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 p23w on Dec 27, 2015 8:54:26 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. I'll take Ted Williams' observations and opinion over Stats, anytime. Stats don't tell you why Bruce Hurst asked to be traded. I've met the players behind the numbers retired by the Red Sox (with the exception of Cronin and Rice). Besides being very good at their craft each man was a straight shooter. Character counts. Heard so not so good things about Cronin, but since I never met him, it would be unfair to hold an opinion. Heard some offbeat things about Rice, but the source was questionable so I discount it. Never met Boggs. Never heard anything good about his character, from multiple sources. Saw plenty of his game. Not overly impressed, particularly in critical situations. My lasting impression of Wade Boggs was his 3000th hit, when he knelt down and kissed home plate. Bottom line for me is that Wade Boggs does not belong with the other's numbers that have been retired. But I guess if the MLB HOF can induct former Klansman I shouldn't mind or care that the Red Sox induct a selfish jerk.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 27, 2015 9:09:44 GMT -5
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. Truth. Screenplays rarely reflect the literature they are derived from. I don't believe Dick was in on the screenplay for Bladerunner. The closest I've seen Hollywood follow a literary work was Harris's Silence of the Lambs. Even Crichton's, work suffered at the hands of Hollywood, despite his influence on the scripts. More often than not the use of the Author's name is a marketing tool for the production and distribution companies.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 27, 2015 9:12:45 GMT -5
70.7 WAR, yeah, terrible. Why would anyone like one of those guys on our team? Fix your quoting. I'll take Ted Williams' observations and opinion over Stats, anytime. Stats don't tell you why Bruce Hurst asked to be traded. I've met the players behind the numbers retired by the Red Sox (with the exception of Cronin and Rice). Besides being very good at their craft each man was a straight shooter. Character counts. Heard so not so good things about Cronin, but since I never met him, it would be unfair to hold an opinion. Heard some offbeat things about Rice, but the source was questionable so I discount it. Never met Boggs. Never heard anything good about his character, from multiple sources. Saw plenty of his game. Not overly impressed, particularly in critical situations. My lasting impression of Wade Boggs was his 3000th hit, when he knelt down and kissed home plate. Bottom line for me is that Wade Boggs does not belong with the other's numbers that have been retired. But I guess if the MLB HOF can induct former Klansman I shouldn't mind or care that the Red Sox induct a selfish jerk. Nobody ever said Boggs was a saint, although his wife might be. I would say Joe Cronin was worse than Wade Boggs ever was. He let his ego and power get in the way of Pee Wee Reese taking his spot at SS. He was a primary reason why Billy Evans, a rare competent employee was fired by a drunk Tom Yawkey. Evans was merely a guy doing a great job of running the farm system. Joe Cronin was very much a part of the racist culture in Boston. It was kind of telling that an aging and very sick Jackie Robinson was giving a speech in 1972 and AL president Joe Cronin, couldn't be bothered to stop eating his hot dog long enough to be present for the speech. Obviously the bad blood goes back to the tryout Robinson had in 1945. I respect Williams' opinion on hitting - who wouldn't? Nobody ever knew more. But Boggs would know himself better (as far as his true abilities go) than Williams would. He must have known that he'd lose at least 50 point of his BA and OBP to gain about 50 points on his slugging average and that the tradeoff wasn't worth it. The key is always to get on base. Never make an out and the offense goes on forever. Outs are really bad. With the exception of one year (1987 - the juiced up ball season) Boggs didn't have the rare ability to get on base as often as Williams if he went for power. That's why Boggs, as great as he was, couldn't be Ted Williams. Nobody ever could be. There was Babe and there was Ted. That's about it. Maybe Gehrig. Bonds was a cheater so you can't put him there. But if it comes to character, yeah you surely can question it. I would say Bobby Doerr was and is a prince of a man. Johnny Pesky was beloved by all, and after meeting him 25 years ago, I can see why. Yaz had hit foibles, too (and he was my first favorite player). Williams could be tough to get along with (by I'll always admire how he stuck up for Pumpsie Green and the amazing HOF speech he gave, among many other things I admire about him.) Fisk seems like a good guy but he wasn't perfect either - I believe he got arrested in 2011 or thereabouts on a drinking incident. Jim Rice was a surly guy who could pollute a clubhouse at times, but you also have to balance that out with what he was going through from a racial standpoint, and you also have to think about that day in 1982 when he was a true hero - I remember a little boy getting struck by a foul ball and Jim Rice taking that little boy to safety - I'll always admire him for that. I guess if you're looking for saints for retired numbers, other than the very genteel Bobby Doerr and Johnny Pesky, it's tough to come up with a perfect list.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 27, 2015 9:20:21 GMT -5
