is credited by many as the turning point of the 2004 Red Sox’ run to their first World Series in 86 years

Especially that part where they didn't start gaining ground in the division for almost a month.

Boston's ALCS comeback was historic and impressive, but let's not credit Varitek's July ############# for it.

Slow simmah.

Yankee fans more than others should understand that winners - you know like the Epstein era Sox - are the subject of these kinds of stories to tell the story of those victories.

Sox fans know that it sucks to play the loser role in those stories - and that those stories are not neccessarily based on the simple sabre truth - but that doesn't make it a bad thing.

The story of the Sox 2004 season is better told with more time spent on that July 24 game than on the subsquent month when they didn't gain ground. I don't see how that's even in question and I don't see how it harms much of anything either.

It also has the benefit of the 25 players who were directly involved believing it to be true, which does kind of outweigh random bitter Yankee fans on the internet.

Especially that part where they didn't start gaining ground in the division for almost a month.

I'd go with "had to trade Nomar after this game". Which led to the team's midseason makeover and a World Series.

I'd go with "came back late two games in a row while facing elimination in the ALCS". Take away either of those and nobody gives a #### about the 2004 Red Sox.

I'd go with "came back late two games in a row while facing elimination in the ALCS". Take away either of those and nobody gives a #### about the 2004 Red Sox.

but you can't take those away and everyone does give a #### about the 2004 red sox.

sour grapes, #####. i love seeing yankees fans whine about the greatest post season collapse ever.

but you can't take those away and everyone does give a #### about the 2004 red sox.

sour grapes, #####. i love seeing yankees fans whine about the greatest post season collapse ever.

A) You have no idea what sour grapes means.

B) If Boston loses, and loses the division by 10 games (still winning the Wild Card, mind you), and comes back from 3-0 in the ALCS, everyone would care about the 2004 Red Sox exactly the same. The July 24th game played no role in their making up 7 games in the standings in the last two months, played no role in their making the postseason, played no role in them coming back in the ALCS, played no role in their winning the World Series. As regular season games go, it was a nice come-from-behind win, but nothing exceptional. It's a stupid attempt to place meaning on an event which had none.

C) Where did I whine about the 2004 ALCS? Please point out the part where I did that.

I mean, any self-respecting historian would be aghast at calling "July 24th" the day that "changed Red Sox history", if historians cared enough about baseball to be aghast (which sadly, they don't).

October 27th, October 20th and October 18th would be the three days that changed Red Sox history, in whatever order you want to put them in, or as a combination. Calling July 24th that day is like saying that slavery wasn't ended by the Civil War, it was ended by the murder of Elijah Lovejoy.

2004 Red Sox record up to 7/24: 53-44, .546

2004 Red Sox, after Cappy kicks Slappy's as$ in that Billy Mueller walk-off game, including the playoff run to a WS Title: 56-23, .737

Gaining ground has nothing to do with it--they did begin to play better at around that date, after
having won games at an ~.500 clip for the previous 81 games or so.

edit: clarity

2004 Red Sox, after Cappy kicks Slappy's as$ in that Billy Mueller walk-off game, including the playoff run to a WS Title: 56-23, .737

And the ten games after that they played 5-5 and lost two games in the standings. What the hell kind of turnaround game takes effect two weeks later? That game didn't turn their season around. That game didn't make them play better. It was just a memorable game.

That game didn't make them play better. It was just a memorable game.

It made them suspect that the '04 Yankees were a bunch of gutless, front-running pu$$ies who could be, and were, had.

And by "kicking A-Rod's ass" you mean "shoved a glove in his face and failed at trying to pick him up while A-Rod punched him several times before they were pulled apart by a mob", yeah sure, he kicked his ass.

It made them suspect that the '04 Yankees were a bunch of gutless, front-running pu$$ies who could be, and were, had.

Yeah, bullsh*t.

LM, you are completely correct..... but it's completely irrelevant. Legends seldom care about the underlying facts. It's often annoying, but this is far from the worst example.

Edit: The argument in 11 will never be resolved, and is similarly irrelevant to the legend.

If a fight changed the balance of power in the AL East, one would cite the 1976 brawl at Yankee Stadium. It put Bill Lee out for a good stretch.

