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 jodyreidnichols on Dec 24, 2015 1:10:00 GMT -5
I'm absolutely in agreement with this, but I want 24 and 27 retired for Evans and Fisk also. I feel bad for Evans. He was such a great player, one worthy of the HOF. Rice had a better peak, but I thought Evans had the better career and was a more complete ballplayer, and should have his number retired. Dewey was definitely one of my favorites growing up. Maybe I misunderstood what you posted, but Fisk's 27 got retired by the Red Sox in 2000 when Duquette brokered peace between Pudge and the Red Sox (and Sullivan was deceased by then, too). Retiring numbers can be a hard line to tread as far as going overboard. I wouldn't have a problem if the Sox retired Tiant's #23 or went back further and retired #3 for Jimmie Foxx and #10 for Lefty Grove who performed like HOFers for the Sox in the 1930s. I'm not sure I'd even balk at #7 for Dominic DiMaggio. I know there's sentiment for #25 for Tony C. I'm not sure I'd go there, and I know that #24 should probably be retired for Manny, although I say that without much excitement. And speaking of which, I would think #21 would be next with Roger Clemens. I honestly thought the Sox might do it around the anniversary of his first 20K game. I'm not sure what they're waiting for. If they're waiting for the HOF vote to let Clemens in, they'll be waiting an awfully long time. But I do think Clemens will be next, and then the question is how long will the Sox make David Ortiz wait for his #34 to be retired if the HOF voters don't put him in right away or at all. I mean, Ortiz is not only deserving of the retired number, but that guy, along with Pedro, deserves a statue. Instead of retiring #'s they should honor numbers the difference is that a player could still wear number XX (that not an extra large uniform). It would simply things greatly.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Dec 24, 2015 6:57:00 GMT -5
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. And/Or simply less talented. I think most of the stupidity lies with most of the media for painting the picture of Boggs that some choose to accept.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 24, 2015 14:42:01 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. Please do.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 24, 2015 14:57:11 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. FWIW Ted was no fan of Wade Boggs. Lansford teams also won more often in the post season than did Bogg's teams. In fact, Bogg's only had one post season series victory as a Red Sox player (coutesy of D. Evans and D. Henderson). His other post season successes came as a NYYankee, where Joe Torre had the sense to bat him in the #2 slot. The same slot that Lansford batted for most of his career.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 24, 2015 17:51:40 GMT -5
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. FWIW Ted was no fan of Wade Boggs. Lansford teams also won more often in the post season than did Bogg's teams. In fact, Bogg's only had one post season series victory as a Red Sox player (coutesy of D. Evans and D. Henderson). His other post season successes came as a NYYankee, where Joe Torre had the sense to bat him in the #2 slot. The same slot that Lansford batted for most of his career. So if I understand correctly, had Boggs played on Oakland and Lansford on Boston, then the Sox would have won all those years - got you. That makes sense. Never mind that Oakland had superior teams with deeper starting pitching (Stewart always seemed to get the best of Clemens), a much better bullpen (Eck was pretty unhittable), and a lineup full of juiced up power hitters. But yeah, Lansford was superior to Boggs, so Oakland won. Right. Did it occur to you that Boggs batted 2nd in 1996 because he wasn't quite the on-base force he had been in his heyday? By 1996 he had a good OBP, but it wasn't as it had been. That's why he was batting 2nd on a stacked team. Boggs actually batted 2nd in 1983 when he hit .361 behind OBP machine Jerry Remy. Then Remy got hurt in 1984 and Houk decided to go with a lineup that actually made sense. As far as Williams go - he hated the Walt Hriniak/Charlie Lau batting style which Boggs employed. I doubt Williams thought that Boggs was a lousy hitter. I get that you can't stand Boggs. That's fine, but your arguments are ridiculous.