70.7 WAR, yeah, terrible. Why would anyone like one of those guys on our team? Fix your quoting. I'll take Ted Williams' observations and opinion over Stats, anytime. Stats don't tell you why Bruce Hurst asked to be traded. I've met the players behind the numbers retired by the Red Sox (with the exception of Cronin and Rice). Besides being very good at their craft each man was a straight shooter. Character counts. Heard so not so good things about Cronin, but since I never met him, it would be unfair to hold an opinion. Heard some offbeat things about Rice, but the source was questionable so I discount it. Never met Boggs. Never heard anything good about his character, from multiple sources. Saw plenty of his game. Not overly impressed, particularly in critical situations. My lasting impression of Wade Boggs was his 3000th hit, when he knelt down and kissed home plate. Bottom line for me is that Wade Boggs does not belong with the other's numbers that have been retired. But I guess if the MLB HOF can induct former Klansman I shouldn't mind or care that the Red Sox induct a selfish jerk. I was lucky enough to meet Bruce Hurst and can say he's as nice a guy as I thought he would be. He was one of my favorites. I assume you're hinting that Boggs was a big reason he left? If you have details I'd be interested in listening. I assumed he couldn't stand the drinking and the Margo Adams scandal. When I saw Hurst he didn't go into the reasons for leaving, but he did say he regretted leaving Boston and wished he had stayed. I'm guessing that he discovered big league clubhouses are pretty much all the same no matter where you go, but that fanbase passions can vary.
|
|
|
Post by jamesmcgillstatue on Dec 27, 2015 9:21:10 GMT -5
Sigh. Cafardo today wants the Red Sox to follow the Yankees' lead (and the Celts', I must admit) and retire the numbers of standout players of the distant and recent past: #3 for Jimmie Foxx #7 for Dominic DiMaggio #11 for Frank Malzone #21 for Roger Clemens (not surprising; Nick also said he favors his election, along with Bonds, Bagwell, Piazza, etc., to the HoF) #23 for Luis Tiant #24 for Dwight Evans (many would agree) #33 for Jason Varitek #49 for Tim Wakefield Surprised he left out Tony C's 25 and Schilling's 38 while he was at it ... said Tony's career was tragically too short, and never mentions Schilling at all (short-career criteria would probably apply). We know that 34 is going up on the wall and so, probably, is 15. They'll have to build a new upper deck to handle all these numbers. I don't think we'll see 33 or 49 on anyone's backs -- except Varitek's and Wakefield's -- anytime soon. Number 21 is clearly going up for Clemens at the appropriate moment. A strong argument exists for Evans. But the others are just a reach -- and I loved Tiant. Who today thinks of Foxx when they see #3 out there? Same for DiMaggio and Malzone. Let 33 and 49 be reserved for select future players who might merit the numbers.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 27, 2015 10:00:15 GMT -5
Sigh. Cafardo today wants the Red Sox to follow the Yankees' lead (and the Celts', I must admit) and retire the numbers of standout players of the distant and recent past: #3 for Jimmie Foxx #7 for Dominic DiMaggio #11 for Frank Malzone #21 for Roger Clemens (not surprising; Nick also said he favors his election, along with Bonds, Bagwell, Piazza, etc., to the HoF) #23 for Luis Tiant #24 for Dwight Evans (many would agree) #33 for Jason Varitek #49 for Tim Wakefield Surprised he left out Tony C's 25 and Schilling's 38 while he was at it ... said Tony's career was tragically too short, and never mentions Schilling at all (short-career criteria would probably apply). We know that 34 is going up on the wall and so, probably, is 15. They'll have to build a new upper deck to handle all these numbers. I don't think we'll see 33 or 49 on anyone's backs -- except Varitek's and Wakefield's -- anytime soon. Number 21 is clearly going up for Clemens at the appropriate moment. A strong argument exists for Evans. But the others are just a reach -- and I loved Tiant. Who today thinks of Foxx when they see #3 out there? Same for DiMaggio and Malzone. Let 33 and 49 be reserved for select future players who might merit the numbers. It's a tough call I think. On one hand you don't want to be too liberal where retiring numbers doesn't mean anything anymore but you don't want to be too stingy where it's never done either. I doubt they'll ever retire the numbers of Jimmie Foxx or Lefty Grove, but in my opinion they should be retired - they put of HOF numbers with the Sox in what is now largely a forgotten era. Malzone was a good player for a long time, but I don't think his number should be retired. I do agree with that Clemens, Tiant, and Evans should have their numbers retired. Nobody will ever wear #21 on the Sox and Clemens and Pedro are neck and neck as far as being the greatest pitchers the Sox ever had. I think both Tiant and Evans got hosed in the HOF balloting, are really HOFers, and should have