -5
It's past the time when Boggs' number should have been retired based on his status as a top-tier RS great. That does not mean, however, that I'll enjoy it as much as I enjoyed seeing other numbers retired. I loved watching his magic act with the bat - and the glove, for that matter - but once he went to play for the slime, I sort of locked him into the box in my head that's labeled "Unimportant."
The RS are a lifelong passion for me and rarely far from my mind as I go about my daily business. I get joy just out of thinking back on the great players we've seen and great moments we've experienced. But rarely does Wade Boggs jump into my thoughts unless I'm prompted by seeing or hearing something about him.
So, go ahead and retire his number because it's appropriate and deserved, but I won't be checking for tickets the way I did right away when the date of Pedro's number-retiring ceremony was announced.
The RF facade should also include:
- A placard with the name "Cy Young" and another with the name "Tris Speaker." They came before numbers but are among the most important and greatest players in BB history and each spent a significant amount of his prime in Boston. It's always seemed to me like a gaping hole in the team's celebration of its history that these two HOFers who led our team to its early glory aren't up there.
- No. 23. I won't list all the reasons why Tiant not being in the HOF is a joke. The RS ran an aggressive campaign to get Rice in and I've always hoped they'd do the same for Luis.
- No. 24. Evans had a longer and probably better career than Rice and would also be a perfectly legitimate HOFer. (Just as an aside, his career b-ref dWAR with the RS is -3.5. So much for the reliability of defensive metrics applied to earlier eras.)
|
|
rjp313jr
Veteran
Posts: 14,014
Member is Online
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 23, 2015 1:28:27 GMT -5
No 24.... Manny
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 23, 2015 13:19:30 GMT -5
FTR I'm a HUGE Boggs "hater". Once a bum always a bum. I thought the guy Boggs replaced, Carney Lansford was the real deal. You honestly preferred Lansford over Boggs? Yeesh. Lansford was a good average, so-so OBP guy with some power who had limited range. Boggs replaced Lansford but easily could have shifted to 1b had the Sox kept Lansford. They didn't dump Lansford to open up 3b for Boggs as much as they wanted to replace the Miller/Nichols platoon with a power hitting OF, so they dealt for Tony Armas (and the Sox certainly had no concept of OBP when they made that deal). As you might recall, Lansford played 3b and Boggs shifted over to 1b in the summer of 1982, but at that point the Sox were so desperate for help out in CF they actually played 43 year old Yaz there for a game. Absolutely. Not even close. Armas was a total stiff. Boggs was the poster child of a self absorbed, me first player. The ANTITHESIS of Lansford who gave everything for the team. The main difference remains "team player" as opposed to stat monger. I got sick of watching Boggs clog the bases and decline to advance runners in critical situations of close games. Lansford ability to advance runners in those same situations was almost legendary. Have a talk with Tony LaRussa sometime about the differences between these two players. You went to war with Lansford, you hoped like heck Boggs didn't crawl into your foxhole.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 23, 2015 13:38:09 GMT -5
You honestly preferred Lansford over Boggs? Yeesh. Lansford was a good average, so-so OBP guy with some power who had limited range. Boggs replaced Lansford but easily could have shifted to 1b had the Sox kept Lansford. They didn't dump Lansford to open up 3b for Boggs as much as they wanted to replace the Miller/Nichols platoon with a power hitting OF, so they dealt for Tony Armas (and the Sox certainly had no concept of OBP when they made that deal). As you might recall, Lansford played 3b and Boggs shifted over to 1b in the summer of 1982, but at that point the Sox were so desperate for help out in CF they actually played 43 year old Yaz there for a game. Absolutely. Not even close. Armas was a total stiff. Boggs was the poster child of a self absorbed, me first player. The ANTITHESIS of Lansford who gave everything for the team. The main difference remains "team player" as opposed to stat monger. I got sick of watching Boggs clog the bases and decline to advance runners in critical situations of close games. Lansford ability to advance runners in those same situations was almost legendary. Have a talk with Tony LaRussa sometime about the differences between these two players. You went to war with Lansford, you hoped like heck Boggs didn't crawl into your foxhole. I liked Boggs on the Red Sox because he was so amazing for so long. I guess I'd like my best friend on the Red Sox because he's such a great guy, but he doesn't play baseball.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 23, 2015 14:07:51 GMT -5