|
|
wcp3
Veteran
Posts: 3,815
|
Post by wcp3 on Dec 24, 2015 21:02:09 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. Lol, you should probably find a different thread to pay attention to.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Dec 25, 2015 9:29:19 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. And I have trouble equating Bogg's Red Sox accomplishments with Pedro's. Clemens was a steroid guy and overall just not a great person, he won't get into the Hall of Fame.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Dec 25, 2015 9:30:15 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. I didn't like how they changed the entire ending in the movie.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 25, 2015 9:42:57 GMT -5
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. And I have trouble equating Bogg's Red Sox accomplishments with Pedro's. Clemens was a steroid guy and overall just not a great person, he won't get into the Hall of Fame. Why? Boggs was as great as getting on-base as Pedro was at keeping batters off-base. Boggs' Red Sox accomplishments were better than those of Doerr, Cronin, Pesky, Rice, and Fisk, who have their numbers retired. I can understand knocking Boggs, the man, although I don't know that he was worse than any other guy who cheated on his wife and in MLB, most of those guys do. I'd wager a guess he's not the only guy with his number retired who cheated on his wife. But I don't understand knocking Boggs, the ballplayer. I wish Mookie Betts, who we all love, would sport the OBP that Boggs sported.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 25, 2015 12:16:13 GMT -5
I feel bad for Evans. He was such a great player, one worthy of the HOF. Rice had a better peak, but I thought Evans had the better career and was a more complete ballplayer, and should have his number retired. Dewey was definitely one of my favorites growing up. Maybe I misunderstood what you posted, but Fisk's 27 got retired by the Red Sox in 2000 when Duquette brokered peace between Pudge and the Red Sox (and Sullivan was deceased by then, too). Retiring numbers can be a hard line to tread as far as going overboard. I wouldn't have a problem if the Sox retired Tiant's #23 or went back further and retired #3 for Jimmie Foxx and #10 for Lefty Grove who performed like HOFers for the Sox in the 1930s. I'm not sure I'd even balk at #7 for Dominic DiMaggio. I know there's sentiment for #25 for Tony C. I'm not sure I'd go there, and I know that #24 should probably be retired for Manny, although I say that without much excitement. And speaking of which, I would think #21 would be next with Roger Clemens. I honestly thought the Sox might do it around the anniversary of his first 20K game. I'm not sure what they're waiting for. If they're waiting for the HOF vote to let Clemens in, they'll be waiting an awfully long time. But I do think Clemens will be next, and then the question is how long will the Sox make David Ortiz wait for his #34 to be retired if the HOF voters don't put him in right away or at all. I mean, Ortiz is not only deserving of the retired number, but that guy, along with Pedro, deserves a statue. Instead of retiring #'s they should honor numbers the difference is that a player could still wear number XX (that not an extra large uniform). It would simply things greatly. They basically already have something like this with the Red Sox Hall of Fame. I get your point though.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Dec 25, 2015 19:17:28 GMT -5
And I have trouble equating Bogg's Red Sox accomplishments with Pedro's. Clemens was a steroid guy and overall just not a great person, he won't get into the Hall of Fame. Why? Boggs was as great as getting on-base as Pedro was at keeping batters off-base. Boggs' Red Sox accomplishments were better than those of Doerr, Cronin, Pesky, Rice, and Fisk, who have their numbers retired. I can understand knocking Boggs, the man, although I don't know that he was worse than any other guy who cheated on his wife and in MLB, most of those guys do. I'd wager a guess he's not the only guy with his number retired who cheated on his wife. But I don't understand knocking Boggs, the ballplayer. I wish Mookie Betts, who we all love, would sport the OBP that Boggs sported. No, Pedro won a world series, 3 cy youngs and had several of the most dominant seasons a pitcher ever has had. He didn't quit and go to the Yankees to win like Boggs and Clemens. He didn't do steroids either. Pedro was a phenomenal guy. Watch his hall of fame speech.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 25, 2015 19:40:18 GMT -5