their numbers retired with the Sox. I was too young to remember Tiant with the Red Sox, but I have a feeling that the aura in the ballpark on days he pitched were reminiscent what Pedro's day to pitch felt like. If only people understood what great OBP, SA, and defense meant in the 1980s. Only Bill James and a few others seemed to understand. Evans should definitely be in the HOF and have his number retired. I have trouble saying yes to Tony C's 25. He played great but alot of it is hometownism and what should have been. In a way, it's kind of the same with Dom DiMaggio. He was putting up a potential HOF career that had two major interruptions - WWII during his prime years and a stupid manager in Lou Boudreau that wrecked the back half of his career. Nomar's prime was about as good as anybody's. It could be considered. Schilling didn't pitch with the Sox long enough to qualify in my mind. Wake and Tek did, but unless they spend the next 40 years with the Sox, I'm not sure they were good enough. Perhaps the Sox should have a "blank" number that lists Cy Young, Jimmy Collins, Tris Speaker, Harry Hooper, Joe Wood, and Babe Ruth. Maybe one day #15 will be in the discussion if Pedroia stays healthy enough and effective enough. My guess is #21 is next and we know #34 will happen soon, too.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 27, 2015 11:00:08 GMT -5
It's possible to make a case for Foxx, but he didn't play the majority of his career in Boston, and he died before the Nixon administration. There's essentially no one left alive who remembers his prime. It's been too long, and there's something weird and off-putting about reclaiming an ancient figure like Foxx as part of the team heritage more than a half-century after it would have been appropriate to honor him.
Dom DiMaggio... basically the same argument as Foxx, but maybe not quite as strong? Not as good of a player, but did play his whole career with the team at least. Again, to me at least, it feels like it's too late for him.
Malzone was, more or less, an average player. Played his whole career with the Red Sox, yes. That's the only thing that qualifies him to have his number retired, and IMO that's no enough.
Clemens should go. Obviously there's a lot of bad blood there, but unlike Foxx, the guy is still alive. For whatever else happened with him later in his career, he was still the best pitcher in the game during his run with the Sox, and personally I think it's more important to celebrate that than it is to hold a grudge forever and ever.
I'd lean no on Tiant. Obviously I love the guy, but being lovable isn't quite enough. He didn't play the majority of his career in Boston, and he was good but not necessarily great in the years he did play here.
Dwight Evans is the most obvious case on the list. He had a legit HOF-caliber career, and he had it all in Boston. What else do you want? Retiring his number is the least the Red Sox could do for a player that gave so much to the team while never really getting the recognition he deserved for it.
Varitek is borderline for me. He checks all the boxes as far as being beloved by the fans, playing his whole career with the team, etc. I'm just not sure he was quite good enough as a player. He'll probably go up eventually and I won't have too much of a problem with it.
Wakefield, I'm sorry, no. Same deal as Varitek except he really wasn't good enough. I don't care how much of a fan favorite you are, having your number retired has to require a level of performance above "reliable innings eater", right?
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Dec 27, 2015 15:10:13 GMT -5
Great thread! Fenway, I know Luis had the stinker year in '77 (when they introduced a juiced up ball) but I feel he was close enough to great: he pitched 8 years, more than any other team with the Redsox, and despite performing in his age 31-37 seasons had a four year stretch of 85 complete games, along with well below league average eras. In the post season he 3 hit shutout the A's dynasty team, then pitched close to 3 cgs in the World Series against one of the greatest hitting teams ever, winning 2, including a 170 pitch All guts performance. He was one of the only modern pitchers ever to author 2 sub 2.00 seasons. He was a hall of farmer- comparable to Don Drysdale and others. He kept the clubhouse together with his leadership and humor. Most of all, not only were his antics/unique deliveries a Pedro type thrill, but he until that point was more unconditionally loved- regardless of up or down days- by the fans than any other player in Redsox history.
Regarding comparison, thanks sox champs for your points about the 75 and 86 teams- which were better than they appeared- 75 had Fisk out half the year- he caught gold glove level, hit over .330 with power. 86 had a brilliant Bruce Hurst and other pitchers injured. The two teams nearly beat two of the best teams in National League history (I believe about 109 and 108 wins or so respectively). Last, while Rice being out clearly cost 75, less talked about is that in 86 Tom Seaver, just acquired, was their best pitcher down the stretch other than Clemens. He was hurt, replaced in the World Series by Nipper and Boyd who got blasted- don't you think it likely he would've stepped up against his longtime Mets?
