|
Post by iakovos11 on May 27, 2016 9:53:43 GMT -5
I don't care that he went to the MFY. I care about how he was during his Red Sox years. Whenever a fan would yell at him he'd say "keep touting that lunchbox." In other words, he had no respect for the fans. He only played for himself, not the team. It was always all about him. I thought his HOF hat should be "WB" because that's who he played for. I saw his wife on the field. Whatever happened to Margo Adams? Why should Boggs have respect for a fan who's yelling at him? Any fan who's yelling at a .360 hitter is pretty stupid. How do you know he only played for himself? That makes no sense. Are you honestly telling me that his .400+ OBP wasn't helping the team? How selfish of him getting on base so his teammates can knock him in. And if he didn't care about winning, what was the tears rolling down his cheek when the Sox lost in 86 all about? A publicity stunt? These arguments were lame many years ago and they're still lame. As far as Margo Adams goes, if his wife doesn't care at this point, why should you? In an age where about 50% of marriages end in divorce, Boggs and his wife are still together after all these years. That's something to be proud of. Boggs was hardly a perfect man, and can be quite tone deaf (and yeah, he knew his stats very well, but he's hardly alone in that), but he was a great ballplayer, and I'm glad the Sox finally did right by him. I agree with you here. Also, don't forget this selfish stats only guy worked his *** off to go from a bad defensive third baseman to a very good one who ended up winning 2 (I think) Gold Gloves. I think you'd also hear stories of Ted Williams flipping off fans if you talked to your parents or grandparents or other of that generation that went to enough games.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on May 27, 2016 10:24:33 GMT -5
The only problem I have about the whole deal is the Ring....He should have worn the '86 ring. Mrs. Yawkey/Haywood Sullivan were very gracious about giving out pennant winning rings. My grandfather scouted for the Sox for 20 years & he had 3 of these rings (67 75 86) which I now have & are sacred to me. With all the '86 guys there, he should have worn that one.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,924
|
Post by ericmvan on May 27, 2016 12:37:03 GMT -5
I have the question for you people. When you think about #26 and the Red Sox, do you immediately think about Boggs? To me that's what defines if a number should be retired or not. The number should be strongly tied to the player in the minds of the fans and he has to have set a standard so high both in performance and fanbase appreciation that fans don't want to see anyone ever again wearing a jersey with that number. FWIW, I never had the chance to see Boggs play, so I don't really have an opinion whether his number should be retired or not. My immediate thoughts about Boggs, as a guy who started following him as a prospect: -- First, a fascinating prospect (.325 / .420 / .377 in AA at age 21), on whom the Sox gambled a bit by leaving off the 40-man roster, but wasn't drafted. -- Next, a great prospect (.306 / .396 / .364 in AAA) whom the Sox blundered hugely (I thought) by again not protecting, who was then dissed by every team in baseball, all of whom could have had a future HOFer for $50K and declined because he needed defensive work and didn't hit for the power a 3B should have. It was at that point that I realized that not a single GM in baseball understood the importance of OBP. I had gotten it (in 1971) from Earnshaw Cook's 1964 book Percentage Baseball, but Life magazine had run a big article in 1954 where a better-than-average GM had extolled its importance and neglect. Guy named Rickey. (Who was apparently also smart enough to realize that nobody else would adopt it.) -- Guy who went back to AAA and had a monster year and forced himself onto the 40-man roster. -- Guy who as a rookie, didn't bitch when they gave the starting 1B job to converted SS Dave Stapleton (.285 / .325 / .423 the year before) rather than Boggs, who had hit .335 / .437 / .460 in AAA. -- And who didn't bitch when he got 2 starts at 1B in April while Stapleton hit .224 / .250 / .303. -- Or when Stapleton hit .264 / .297 / .343 in May and he got 0 starts. I don't recall any press about Boggs being a better alternative; he was a barely-used curio. And Stapleton did get hot in June. -- A guy who seized his moment by the throat when Carney Lansford got hurt and hit .377 / .436 / .421 in 45 games from late June to August 11. -- A guy who did not complain when he was then sent back to the bench when Lansford returned on 8/13, rather than being given the 1B job. Stapleton was hitting .256 / .285 / .375. I was apoplectic. I don't recall what the press said, but I don't recall strong criticism. (They finally made Boggs the starting 1B on August 28. Season totals: Stapleton, 581 PA, 0.6 WAR; Boggs, 381 PA, 3.9 WAR.)* -- A guy who reportedly worked tirelessly on his 3B defense, but it always looked solid, and according to Total Zone, it was always good. (In fact, he immediately looked better than Lansford, who dove for everything and got to a lot fewer balls than he seemed to, based on the number of flashy plays he made.) You've heard about this, but what's probably been unclear is that it didn't take him years. It happened his rookie season, enough to make him a plus defender. The continued work just brought him to a GG level. -- Oh, good hitter. This thread is a clear example of why eyes on matter. Us older poster's "may not get it" but we saw it. Sure. * Ralph Houk's eventual batting order: .280 / .337 / .324 Remy .292 / .402 / .534 Evans .309 / .375 / .494 Rice .275 / .358 / .431 Yaz .301 / .359 / .444 Lansford .349 / .406 / .441 Boggs .302 / .341 / .461 Nichols .209 / .262 / .311 Hoffman .205 / .306 / .314 Allenson Number of times guys hit behind Boggs and his .406 OBP, with their SA: 24, .398, Stapleton 20, .461, Nichols 12, .325, Miller 11, .363, Gedman 05, .311, Hoffman 05, .324, Remy 03, .444, Perez 03, .534, Evans That's a .395 average; the team as a whole slugged .407.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,924
|
Post by ericmvan on May 27, 2016 16:44:29 GMT -5
Does anyone know the 'rules' now for retiring Red Sox numbers? As much as it's nice to have more players honored - I always liked the strict rules given and felt that it differentiated the 'All-Time Great Red Sox' from the 'Very Good Red Sox' and 'All-Time Great Players'. (and was stark contrast to the Yankees retiring so many numbers) I mean Yaz, Williams, Doerr, Cronin - there was no debate about the greatness or the team legacy for these players. Pesky as a special exception was nice as well do to what he meant to the Franchise. But I'd like it if the Red Sox established new rules to show 'who' qualifies to have their number retired. Well, HOF election has always been a part of the picture, Pesky excluded and for excellent reasons. But that means they are entrusting this very significant honor to a bunch of stupid, clueless, sportswriters (and the veterans committees have been at least as bad as of late). How about: consensus of baseball experts believe a guy is HOF-worthy. Plus majority of career with Sox. They can get a nice number thing going on the right facade there, next to 26. First 24 (for Dewey), then 23. 21 when he actually gets in the Hall, maybe, but they should send a message to the appropriate veteran committees about 24 and 23.
|
|