You honestly preferred Lansford over Boggs? Yeesh. Lansford was a good average, so-so OBP guy with some power who had limited range. Boggs replaced Lansford but easily could have shifted to 1b had the Sox kept Lansford. They didn't dump Lansford to open up 3b for Boggs as much as they wanted to replace the Miller/Nichols platoon with a power hitting OF, so they dealt for Tony Armas (and the Sox certainly had no concept of OBP when they made that deal). As you might recall, Lansford played 3b and Boggs shifted over to 1b in the summer of 1982, but at that point the Sox were so desperate for help out in CF they actually played 43 year old Yaz there for a game. Absolutely. Not even close. Armas was a total stiff. Boggs was the poster child of a self absorbed, me first player. The ANTITHESIS of Lansford who gave everything for the team. The main difference remains "team player" as opposed to stat monger. I got sick of watching Boggs clog the bases and decline to advance runners in critical situations of close games. Lansford ability to advance runners in those same situations was almost legendary. Have a talk with Tony LaRussa sometime about the differences between these two players. You went to war with Lansford, you hoped like heck Boggs didn't crawl into your foxhole. Yeah, that Boggs was selfish clogging those bases. He should have left them clear the way Lansford did when he was making all of those outs. And I'm not even trying to put down Lansford who displayed a league leading .336 BA in the strike shortened 1981 season and a .301 average in 1982 - but he was not somebody who drew walks to make the OBP anywhere near where Boggs was. Boggs was getting on base so others could drive him in - that selfish bastard. Lansford didn't do it anywhere near as great as Boggs did that. To insinuate otherwise makes very little sense. As a leadoff man Boggs job was to get on base so he could score runs - is it really his fault Buckner or 6-4-3 Rice and Tony Armas spent a lot of time failing to drive him in while Dwight Evans didn't spend quite as much time in the #2 slot as he should have been? His job was to get on base and Boggs did that better than ANY leadoff man in the history of the Red Sox. I hope the Sox have players that selfish this year!! Why should have Boggs been giving himself up? The guy got on base 43% of the time when he played for the Red Sox. He was just about as likely to single - why does he need to purposely make an out? That's ridiculous. Boggs was self absorbed, but the guy did give a damn. I remember him crying in the dugout when the Sox were beat in 1986 by the Mets - and I doubt it was because he only hit .250 or whatever it was in the Series. I remember Boggs screaming his lungs out - "BELIEVE!!!" after Tom Brunansky made a shocking exhilarating sliding catch to save the 1990 division title for the Red Sox, a title they didn't really expect to win. The guy gave a damn if his team won or lost. Yeah he obsessed about his stats. Most guys do - that's how they get paid. Ortiz worries about his numbers. Ted Williams had a guy who used to tell him when he was passing a milestone. When playing slow pitched softball and keeping the stats book, I had guys whining about if they were getting credited with a hit or an error - it's the nature of the sport and the guys who play it. The only thing you said at all that makes any semblance of sense was that Tony Armas was a stiff - there's our only agreement.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 23, 2015 14:44:15 GMT -5
You honestly preferred Lansford over Boggs? Yeesh. Lansford was a good average, so-so OBP guy with some power who had limited range. Boggs replaced Lansford but easily could have shifted to 1b had the Sox kept Lansford. They didn't dump Lansford to open up 3b for Boggs as much as they wanted to replace the Miller/Nichols platoon with a power hitting OF, so they dealt for Tony Armas (and the Sox certainly had no concept of OBP when they made that deal). As you might recall, Lansford played 3b and Boggs shifted over to 1b in the summer of 1982, but at that point the Sox were so desperate for help out in CF they actually played 43 year old Yaz there for a game. Absolutely. Not even close. Armas was a total stiff. Boggs was the poster child of a self absorbed, me first player. The ANTITHESIS of Lansford who gave everything for the team. The main difference remains "team player" as opposed to stat monger. I got sick of watching Boggs clog the bases and decline to advance runners in critical situations of close games. Lansford ability to advance runners in those same situations was almost legendary. Have a talk with Tony LaRussa sometime about the differences between these two players. You went to war with Lansford, you hoped like heck Boggs didn't crawl into your foxhole. There's a kernel of truth in this hogwash. Lansford was great with a runner on 3B and less than 2 outs (especially his first year with the Sox, when you would have formed your opinion), the most clearly defined situation in baseball and the one where pitchers and hitters change their approach the most. He had a 935 career OPS, versus 753 overall. Boggs was 988 vs 858. Lansford cuts a 105 point deficit to 55. 