Great comments Eric on movies and The Natural, book was better. I do however love Altered States as a sci-fi thriller with fascinating speculation on human consciousness and beautiful special effects, despite the author's bitterness at his work being "altered".
I don't like more current "time bias", therefore don't think Tek rates a retirement number, but Jimmy Foxx was one of the greatest righty hitters ever and was deserving as is Dewey, Tiant, Cy Young. Despite my name, Tony C is a tough call.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 27, 2015 15:51:18 GMT -5
Sigh. Cafardo today wants the Red Sox to follow the Yankees' lead (and the Celts', I must admit) and retire the numbers of standout players of the distant and recent past: #3 for Jimmie Foxx #7 for Dominic DiMaggio #11 for Frank Malzone #21 for Roger Clemens (not surprising; Nick also said he favors his election, along with Bonds, Bagwell, Piazza, etc., to the HoF) #23 for Luis Tiant #24 for Dwight Evans (many would agree) #33 for Jason Varitek #49 for Tim Wakefield Surprised he left out Tony C's 25 and Schilling's 38 while he was at it ... said Tony's career was tragically too short, and never mentions Schilling at all (short-career criteria would probably apply). We know that 34 is going up on the wall and so, probably, is 15. They'll have to build a new upper deck to handle all these numbers. I don't think we'll see 33 or 49 on anyone's backs -- except Varitek's and Wakefield's -- anytime soon. Number 21 is clearly going up for Clemens at the appropriate moment. A strong argument exists for Evans. But the others are just a reach -- and I loved Tiant. Who today thinks of Foxx when they see #3 out there? Same for DiMaggio and Malzone. Let 33 and 49 be reserved for select future players who might merit the numbers. Double "XX" was a notorious drunk, but so was the rep for U.S. Grant. I'm down with both. Dom DiMaggio.... most definitely. Class act unlike his bro'. Frank Malzone.... the man who was Brooks Robinson before Brooks Robinson, why not> Roger Clemens, one of two pitchers featured at Ted Williams hitters HOF, got my vote. Luis Tiant, should have already been retired. Dwight Evans, see Luis Tiant. Jason Varitek close, but the shoving match with ARod is one of my all time favorite Red Sox moments... so yeah. Tim Wakefield gets in for his selflessness alone. Not sure about Tony C., only know that Ted thought very highly of him. Curt? The bloody Sock alone gets him in. I'm projecting that Betts has the stuff to one day earn this distinction.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 27, 2015 16:15:28 GMT -5
I'll take Ted Williams' observations and opinion over Stats, anytime. Stats don't tell you why Bruce Hurst asked to be traded. I've met the players behind the numbers retired by the Red Sox (with the exception of Cronin and Rice). Besides being very good at their craft each man was a straight shooter. Character counts. Heard so not so good things about Cronin, but since I never met him, it would be unfair to hold an opinion. Heard some offbeat things about Rice, but the source was questionable so I discount it. Never met Boggs. Never heard anything good about his character, from multiple sources. Saw plenty of his game. Not overly impressed, particularly in critical situations. My lasting impression of Wade Boggs was his 3000th hit, when he knelt down and kissed home plate. Bottom line for me is that Wade Boggs does not belong with the other's numbers that have been retired. But I guess if the MLB HOF can induct former Klansman I shouldn't mind or care that the Red Sox induct a selfish jerk. Nobody ever said Boggs was a saint, although his wife might be. I would say Joe Cronin was worse than Wade Boggs ever was. He let his ego and power get in the way of Pee Wee Reese taking his spot at SS. He was a primary reason why Billy Evans, a rare competent employee was fired by a drunk Tom Yawkey. Evans was merely a guy doing a great job of running the farm system. Joe Cronin was very much a part of the racist culture in Boston. It was kind of telling that an aging and very sick Jackie Robinson was giving a speech in 1972 and AL president Joe Cronin, couldn't be bothered to stop eating his hot dog long enough to be present for the speech. Obviously the bad blood goes back to the tryout Robinson had in 1945. The negative stuff