Why? Boggs was as great as getting on-base as Pedro was at keeping batters off-base. Boggs' Red Sox accomplishments were better than those of Doerr, Cronin, Pesky, Rice, and Fisk, who have their numbers retired. I can understand knocking Boggs, the man, although I don't know that he was worse than any other guy who cheated on his wife and in MLB, most of those guys do. I'd wager a guess he's not the only guy with his number retired who cheated on his wife. But I don't understand knocking Boggs, the ballplayer. I wish Mookie Betts, who we all love, would sport the OBP that Boggs sported. No, Pedro won a world series, 3 cy youngs and had several of the most dominant seasons a pitcher ever has had. He didn't quit and go to the Yankees to win like Boggs and Clemens. He didn't do steroids either. Pedro was a phenomenal guy. Watch his hall of fame speech. Pedro won the World Series - all by himself? Wow, he was amazing. So if Calvin Schiraldi had gotten one more strike Boggs would equal Pedro? Damn that Boggs for not allowing Calvin to get that last strike. What is with the strawman argument? Pedro is one of my all-time favorites. He certainly deserves his retired number. Don't see anybody in their right mind arguing otherwise. Doesn't mean that Boggs wasn't a terrific hitter who got on-base as well as anybody else could. Boggs didn't "quit" anymore than Pedro did. The Yankees offered him a much better deal than the Sox did, and the Sox didn't really want him anymore than they wanted Pedro. Should Boggs have been trying to go to a team to lose? How does that make any sense? If Omar Minaya had been the GM of the Yankees rather than the Mets, Pedro would have left Boston to become a Yankee. A lot of this is - wahh, Wade Boggs went to the Yankees and was on a World Series winning team. Never mind the fact that the Sox thought he was washed up and let him go. And some people saying this would actually be in favor of Luis Tiant getting his number retired and he left the Sox for NY because the Sox refused to give him 2 years and the Yanks gave it to him (prompting him to be in a hot dog commercial where he said of joining the Yankees in his accent "It's good to be with a wiener". The only thing that made sense in your post is that Pedro is a phenomenal guy. He totally was (although trying to bean a player like Karim Garcia in the head area wasn't cool - even if he was a Yankee.) His HOF speech was awesome and I enjoyed his number retirement speech as well, and I still hang on every word he says. And he is definitely one of the most fun and engaging and charismatic personalities the Sox have ever had. Boggs was about as good as getting on-base in the pre-steroid era (1982 - 1988) as anybody in baseball if not better, while Pedro was as good as anybody in not letting guys on base in the steroid era (1997 - 2005). I was thrilled to watch both players, true artist of their craft perform their best work for the Red Sox. It definitely isn't an either or situation. I enjoyed both!!
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,966
|
Post by jimoh on Dec 25, 2015 19:54:40 GMT -5
Why? Boggs was as great as getting on-base as Pedro was at keeping batters off-base. Boggs' Red Sox accomplishments were better than those of Doerr, Cronin, Pesky, Rice, and Fisk, who have their numbers retired. I can understand knocking Boggs, the man, although I don't know that he was worse than any other guy who cheated on his wife and in MLB, most of those guys do. I'd wager a guess he's not the only guy with his number retired who cheated on his wife. But I don't understand knocking Boggs, the ballplayer. I wish Mookie Betts, who we all love, would sport the OBP that Boggs sported. No, Pedro won a world series, 3 cy youngs and had several of the most dominant seasons a pitcher ever has had. He didn't quit and go to the Yankees to win like Boggs and Clemens. He didn't do steroids either. Pedro was a phenomenal guy. Watch his hall of fame speech. Boggs and Clemens were/are jerks, but Boggs' seasons in Boston were some of the most outstanding offensive seasons a 3b ever had. Even when you add in his weaker seasons elsewhere he has the best all-time OBP for 3b, by a good margin. He wasn't quite as good as Pedro, but watching him hit was a lot like watching Pedro pitch: what each did was so improbable and so remarkable.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 25, 2015 21:36:35 GMT -5