However in reality the 1976 Yankee rise over the Red Sox could be partial related to several things:

1) A new Yankee Stadium (and out of Shea) which probably energized a solid ball club,

2) Boston's off season distractions of hold outs by Fisk, Lynn and Burleson,

3) the brilliance of Gabe Paul and the win now attitude of Steinbrenner vs. the ownership of Yawkey - who was in rapid decline healthwise.

And regarding 2004, if that brawl turned the tables how does one explain going to the brink of being swept before getting off the deck. Were the Sox playing possum?

The argument in 11 will never be resolved, and is similarly irrelevant to the legend.

I think my comment is the resolution. Nobody kicked anyone's ass. A-Rod was the only one who got punches in, but Varitek was wearing a mask and chest protector so what the #### good was that?

after Cappy kicks Slappy's as$ in that Billy Mueller walk-off game

Is it just me or did no one's ass get kicked in that exchange?

Edit: Owe Larry a coke.

And regarding 2004, if that brawl turned the tables how does one explain going to the brink of being swept before getting off the deck. Were the Sox playing possum?

I think the theory is that Hulkamania only runs wild based on the knowledge of previous fights. Hogan typically would be on the brink of defeat and then the crowd would energize him. But the key was that he remembered. He remembered all those little Hulkamaniacs. He remembered the body slam of Andre The Giant. He remembered all the fights he won. And then he shook off his opponent and ran wild on him. Without his history he was nothing.

I think my comment is the resolution. Nobody kicked anyone's ass. A-Rod was the only one who got punches in, but Varitek was wearing a mast and chest protector so what the #### good was that?

Just as nothing a Red Sox fan could say would convince you otherwise, no arguments such as this will convince any Sox fans. Plus, you're underestimating the amount of hatred for ARod, deserved or otherwise.

It made them suspect that the '04 Yankees were a bunch of gutless, front-running pu$$ies who could be, and were, had.

kevin lives.

I think the theory is that Hulkamania only runs wild based on the knowledge of previous fights. Hogan typically would be on the brink of defeat and then the crowd would energize him. But the key was that he remembered. He remembered all those little Hulkamaniacs. He remembered the body slam of Andre The Giant. He remembered all the fights he won. And then he shook off his opponent and ran wild on him. Without his history he was nothing.

This is the greatest post ever.

2004 Red Sox, after Cappy kicks Slappy's as$ in that Billy Mueller walk-off game, including the playoff run to a WS Title: 56-23, .737

And the ten games after that they played 5-5 and lost two games in the standings. What the hell kind of turnaround game takes effect two weeks later? That game didn't turn their season around. That game didn't make them play better. It was just a memorable game.

Nah, it's probably just that the full effect didn't really kick in until Doris Kearns Goodwin had declared it to be the Turning Point, and at the time of the fight she was still getting over her affair with that Duke Snider impersonator.

1)Arod got zero punches in. Unless you could harmless, sissy rabbit punches.

2)Cappy ended up on top of him. In baseball fights that means you win.

Cappy ended up on top of him. In baseball fights that means you win.

This is the dumbest post ever.

Schilling's claim that this game was the turning point is no more true than the YES Network recap of the 1978 season in which the Yankees' poor start is blamed on injuries and their resurgence is framed as being due to their steely resolve against a weak-willed Boston team.

Except that Larry doesn't get all ###### about the latter.

There actually may be something to all this. IIRC the Yankees put the Red Sox into a coma for 52 years after Billy Martin kicked the shlt out of Jimmy Piersall in 1952 and drove him straight into the funny farm. Not to mention that when Martin KO'd Clint Courtney, he drove the Browns right out of St. Louis.

Except that Larry doesn't get all ###### about the latter.

Really? Please link me to the post where I made any statements to that effect. Even a vague allusion would suffice. Otherwise shut up and stop being a moron.

This is a thread about the 7/24/04 game. I don't see how my posts are anything less than relevant here.

Really? Please link me to the post where I made any statements to that effect. Even a vague allusion would suffice. Otherwise shut up and stop being a moron.

You want him to link to posts of you not getting worked up about a specific event? That actually should be pretty easy.

How does that line go again? "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." Something like that.

Except that Larry doesn't get all ###### about the latter.