I heard about Cronin was muted, but came from sources that worked with and for him. The stuff about the tryouts for Robinson and Mays is well documented..., less well known is that as the President of the AL he hired the first black umpire. I respect Williams' opinion on hitting - who wouldn't? Nobody ever knew more. But Boggs would know himself better (as far as his true abilities go) than Williams would. He must have known that he'd lose at least 50 point of his BA and OBP to gain about 50 points on his slugging average and that the tradeoff wasn't worth it. The key is always to get on base. Never make an out and the offense goes on forever. Outs are really bad. With the exception of one year (1987 - the juiced up ball season) Boggs didn't have the rare ability to get on base as often as Williams if he went for power. That's why Boggs, as great as he was, couldn't be Ted Williams. Nobody ever could be. There was Babe and there was Ted. That's about it. Maybe Gehrig. Bonds was a cheater so you can't put him there. When talking about all of Boggs' positives as a hitter Ted got agitated and specifically brought up both park effects and Bagwell. Park effects, because he said Lansford would have had far better career numbers at Fenway than at the coliseum, and Bagwell because he got on base as often as Boggs and developed his power game while playing in Houston. FWIW he loved Nomar's swing. But if it comes to character, yeah you surely can question it. I would say Bobby Doerr was and is a prince of a man. Johnny Pesky was beloved by all, and after meeting him 25 years ago, I can see why. Yaz had hit foibles, too (and he was my first favorite player). Williams could be tough to get along with (by I'll always admire how he stuck up for Pumpsie Green and the amazing HOF speech he gave, among many other things I admire about him.) Williams was in real life who John Wayne played in movies. Fisk seems like a good guy but he wasn't perfect either - I believe he got arrested in 2011 or thereabouts on a drinking incident. The double tag out at home and the fight with Munson were even better than his walk-off in game #6. Jim Rice was a surly guy who could pollute a clubhouse at times, but you also have to balance that out with what he was going through from a racial standpoint, and you also have to think about that day in 1982 when he was a true hero - I remember a little boy getting struck by a foul ball and Jim Rice taking that little boy to safety - I'll always admire him for that. I guess if you're looking for saints for retired numbers, other than the very genteel Bobby Doerr and Johnny Pesky, it's tough to come up with a perfect list. I'm not looking for saints so much as real teammates.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 27, 2015 18:21:42 GMT -5
Curt Schilling played for the Red Sox for four seasons and only two of them were good. Let's not get silly here. If you're going to retire his, retire Dave Roberts' number while we're at it.
Getting down to it, it seems pretty clear they're going to retire the following numbers eventually: 21 - Nobody has worn it since Clemens. They're probably hoping he gets into the HOF first, or at least giving some time for the steroid stigma to die first. 24 - Only worn by Takashi Saito for one season after Manny. So you'd think it's going up there for Evans at some point. 34 - Ortiz will be the last one to wear it. I think we can all agree on this.
And these may be retired: 33 - Nobody has worn it since Varitek. 49 - Nobody has worn it since Wakefield. Although I note that both are still involved in the organization, which may play into it.
As for the other numbers mentioned: 3 (Foxx) - They let Sandy Leon wear it last year. Doesn't appear to be a priority. 7 (Dimaggio) - They let 4 different players wear it in 2014. 11 (Malzone) - Buchholz is using it now, obviously. 23 (Tiant) - Currently worn by Swihart, they've given it to the likes of Brandon Snyder and Pedro Ciriaco. 38 (Schilling) - Since Curt, been worn by Matt Thornton, Grady Sizemore, Heath Hembree, and now Rusney Castillo.
Of course, the same analysis would've said Boggs wasn't on the radar, so who knows?
My question is whether there's some reason they're doing Boggs now. Perhaps they're starting with the HOFers (Pedro last year, Boggs this year) and then working their way to Clemens and Evans?