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. And I have trouble equating Bogg's Red Sox accomplishments with Pedro's. Clemens was a steroid guy and overall just not a great person, he won't get into the Hall of Fame. Boggs had 70.7 fWAR for the Red Sox, about 30 more than Big Papi. Not sure what more needs to be said. Boggs is probably the best hitter of all time, right up there with guys like Ty Cobb and Rogers Hornsby.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Dec 25, 2015 21:40:53 GMT -5
Papi was amazing in the post season though and we might still be talking about the curse of the bambino if it wasn't for him. The guy has 3 rings and a WS MVP and that matters more to me than who has the highest WAR.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 25, 2015 22:03:40 GMT -5
Papi was amazing in the post season though and we might still be talking about the curse of the bambino if it wasn't for him. The guy has 3 rings and a WS MVP and that matters more to me than who has the highest WAR. Do you realize how close the 1986 Red Sox were to winning the Series? Or even the 1975 edition? Or how close the 2004 Red Sox were to losing (If Dave Roberts had been out)? It's a really thin line. If Schiraldi or Stanley close out the Mets or Johnston doesn't pinchhit for Willoughby, nobody would have been talking about the curse of the bambino. Those things cannot be assigned to Wade Boggs or Jim Rice or Clemens or whoever else. You win as a team or you lose as a team.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 25, 2015 22:11:10 GMT -5
Papi was amazing in the post season though and we might still be talking about the curse of the bambino if it wasn't for him. The guy has 3 rings and a WS MVP and that matters more to me than who has the highest WAR. Papi had so much more help. How is that Boggs' fault and why does Papi get so much credit for the help he had? Do you think Papi is better than Ted Williams too? Also, Papi got to the playoffs because of the wild card in 2004, which Boggs didn't get.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 25, 2015 22:17:46 GMT -5
FWIW Ted was no fan of Wade Boggs. Lansford teams also won more often in the post season than did Bogg's teams. In fact, Bogg's only had one post season series victory as a Red Sox player (coutesy of D. Evans and D. Henderson). His other post season successes came as a NYYankee, where Joe Torre had the sense to bat him in the #2 slot. The same slot that Lansford batted for most of his career. So if I understand correctly, had Boggs played on Oakland and Lansford on Boston, then the Sox would have won all those years - got you. That makes sense. Never mind that Oakland had superior teams with deeper starting pitching (Stewart always seemed to get the best of Clemens), a much better bullpen (Eck was pretty unhittable), and a lineup full of juiced up power hitters. But yeah, Lansford was superior to Boggs, so Oakland won. Right. Either reading comprehension or logic escapes you. Did it occur to you that Boggs batted 2nd in 1996 because he wasn't quite the on-base force he had been in his heyday? By 1996 he had a good OBP, but it wasn't as it had been. That's why he was batting 2nd on a stacked team. Boggs batted 2nd so as not to clog up the bases. He was miscast as a leadoff hitter for his entire career in Boston. Boggs actually batted 2nd in 1983 when he hit .361 behind OBP machine Jerry Remy. Then Remy got hurt in 1984 and Houk decided to go with a lineup that actually made sense. As far as Williams go - he hated the Walt Hriniak/Charlie Lau batting style which Boggs employed. I doubt Williams thought that Boggs was a lousy hitter. Williams thought Boggs wasted his potential. That Boggs could have been a much more valuable team asset if he hit for more power, which Ted thought he could. FWIW Ted also thought Bagwell was a fantastic hitter who provided more value to his team precisely because he swung hard and hit for power, unlike Boggs. Ted's analogy not mine. I get that you can't stand Boggs. That's fine, but your arguments are ridiculous. And your hero worship of Wade is..... ludicrous.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 25, 2015 23:00:17 GMT -5
And your hero worship of Wade is..... ludicrous. 70.7 WAR, yeah, terrible. Why would anyone like one of those guys on our team? Fix your quoting.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Dec 25, 2015 23:08:07 GMT -5