2 outs with RISP? Lansford lost 40 points off his career mark. Boggs lost 5 (and his career mark was 105 higher, of course). How about a runner on 3B and 2 out? Lansford is 647 and Boggs 893. It goes on like this. What you're doing here is starting with a massively dysfunctional idea that there are certain base/out situations where a player should try to make an out to move a runner up. You're remembering how often Lansford did this, and giving him credit for doing so, and you're remembering all the times that Boggs made an out and failed to move the runner up. What you are completely ignoring is the huge advantage that Boggs had, in these situations, in getting a hit or drawing a walk. Which is actually what you're supposed to try to do. Always (except when the winning run is on 3B with less than 2 outs). There is no way a baseball player can hurt his team by performing better statistically in a given situation. It's ludicrous. What you call being a "team player" is by and large being a stupid one. Now, there's another kernel of truth in that from 1987 to 1990 Boggs was not a good clutch or situational hitter, relative to overall. But he had been very good before and after that with the Sox, and in fact, Lansford was a worse situational hittter over the course of his career. We can measure this all quite accurately. We can measure the extra clutch value, in terms of runs, of doing all the stuff you love, all the stuff you say Lansford did and Boggs didn't, as well as the clutch value of simply hitting relatively better with RISP or with the game on the line in late innings. Since Lansford's last year in MLB was Boggs' last year with the Sox, here's a very direct comparison. The first two columns are Runs Above Average according to stats. The second pair of columns is the clutch run differential (a few of the numbers might be off by a run), the number of extra runs the player gained or cost his team by hitting well or poorly in the clutch. The third pair gives the total run value, clutch included. I've given the totals for Lansford's pre-Sox years, as well as his numbers for 1981, but I finish with the straight comparison: Boggs versus Lansford, 1982-1992. Year Lans Boggs LClu BClu LTot BTot Pre 14 -15 -1 1981 18 5 23 1982 14 12 2 -3 16 9 1983 14 46 -12 22 2 68 1984 16 24 5 -3 21 21 1985 7 55 -21 -10 -14 45 1986 19 52 -10 12 9 64 1987 18 58 -13 -23 5 35 1988 0 59 4 -28 4 31 1989 28 41 -13 -24 15 17 1990 -7 15 1 -13 -6 2 1991 -3 31 -1 8 -4 39 1992 6 -5 -3 19 3 14 82-92 112 388 -61 -43 51 345 So, over these 11 years, Boggs was 276 runs better than Lansford with the bat. But wait -- he was also 18 runs less worse in the clutch, increasing his total edge to 294 runs. He was also 107 runs better on defense, according to TotalZone, a decent estimate (which is backed up by contemporary eyeballs). You're right about clogging the bases, though: Lansford was +10 runs and Boggs was -9. If you want to take that 19 run edge over the 401 run run Boggs had hitting and fielding, because it makes you mad, go ahead.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 23, 2015 16:17:10 GMT -5
When it counted......
5 Yrs (8 Series) 33 141 128 17 39 3 0 2 18 4 1 10 10 .305 .355 .375 .730 48 3 0 3
6 Yrs (9 Series) 39 174 154 15 42 9 1 2 16 0 0 16 20 .273 .337 .383 .720 59 6 0 2 2
Guess whose post season stats belong to Lansford, and which set belongs to Boggs.....
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 23, 2015 16:46:15 GMT -5
When it counted...... 5 Yrs (8 Series) 33 141 128 17 39 3 0 2 18 4 1 10 10 .305 .355 .375 .730 48 3 0 3 6 Yrs (9 Series) 39 174 154 15 42 9 1 2 16 0 0 16 20 .273 .337 .383 .720 59 6 0 2 2 Guess whose post season stats belong to Lansford, and which set belongs to Boggs..... Guess who was 37, 38 and 39 for 3 of their playoff appearances? Hint - it wasn't Lansford who had retired long before then. That's one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever heard. Do you care about BABIP at all? Boggs' post season BABIP was 45 points lower than his career average. Do you care about small sample sizes at all? If not, I'll just put you on ignore now.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 23, 2015 16:54:09 GMT -5
When it counted...... 5 Yrs (8 Series) 33 141 128 17 39 3 0 2 18 4 1 10 10 .305 .355 .375 .730 48 3 0 3 6 Yrs (9 Series) 39 174 154 15 42 9 1 2 16 0 0 16 20 .273 .337 .383 .720 59 6 0 2 2 Guess whose post season stats belong to Lansford, and which set belongs to Boggs..... Jeez, didn't somebody shoehorn some of Ted Williams' biggest ABs in the "most important games of his career" and have that he came out to be a .200 hitter or so in those games? Guess he must have stunk. Ted Williams - OVERRATED!!! The rest of the time when he was hitting .344 lifetime - just window dressing.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Dec 23, 2015 16:55:13 GMT -5