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Dec 27, 2015 21:26:57 GMT -5
Sigh. Cafardo today wants the Red Sox to follow the Yankees' lead (and the Celts', I must admit) and retire the numbers of standout players of the distant and recent past: #3 for Jimmie Foxx #7 for Dominic DiMaggio #11 for Frank Malzone #21 for Roger Clemens (not surprising; Nick also said he favors his election, along with Bonds, Bagwell, Piazza, etc., to the HoF) #23 for Luis Tiant #24 for Dwight Evans (many would agree) #33 for Jason Varitek #49 for Tim Wakefield Surprised he left out Tony C's 25 and Schilling's 38 while he was at it ... said Tony's career was tragically too short, and never mentions Schilling at all (short-career criteria would probably apply). We know that 34 is going up on the wall and so, probably, is 15. They'll have to build a new upper deck to handle all these numbers. I don't think we'll see 33 or 49 on anyone's backs -- except Varitek's and Wakefield's -- anytime soon. Number 21 is clearly going up for Clemens at the appropriate moment. A strong argument exists for Evans. But the others are just a reach -- and I loved Tiant. Who today thinks of Foxx when they see #3 out there? Same for DiMaggio and Malzone. Let 33 and 49 be reserved for select future players who might merit the numbers. Double "XX" was a notorious drunk, but so was the rep for U.S. Grant. I'm down with both. Dom DiMaggio.... most definitely. Class act unlike his bro'. Frank Malzone.... the man who was Brooks Robinson before Brooks Robinson, why not> Roger Clemens, one of two pitchers featured at Ted Williams hitters HOF, got my vote. Luis Tiant, should have already been retired. Dwight Evans, see Luis Tiant. Jason Varitek close, but the shoving match with ARod is one of my all time favorite Red Sox moments... so yeah. Tim Wakefield gets in for his selflessness alone. Not sure about Tony C., only know that Ted thought very highly of him. Curt? The bloody Sock alone gets him in. I'm projecting that Betts has the stuff to one day earn this distinction. By all accounts, Craig Breslow is a fine human being and a great teammate. Let's get his number up on that facade, baby! Seriously, though, I lean toward "no" always and think retiring numbers should be reserved only for the greatest of the great. The Sox have some truly great players and don't need to dilute the value of retiring numbers by putting every Tim, Dom, and Luis up there. I'm not even sure I'd have all the guys up there that they do now (I'd maybe lean against Rice and Fisk, but I get it on both). But Boggs was quite possibly the second-best position player in Sox history. He's really underrated even as a Hall of Famer, partially because he did kind of come across as a narcissist and partially because he was before his time with his focus on OBP. And Cafardo's list is far too permissive. I loved Wakefield, but he just wasn't dominant enough or iconic enough. Same with Varitek, Tiant, Malzone, and DiMaggio. Good players all, but that's all, and I don't find them to be sufficiently iconic (Big Papi probably isn't actually a truly inner-circle great player, but his importance to the franchise is outsized and his number will end up there) ... I'd maybe lean toward yes on Evans just because his career is astonishingly undervalued by baseball at large, but he's borderline to me, in the Rice/Fisk tier, just ahead of Varitek. Like I said, I have a high bar and find the increasing number of retired numbers up there to be a bit of a marketing ploy.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 27, 2015 22:23:11 GMT -5
I don't know that it's a marketing ploy to have the numbers retired necessarily. It's interesting that when Lucchino was running the show Boggs number was not retired. As soon as Sam Kennedy takes over, Boggs number gets retired. I'd pretty sure Clemens won't be far behind.
Sam Kennedy is about 42 years old and grew up watching the Sox, particularly in the 1980s (and this bodes well for Dwight Evans, too). He grew up enjoying Boggs, Rice, Clemens, and Evans. Those were the teams of his youth.
I could be totally wrong, but I think the change from Lucchino to Kennedy is kind of what is driving this. Lucchino didn't grow up idolizing those guys. He was a Pirates fan and his team was probably the 1960 Pirates.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 28, 2015 7:14:05 GMT -5
Curt Schilling played for the Red Sox for four seasons and only two of them were good. Let's not get silly here. If you're going to retire his, retire Dave Roberts' number while we're at it. Getting down to it, it seems pretty clear they're going to retire the following numbers eventually: 21 - Nobody has worn it since Clemens. They're probably hoping he gets into the HOF first, or at least giving some time for the steroid stigma to die first. 24 - Only worn by Takashi Saito for one season after Manny. So you'd think it's going up there for Evans at some point.34 - Ortiz will be the last one to wear it. I think we can all agree on this. And these may be retired: 33 - Nobody has worn it since Varitek. 49 - Nobody has worn it since Wakefield. Although I note that both are still involved in the organization, which may play into it. As for the other numbers mentioned: 3 (Foxx) - They let Sandy Leon wear it last year. Doesn't appear to be a priority. 7 (Dimaggio) - They let 4 different players wear it in 2014. 11 (Malzone) - Buchholz is using it now, obviously. 23 (Tiant) - Currently worn by Swihart, they've given it to the likes of Brandon Snyder and Pedro Ciriaco. 38 (Schilling) - Since Curt, been worn by Matt Thornton, Grady Sizemore, Heath Hembree, and now Rusney Castillo. Of course, the same analysis would've said Boggs wasn't on the radar, so who knows? My question is whether there's some reason they're doing Boggs now. Perhaps they're starting with the HOFers (Pedro last year, Boggs this year) and then working their way to Clemens and Evans? I thought I saw that Price was going to wear 24.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 28, 2015 10:35:52 GMT -5