Papi was amazing in the post season though and we might still be talking about the curse of the bambino if it wasn't for him. The guy has 3 rings and a WS MVP and that matters more to me than who has the highest WAR. Papi had so much more help. How is that Boggs' fault and why does Papi get so much credit for the help he had? Do you think Papi is better than Ted Williams too? Also, Papi got to the playoffs because of the wild card in 2004, which Boggs didn't get. Look at Papi's 2013 World Series numbers. Thats not even counting his great 2007 campaign or clutch 2004. I realize it was largely the relief pitching that blew it in 75 and 86 but Ortiz had multiple outstanding post seasons. The Sox came up short in 03 but came back the next year and Ortiz was a large part of that. He also didn't leave to go win with the Yankees. He stayed and won here, multiple times.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 26, 2015 7:58:10 GMT -5
So if I understand correctly, had Boggs played on Oakland and Lansford on Boston, then the Sox would have won all those years - got you. That makes sense. Never mind that Oakland had superior teams with deeper starting pitching (Stewart always seemed to get the best of Clemens), a much better bullpen (Eck was pretty unhittable), and a lineup full of juiced up power hitters. But yeah, Lansford was superior to Boggs, so Oakland won. Right. Either reading comprehension or logic escapes you. Did it occur to you that Boggs batted 2nd in 1996 because he wasn't quite the on-base force he had been in his heyday? By 1996 he had a good OBP, but it wasn't as it had been. That's why he was batting 2nd on a stacked team. Boggs batted 2nd so as not to clog up the bases. He was miscast as a leadoff hitter for his entire career in Boston. Boggs actually batted 2nd in 1983 when he hit .361 behind OBP machine Jerry Remy. Then Remy got hurt in 1984 and Houk decided to go with a lineup that actually made sense. As far as Williams go - he hated the Walt Hriniak/Charlie Lau batting style which Boggs employed. I doubt Williams thought that Boggs was a lousy hitter. Williams thought Boggs wasted his potential. That Boggs could have been a much more valuable team asset if he hit for more power, which Ted thought he could. FWIW Ted also thought Bagwell was a fantastic hitter who provided more value to his team precisely because he swung hard and hit for power, unlike Boggs. Ted's analogy not mine. I get that you can't stand Boggs. That's fine, but your arguments are ridiculous. And your hero worship of Wade is..... ludicrous. What is this "clogging up the bases"? Do you think the Red Sox play slow pitch softball where everybody gets on base? Do I really need to define for you what a leadoff man is supposed to do? I'm hardly the most statistically oriented person on this board, but this is baseball 101. A leadoff man's primary job is to score runs. How does a leadoff man do this? By getting on base and Boggs, whether you like him or hated him, did that as well as anybody on the Red Sox ever could. This "clogging up the bases" nonsense is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Did it ever occur to you that when you make an out, you're not clogging up the bases, but rather increasing the out count and decreasing your team's chance of scoring? Too bad Wade Boggs didn't have a Manny Ramirez and/or David Ortiz behind him. He might have score 150 plus runs per year with hitters like that. Instead he had Buckner, Rice, and Evans usually behind him (and he had a 42 year old Yaz behind him in 1982). Of that group Evans was the best offensive player and some years Evans batted in front of him or way behind him (like 6th in the order). One year Boggs did bring the OBP and the power - 1987, the year of the juiced up ball - if power was something he could have done without greatly sacrificing his ability to get on base, I would think Boggs would have done it - after all, power hitters got paid more than OBP guys - particularly in that era.. Boggs felt if he hit for power he might not be more than a .250ish hitter. Whether Williams agreed with that or not was his opinion. I don't have a hero worship of Boggs, but rather a healthy respect of a guy who got on-base like I've never seen. If you don't think that helps a ballclub, I don't know what to tell you. Seems to me like you don't really understand this game of baseball. I mean, we're talking baseball 101 here, not some deep, deep stats course about the game.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 26, 2015 8:03:57 GMT -5