All he is saying is that overblown, fanboyish BS is overblown, fanboyish BS, on both sides, particularly where old rivals are concerned. As a Laker fanboy who talks to Celtic fanboys here, I agree with him.

We also went nuts when we saw Jonesy (first-base coach Lynn Jones, who tried to pull David Ortiz out of the scrum with Sturtze) grabbing our players. You never grab your own guys in a brawl.

Actually, this happens all the time.

Actually, this happens all the time.

I found that peculiar too Danny.

This is the dumbest post ever.

It was meant to be semi-humorous, Lar'. Although I do think that game of 7/24/04 had some kind of special meaning.

This is my all-time favorite Larry post:


44. Best Regards, Larry Mahnken Posted: October 13, 2004 at 07:33 PM (#914830)

From Epstein's comments, it seems like Schilling will not pitch again this year.

This is my all-time favorite Larry post:

You should ask Aaron Gleeman what I said after Game Two of that series.

You should ask Aaron Gleeman what I said after Game Two of that series.

Ahh, just tell us?

I told him that I could see Boston coming back from 3-0 down, because if they won Game Four they'd have Pedro in Game Five and Schilling in Game Six, and a Game Seven can go either way.

He said I was insane.

I remember where I was when that game was played. I was at work for the early innings, at a sports bar near my house at the end. Got a couple of phone calls from relatives back home after the Mueller HR.

Looking at it objectively, the 3-game sweep of Toronto on 8/16-8/18 was more the real turning point. They were 64-52 going into that series, had just dropped 2 of 3 to the White Sox at home and were 10.5 back of the Yankees and deadlocked for the Wild Card with Texas. They went 34-12 the rest of the way.

Being used to a lifetime of frustration at that point, I remember being about ready to write the team off if they let the Blue Jays take that series.

I told him that I could see Boston coming back from 3-0 down, because if they won Game Four they'd have Pedro in Game Five and Schilling in Game Six, and a Game Seven can go either way.

Hmmm...I was pessimistic about Schilling at that point, and Pedro looked like #### against the Yankees that entire season. Yeah, all bets are off when Game 7 comes but maybe in my most optimistic daydream saw them surviving Fenway and getting the series back to New York so that the locals in Boston didn't have to be treated to that sight again.

Well, my point in that is that Boston had two pitchers who could win a game all by themselves if they were "on".

Not to take anything away from Boston that year, but the likely reason that nobody had come back from 3-0 before 2004 is that the team that wins the first three games is usually much better than the other team, which wasn't the case in 2004.

Schilling in Game Six

Who figured to be red meat for wolves? The same man you wrote off one day before?

but the likely reason that nobody had come back from 3-0 before 2004 is that the team that wins the first three games is usually much better than the other team

Nope. Occam's razor: Yanks pulled the biggest gag-job in American sports history. They did it on a fittingly grand, Yankee- sized scale.
For which I'm eternally thankful.

And without 7/24/04, it never would have happened. Thanks for firing the boys up, Slappy!

No, I commented that Epstein seemed to be saying that Schilling would be unable to pitch without actually saying it. I didn't write him off, as evidenced by my telling Aaron that I thought he could pitch in Game Six.

even when we drew a Seattle we’d get Hernandez

Erm... no. In so many ways, no. Hernandez was in the minors the whole year. Freddy Garcia, the Mariners best starter that year went to White Sox half way through, and had a losing record anyway.

A) You have no idea what sour grapes means.

Obviously he does, as your posts in this thread demonstrate.

Obviously he does, as your posts in this thread demonstrate.

Larry's tone is kind of bitter/sour, but the stuff he is saying is not really "sour grapes" as it is actually defined. People conflate those all the time (not that it really matters).

Obviously he does, as your posts in this thread demonstrate.

Obviously you don't, either.

It would be sour grapes if I said that I didn't really want the Yankees to win in 2004 anyway, that I wouldn't have enjoyed it that much. Just as the Fox said that the grapes he couldn't reach were probably sour.

I remember where I was when that game was played. I was at work for the early innings, at a sports bar near my house at the end. Got a couple of phone calls from relatives back home after the Mueller HR.

I was at the game. It beat the hell out of my first Fenway game.

I had tickets to Game 5 of the WS.