I don't know that it's a marketing ploy to have the numbers retired necessarily. It's interesting that when Lucchino was running the show Boggs number was not retired. As soon as Sam Kennedy takes over, Boggs number gets retired. I'd pretty sure Clemens won't be far behind. Sam Kennedy is about 42 years old and grew up watching the Sox, particularly in the 1980s (and this bodes well for Dwight Evans, too). He grew up enjoying Boggs, Rice, Clemens, and Evans. Those were the teams of his youth. I could be totally wrong, but I think the change from Lucchino to Kennedy is kind of what is driving this. Lucchino didn't grow up idolizing this e guys. He was a Pirates fan and his team was probably the 1960 Pirates. All you have to do to realize the marketing ploy for what it is, would be to visit Legends Field in Tampa anytime from February till the end of March. Largest, busiest, souvenir shop in baseball.... they even have two #8 jersey's, one with Berra's name and one with Dickey's name. It is a veritable gold mine. Wouldn't be surprised if they started selling Boggs momentos from 1996 (yes they have the horse poster for sale already). IMO if you want to sell out all the way... retire Wade's number.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 28, 2015 11:03:13 GMT -5
Curt Schilling played for the Red Sox for four seasons and only two of them were good. Let's not get silly here. If you're going to retire his, retire Dave Roberts' number while we're at it. Getting down to it, it seems pretty clear they're going to retire the following numbers eventually: 21 - Nobody has worn it since Clemens. They're probably hoping he gets into the HOF first, or at least giving some time for the steroid stigma to die first. 24 - Only worn by Takashi Saito for one season after Manny. So you'd think it's going up there for Evans at some point.34 - Ortiz will be the last one to wear it. I think we can all agree on this. And these may be retired: 33 - Nobody has worn it since Varitek. 49 - Nobody has worn it since Wakefield. Although I note that both are still involved in the organization, which may play into it. As for the other numbers mentioned: 3 (Foxx) - They let Sandy Leon wear it last year. Doesn't appear to be a priority. 7 (Dimaggio) - They let 4 different players wear it in 2014. 11 (Malzone) - Buchholz is using it now, obviously. 23 (Tiant) - Currently worn by Swihart, they've given it to the likes of Brandon Snyder and Pedro Ciriaco. 38 (Schilling) - Since Curt, been worn by Matt Thornton, Grady Sizemore, Heath Hembree, and now Rusney Castillo. Of course, the same analysis would've said Boggs wasn't on the radar, so who knows? My question is whether there's some reason they're doing Boggs now. Perhaps they're starting with the HOFers (Pedro last year, Boggs this year) and then working their way to Clemens and Evans? I thought I saw that Price was going to wear 24. Great point, although I could also see them ok'ing it for Price but not for lesser players if the plan were to retire it down the road. Difference between him using it and, say, Pedro Ciriaco.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 28, 2015 14:00:45 GMT -5
I don't know that it's a marketing ploy to have the numbers retired necessarily. It's interesting that when Lucchino was running the show Boggs number was not retired. As soon as Sam Kennedy takes over, Boggs number gets retired. I'd pretty sure Clemens won't be far behind. Sam Kennedy is about 42 years old and grew up watching the Sox, particularly in the 1980s (and this bodes well for Dwight Evans, too). He grew up enjoying Boggs, Rice, Clemens, and Evans. Those were the teams of his youth. I could be totally wrong, but I think the change from Lucchino to Kennedy is kind of what is driving this. Lucchino didn't grow up idolizing this e guys. He was a Pirates fan and his team was probably the 1960 Pirates. All you have to do to realize the marketing ploy for what it is, would be to visit Legends Field in Tampa anytime from February till the end of March. Largest, busiest, souvenir shop in baseball.... they even have two #8 jersey's, one with Berra's name and one with Dickey's name. It is a veritable gold mine. Wouldn't be surprised if they started selling Boggs momentos from 1996 (yes they have the horse poster for sale already). IMO if you want to sell out all the way... retire Wade's number. My point isn't that there isn't marketing involved. Of course there is. My point is the timing of it and the fact that it didn't get retired under LL, but did get retired under the younger Kennedy who grew up watching the Red Sox during the 1980s. It's not like LL didn't like marketing, and the jerseys, etc. I'm merely pointing out that I think the change from LL to Kennedy is what prompted the sudden change from silence regarding Boggs' number to the activity of doing it. You can call it selling out all you like. It doesn't change what Boggs' numbers were with the Sox, and whether you like it or not, his numbers are totally deserving of the honor. You can slice and dice it anyway you want - say he was a horrible teammate (he probably was) - but that horrible teammate got on base far better than some rah-rah cheerleader type ever did - and poor teammate or not, that helps create the generation of runs more often, thus padding his teammates RBI counts and helping them get their big bucks - as RBIs were great reasons to get paid back then, and having a guy on base 300 plus times per year certainly helped them get their RBIs.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 28, 2015 14:14:18 GMT -5