Papi had so much more help. How is that Boggs' fault and why does Papi get so much credit for the help he had? Do you think Papi is better than Ted Williams too? Also, Papi got to the playoffs because of the wild card in 2004, which Boggs didn't get. Look at Papi's 2013 World Series numbers. Thats not even counting his great 2007 campaign or clutch 2004. I realize it was largely the relief pitching that blew it in 75 and 86 but Ortiz had multiple outstanding post seasons. The Sox came up short in 03 but came back the next year and Ortiz was a large part of that. He also didn't leave to go win with the Yankees. He stayed and won here, multiple times. Papi is the greatest clutch and post-season hitter the Sox have ever had. Nobody is arguing that point. He got a chance to be that guy (with all the wild card appearances, and he was fortunate enough not to play for the Yawkeys/Sullivan, etc.). He got his chances and he made the most of it. It seems like there's this rush to say Ted Williams never won - loser. Yaz never won - loser. Rice never won - loser. Papi won 3x - winner. The 2004 Sox don't win anything if wild card teams aren't allowed to make the playoffs. That's a huge break the 1978 and 1949 team never got. Credit to Papi for making the most of his opportunities and that's one of the reasons why he (and Pedro) are my all-time favorites. But I don't denigrate Boggs, Rice, Evans, Yaz, Williams, or whoever came before him. The Red Sox of the 21st century have had better luck, but they've also been run much better from the top that they ever were the previous century. Also keep in mind, if Papi hadn't turned around his performance by the end of 2010, there was serious talk of the Sox releasing him. Who knows? Maybe the Yankees pick him up then. A lot of time when a player leaves, it's not only their choice to leave, but a lot of times it's made obvious the team doesn't want them back (thinks they're washed up).
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Dec 26, 2015 8:57:33 GMT -5
The Red Sox had the best record in the AL in 2007 and 2013.
The 2004 Red Sox were a wild card but also a better team and had a better record than the 75 or 86 teams, the main reason the team wasn't even better than 98 wins was injuries.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 26, 2015 10:05:16 GMT -5
The Red Sox had the best record in the AL in 2007 and 2013. The 2004 Red Sox were a wild card but also a better team and had a better record than the 75 or 86 teams, the main reason the team wasn't even better than 98 wins was injuries. The 2004 team didn't have any injuries to the rotation beyond Kim, which was a blessing. Those 5 starters, once Arroyo took his place, never missed a start. The 2004 team wasn't necessarily better than the 78 team or the 49 team. I always felt that once the Sox won in 04, the monkey was off their back in 07 and 13. Thanks to the 2004 team we'll never hear about the Curse ever again.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,915
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 26, 2015 18:34:20 GMT -5
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. I didn't like how they changed the entire ending in the movie. Absolutely. The movie is a very good movie, but I can't think of it as an adaptation of the book. As a version of the book, it's a desecration. Compare Blade Runner and Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. The movie retains much less of the book's plot than The Natural adaptation does, and it even reverses key plot points (the androids in the novel are pointedly incapable of empathy, while in the film, the point is that they have begun to be capable of it). And yet it is true to the themes and concerns of the book: they both ask the question "what does it mean to be truly human?" and give the same answer, "to have empathy for other humans." Whereas the book of the Natural is based on the truth that if you root for a baseball team, the odds in a given year are that your heart will be broken at the end. And the movie is about the rare exceptions. Great works of narrative art tend to be about universal truths, while great and satisfying entertainments tend to be about exceptions to truths (especially the negative truths); they are wish-fulfillment. The Natural movie makes you feel good (if you ignore that they're violating the spirit of the book), but it's a transient high; the book makes you feel human, and it's a lasting feeling.
|
|
|