Retire THESE numbers before Boggs. 3--Jimmie Foxx 7--Dominic DiMaggio 24--Dewey Evans 25--Tony C. 33-'Tek 49--Tim Wakefield Well that's just ridiculous. Tek and Wakefield are not retired numbers worthy. 24 should be retired for BOTH Dewey and Manny in a joint ceremony. Sorry, but I realize Evans was amazing and a case can be made for him to be a HOF player but Manny is a HOF player (although he won't get in for same reason Bonds and Clemens won't). Manny was the best RHH in Red Sox history. The guy was a beast and a pleasure to watch. For as "dumb" as people like to say he is, he's that smart and more in the box. The way he set up pitchers and dominated them was insane. God I miss watching him hit. I'll take Jimmie Foxx. As for Boggs, I'm fine with his number being retired. As the Tears poster said , I stopped caring about him after he left, but his play was worthy.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 23, 2015 17:45:21 GMT -5
When it counted...... 5 Yrs (8 Series) 33 141 128 17 39 3 0 2 18 4 1 10 10 .305 .355 .375 .730 48 3 0 3 6 Yrs (9 Series) 39 174 154 15 42 9 1 2 16 0 0 16 20 .273 .337 .383 .720 59 6 0 2 2 Guess whose post season stats belong to Lansford, and which set belongs to Boggs..... Is one of these stat lines supposed to look meaningfully better than the other one?
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 23, 2015 20:20:55 GMT -5
We Boggs supporters should be allowed to make up our own possibly silly narratives, right?
The biggest single change in clutch performance from one year to the next in Boggs' Red Sox career came between 1986 and 1987. 1987 began a run of four years of being really bad in the clutch -- just like the selfless Lansford had been, over his whole career, fairly consistently. But Boggs clutch performance was decidedly not consistent. If you take those four years and compare them to the rest of Boggs' career with the Sox, the odds against averaging -22 runs of clutch over 4 straight years versus +6 before and after, at random, are 500 to 1. It appears to be non-random. (If you don't pool the variance*, the odds are 1535 to 1.)
So, it appears as if Boggs changed his approach in clutch situations after weeping in the dugout after we lost the '86 series.
Immediately before I discovered these numbers, I had argued (like I had my whole life) that playing the game the traditional way, "giving yourself up," actually made you worse in the clutch. (Yes, I often research my posts as I write them. It's a good way to stay neutral.)
So which is more likely:
1) After the heartbreak of '86, Boggs started trying to be "selfless," and it predictably ruined his clutch performance for the next four years.
2) Every sabermetrcian in the world is wrong about the actual value of being "selfless," and after Boggs wept in the dugout, he stopped trying to move runners over.
(Yes, I'm omitting "3) It's random. " It would be fun to break this down by specific base/out and inning/score situations, though, and actually test what's just a half-serious hypothesis, at best.)
*"Pooling the variance" is a geek euphemism for something we shouldn't talk about in polite company.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Dec 24, 2015 0:28:50 GMT -5
He could CONTROL an at-bat, not just hit mistakes, like nobody in our lifetime. Williams was probably one of the few in history who could surpass him- just keep fouling it off, then hit a line drive every time. Had great power in batting practice too, but didn't want to sacrifice the on base. Also great quickness as a third baseman, and I believe Boggs won a gold glove once with the Yankees- though by his third season was really good. (My favorite story about Ted Williams control- a fan in the left field seats was nasty, and by the 6th inning or so Ted had it- he hit 16 consecutive line drive fouls within 10 feet of the fan!)
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 24, 2015 0:54:30 GMT -5
He could CONTROL an at-bat, not just hit mistakes, like nobody in our lifetime. Williams was probably one of the few in history who could surpass him- just keep fouling it off, then hit a line drive every time. Had great power in batting practice too, but didn't want to sacrifice the on base. Also great quickness as a third baseman, and I believe Boggs won a gold glove once with the Yankees- though by his third season was really good. (My favorite story about Ted Williams control- a fan in the left field seats was nasty, and by the 6th inning or so Ted had it- he hit 16 consecutive line drive fouls within 10 feet of the fan!) An incident which Bernard Malamud wrote into The Natural, still the best baseball novel ever written (and as good as the movie is, the book is much better). Except that, IIRC, Roy Hobbs nails him within the first few tries.
|
|
|