Right? Boggs was a terrible teammate... who earned millions of dollars for everyone who ever hit behind him.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 28, 2015 14:39:34 GMT -5
Right? Boggs was a terrible teammate... who earned millions of dollars for everyone who ever hit behind him. Right... can't wait to hear all those accolades and thanks from all the teammates Boggs earned those millions of dollars for. Don't hold your breath.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Dec 28, 2015 17:37:52 GMT -5
This thread is hard for me to understand. Yes, Boggs is a bad husband and probably not a great teammate. Ted was right saying he would have been even better if had he given up some obp for power. But we are talking about levels of greatness, not if there was greatness. I think a lot of this goes back to Bogg's own comments about how he could have hit a lot more HR's but only hit 310 or so.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 28, 2015 17:43:39 GMT -5
I'm not sure that secondhand rumors about how popular a guy was with his teammates is the best way to decide this kind of stuff.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 29, 2015 23:27:44 GMT -5
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. Truth. Screenplays rarely reflect the literature they are derived from. I don't believe Dick was in on the screenplay for Bladerunner. The closest I've seen Hollywood follow a literary work was Harris's Silence of the Lambs. Even Crichton's, work suffered at the hands of Hollywood, despite his influence on the scripts. More often than not the use of the Author's name is a marketing tool for the production and distribution companies. The current Hollywood culture is different then it was back then. Authors of books or stories are fairly often kept in the loop. This has been especially true for adaptations of popular books like The Martian, where screenwriter Drew Goddard was in touch continually with Andrew Weir as he wrote the screenplay. But take the 2016 sci-fi film I'm most psyched about, Story of Your Life, directed by Denis Villeneuve ( Incendies, Prisoners, Enemy, Sicario) and starring Amy Adams, Jeremy Renner, Forrest Whitaker, and Michael Stulhbarg. It's based on a short story by Ted Chiang, who's published just 15 stories in 25 years; two won the Hugo Award, two won the Nebula Award (including this one), and two won both. Among others. Ted often pops up at the convention I used to help run, and when he did last July he told me he was going to be on the set as they were filming. Which is one of the reasons I'm psyched; the story as written seems unfilmable, but it would lend itself to a radical storytelling structure like Memento, and that Ted got to at least hang out suggests that they've retained more of the story's content than I would have thought possible.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 30, 2015 10:30:26 GMT -5
I'm not sure that secondhand rumors about how popular a guy was with his teammates is the best way to decide this kind of stuff. No, the best way is speculating about how the most productive hitter in the league didn't know what he was doing and should have hit for more power.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Dec 30, 2015 16:36:50 GMT -5
A slight detour here, but thinking about the guys with retired numbers ... I had no idea Bobby Doerr was still alive. Dude's 97 years old, played in the 30s!
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 30, 2015 16:38:43 GMT -5
Truth. Screenplays rarely reflect the literature they are derived from. I don't believe Dick was in on the screenplay for Bladerunner. The closest I've seen Hollywood follow a literary work was Harris's Silence of the Lambs. Even Crichton's, work suffered at the hands of Hollywood, despite his influence on the scripts. More often than not the use of the Author's name is a marketing tool for the production and distribution companies. The current Hollywood culture is different then it was back then. Authors of books or stories are fairly often kept in the loop. This has been especially true for adaptations of popular books like The Martian, where screenwriter Drew Goddard was in touch continually with Andrew Weir as he wrote the screenplay. But take the 2016 sci-fi film I'm most psyched about, Story of Your Life, directed by Denis Villeneuve ( Incendies, Prisoners, Enemy, Sicario) and starring Amy Adams, Jeremy Renner, Forrest Whitaker, and Michael Stulhbarg. It's based on a short story by Ted Chiang, who's published just 15 stories in 25 years; two won the Hugo Award, two won the Nebula Award (including this one), and two won both. Among others. Ted often pops up at the convention I used to help run, and when he did last July he told me he was going to be on the set as they were filming. Which is one of the reasons I'm psyched; the story as written seems unfilmable, but it would lend itself to a radical storytelling structure like Memento, and that Ted got to at least hang out suggests that they've retained more of the story's content than I would have thought possible. Memento hurt my brain at first viewing. Story of Your Life sounds interesting. Know of a release date? Last sci-fi flick that was worth admission (mho) was Ex Machina.
|
|
|