A) You have no idea what sour grapes means.

yes i do, as even a cursory internet search will show you, in modern contexts it can and does refer to expressions of bitterness such as your posts above. and you're whining. end of story.

yes i do, as even a cursory internet search will show you, in modern contexts it can and does refer to expressions of bitterness such as your posts above. and you're whining. end of story.

Widespread ignorance does not negate the ignorance. Sour grapes refers to a fable. In your context is makes no sense whatsoever. In the correct context it makes complete sense.

And at no point have I ever "whined" about the 2004 ALCS. I give full credit to Boston for that comeback, and the 2004 World Series is the first and last time I have ever rooted for the Red Sox to win.

My "whining" has been about revisionist history. Attempting to pinpoint the July 24th game as the moment that turned around Boston's season is the result of attempt to find a turning point where there was none. A good team that was playing mediocre baseball started playing well. There is no exact date or moment that stands out where that happened, it just happened. It certainly didn't happen in the aftermath of the brawl/Mueller walkoff. It certainly didn't help them come back from 3-0 down in the ALCS.

You seem to think that any criticism of the 2004 Legend is "whining". You don't care about accurate history. I do. End of story.

PS: writing in all lowercase makes you look super-intelligent.

Not that it matters to certain willfully ignorant people, but here's what Wiki says about "sour grapes." Of course Larry's understanding of the term is 100% correct, and Piehole's just pulling it out of his bunghole.

Sour grapes

The English idiom "sour grapes" - derived from this fable - refers to:

* the false denial of desire for something sought but not acquired
* the denigration and feigning of disdain for that which one could not attain

The phrase is sometimes also used to refer to one expressing, in an unsportsmanlike or ungracious way, anger or frustration at having failed to acquire something (i.e. being a "sore loser"), regardless of whether the party denies their desire for the item. Not including the denial of desire is technically a slipshod extension of the metaphor because it is inconsistent with the phrase's origin in the fable and the notion of the grapes being declared "sour". [2]

Similar expressions exist in other languages; for example, the Persian expression: "The cat who cannot reach the meat says it stinks!” The expression is present in the Scandinavian countries also, where the sour grapes have been replaced with sour rowanberries since grapes are not common in northern latitudes. In psychology, this behavior is known as rationalization. It may also be called reduction of cognitive dissonance.

lower case is where its at dawg

Widespread ignorance does not negate the ignorance. Sour grapes refers to a fable.

no kidding, is that what it refers to? thanks for correcting me. i might never have figured that out. we all know that the "correct" meaning is always the oldest one. a phrase or word changing meaning over time is practically unheard of.

PS: writing in all lowercase makes you look super-intelligent.

and putting a colon after "PS" makes you look super-intelligent, not to mention your ignorance of other basic rules of punctuation: putting the period outside of the quotation marks in the first sentence of your penultimate paragraph is wrong. punctuation always goes inside the quotation marks. we could play this game all day, #######. your inadvisable use sentence fragments, as in "end of story," for instance, also shows a basic lack of the rules of sentence construction (no verb, in case you were wondering). and yes, i know it was a rhetorical move copying me, but you're the one who started this pissing contest and if you want to play the correctness game, then let's play, #######. capital letters don't make you smarter. more to the point, i didn't call into question your intelligence. i said you were whining, and i think it's true as evidenced by any of your preceding comments.

i do care about history, larry. i think your post above, about taking away the "two games" is about as revisionist as it gets. or if you prefer, we could take the change from talking about the "two games" to all this dreaded revisionist thinking about july 24. if i thought you were thoughtfully critiquing the 2004 legend, then i wouldn't think you were whining. but thank you for debunking these myths. it's clear to me that your dander is up and that the world will be better if you are right; so let's just drop it, shall we?

Seems to me that the common usage today is what is relevant for a discussion occurring today. As most of the thread seems to have realized.

Not that it matters to certain willfully ignorant people, but here's what Wiki says about "sour grapes." Of course Larry's understanding of the term is 100% correct, and Piehole's just pulling it out of his bunghole.

i love it when non-experts quote an non-expert source and tell me that i'm wrong. let's try this on for size: in my opinion, usage dictates correctness. for what it's worth, this is an argument you will never win and one that i will never win. i will not try to convince you, because you are obviously beyond convincing. i will just tell you my side, and after that i will leave it alone: i am of the opinion that consensus of usage dictates correctness. if the speakers of english decide that "phaser" is a word after watching star trek, then who gets to say it's "not a word?" the OED? they tried that, but they didn't win (it's now been given official word status by the OED). there's a lot of consensus that sour grapes means "expression of bitterness." the american heritage dictionary tries to legislate usage, and has become irrelevant for doing so. in any case, it's pedantic to insist that there's only one meaning of sour grapes. so good luck with that. i'll still maintain consistency with popular usage in my parting shot: your bitterness in arguing with me about this is sour grapes. :)

Seems to me that the common usage today is what is relevant for a discussion occurring today. As most of the thread seems to have realized.

thank you.

You pretty much have to accept this sort of thing as reality.

We recently had some major fires around my area, and a lot of people's houses were evacuated. Anyway, eventualy I got tired of correcting people and just accepted that it's acceptable to use the word "evicted" as describing what happened.

I didn't even bother with trying to correct all the people (including MSM,) saying people were evacuated, rather than their homes . . .

Is it just me or after a while do all the 5 hour long, high-enegry, high-hype Red Sox Yankee games of the past seven years or so just kinda blend together?
Since the start of 2003, they've probably played 200 games.

Three months after the epoch-changing Tek-Rod spat, if Tony Clark's Game Five, 9th-inning ground rule double bounces 3 or 4 inches lower, the Yankees win the series right there. But the Fenway Park right field wall had witnessed the magic. It remembered.

Walls know. Walls always know.

Nah, it's probably just that the full effect didn't really kick in until Doris Kearns Goodwin had declared it to be the Turning Point

Doris wouldn't say that. At least, not until after somebody else had said that.

That July 24 did indeed mark the beginning of a turnaround. I turned around to a friend of mine and said "Damn, I ####ing hate Varitek."

But Red Sox fans are probably right to believe in such things. I'm confident that the Ghost of Donnie Moore, a fight between oh let's say Maicier Izturis and Hank Blalock and a postseason error from hmmm let's go with Robinson Cano, will cause all the stars to align properly and send the message to that magical man in the sky that the Angels are supposed to win the World Series in 2009.

But Red Sox fans are probably right to believe in such things. I'm confident that the Ghost of Donnie Moore, a fight between oh let's say Maicier Izturis and Hank Blalock and a postseason error from hmmm let's go with Robinson Cano, will cause all the stars to align properly and send the message to that magical man in the sky that the Angels are supposed to win the World Series in 2009.

Just to be on the safe side, better get Weaver to kneecap Youk and then make some nasty reference to Papi's momma. You gotta work all the angles.

Don't stop bickering; it's awfully fun to read.

Except that Larry doesn't get all ###### about the latter.

Really? Please link me to the post where I made any statements to that effect.

The post where you stated that you've never stated it? The absence of statements on your part isn't evidence enough? Are you a Notary Public now?

You're certainly welcome to make a definitive statement right now.

Three months after the epoch-changing Tek-Rod spat, if Tony Clark's Game Five, 9th-inning ground rule double bounces 3 or 4 inches lower, the Yankees win the series right there. But the Fenway Park right field wall had witnessed the magic. It remembered.

Walls know. Walls always know.

Like, 1 million things had to break right for the sox to win 4 in a row. But they all did. And no matter what Larry, and Curt Schilling write, no one can take that away from them.

------------

Ever see the video of Pesky holding the ball? He really doesn't hold it all that long.

...if Tony Clark's Game Five, 9th-inning ground rule double bounces 3 or 4 inches lower, the Yankees win the series right there.

Nah--Sox woulda' come back to tie it in the bottom half, on account of being all fired up by Slappy's mouthing-off
and subsequent body-slamming by the Jarheaded Sandbagger 3 months previous.

Ever see the video of Pesky holding the ball? He really doesn't hold it all that long.

He doesn't at all, not really. Maybe if someone had yelled "throw home!" he'd have fired to the catcher a half-second
earlier?

lower case is where its at dawg

This is perfect.

I'm a Red Sox fan, and I agree with Larry on the subject of the 7/24 game. And the definition of sour grapes, but I'm a curmudgeon like that.