But it was actually a big deal to a much larger population of casual fans and non-sports fans than any but a small handful of national sports events since the turn of the millennium.

I personally wasn't aware that sports history started at the turn of the millenium, but I guess it has to for these purposes, since the Sox' clincher in the World Series brought fewer eyeballs to TV sets than Game 7 of Indians/Marlins in 1997 (*), D'Backs/Yankees in 2001, and Giants/Angels in 2002.

There clearly was greater interest in the World Series with the Red Sox having a shot to break the "curse" than there would have been had that storyline not been present. (**) But it was not an epochal sports event that had the country riveted, or any such thing. Buddy Biancalana was on Letterman after the 1985 World Series but no one's citing that as evidence of anything. Well, OK, I will -- the 1985 World Series was way better than the '04 ALCS and World Series.

(*) Far fewer -- 37.9 million viewers in 1997, 28.8 for the Sox clincher in 2004. Thirty-one million watched Game 7 in the ALCS, sixteen percent fewer than watched Game 7 between the Marlins and Indians.

(**) Unless it was the Cubs trying to break their "curse," in which case you'd see pretty much the same phenomena that you saw with the Red Sox in 2004. I'd wager that the Cubs' "bump" would be even bigger.

From a nonpartisan perspective, 2003 was a better LCS than 2004.

As a nonpartisan, I don't think this is true. Game 7 in 2003 was epic, but nobody remembers anything from the first six games except the Pedro-Zimmer fight.

I'd never heard of Jack Chick until now. Here's the first paragraph from his wiki page:

Jack Thomas Chick (born April 13, 1924) is an American publisher, writer, and comic book artist of fundamentalist Christian tracts and comic books.[1] His comics have been described by the Los Angeles Magazine as "equal parts hate literature and fire-and-brimstone sermonizing".[2]

Chick's company, Chick Publications, claims to have sold over 750 million tracts,[3] comics tracts, videos, books, and posters designed to promote Protestant evangelism from a Christian fundamentalist point of view. Many of these are controversial, as they accuse Roman Catholics, Freemasons, Muslims and many other groups of murder and conspiracies, while Chick maintains his views are simply politically incorrect.[4]

His views have been spread worldwide, mostly through the tracts and now online. They have been translated into more than 100 languages.[5] As evidenced from his writings and publications, Chick is an Independent Baptist who follows a dispensational premillennialist view of the end times. He is an ardent believer in the King James Only movement, which posits that every English translation of the Bible more recent than 1611 promotes heresy or immorality.

From what I can tell, YR is Jewish. I think it innacurate to equate him to a Christian Fundamentalist bigot, though he'll occasionally slip in to a Jewish Defense League-like posture.

I'd never heard of Jack Chick until now.

Well that's the real offense here.

since the Sox' clincher in the World Series brought fewer eyeballs to TV sets than Game 7 of Indians/Marlins in 1997 (*), D'Backs/Yankees in 2001, and Giants/Angels in 2002.

Come on. Game 7s always bring many many more viewers than Game 4s, whatever teams are involved.

It's SugarBearBlanks. He is perhaps the single most dishonest data handler on the site. You may know him from the Jack Morris threads.

I personally wasn't aware that sports history started at the turn of the millenium, but I guess it has to for these purposes, since the Sox' clincher in the World Series brought fewer eyeballs to TV sets than Game 7 of Indians/Marlins in 1997 (*), D'Backs/Yankees in 2001, and Giants/Angels in 2002.

And that probably has nothing to do with the fact that WS ratings have been falling for a while. Or that game 4 in 2004 was on a Wednesday, while '97, '01, '02 were all on Sunday. And you are comparing a game 4 to game 7's paying no mind to that fact that the 2004 game 4 was the highest rated G4 since 1995.

Game 7s always bring many many more viewers than Game 4s, whatever teams are involved.

But I thought the whole world was wrapped up in the Boston Red Sox winning the World Series. Why wouldn't that Game 4 have broke the trend?

The rating for Game 7 of the 2004 ALCS was the highest rated non-WS game since either '86 or '91. Given the context of tv ratings - rapid decline in all sectors due to the growth of cable and the fragmenting of culture - it was a huge, huge number.

He is perhaps the single most dishonest data handler on the site.

As opposed to the rigor of "a bunch of my friends thought the Red Sox winning was really cool"?

I've already noted that the ratings got a bump from the Red Sox "storyline." But it was really nothing more than that.

The rating for Game 7 of the 2004 ALCS was the highest rated non-WS game since either '86 or '91. Given the context of tv ratings - rapid decline in all sectors due to the growth of cable and the fragmenting of culture - it was a huge, huge number.

It drew 15% more watchers than Game 7 of Marlins-Cubs. How much of that difference is a product of the market sizes of the combatants?

To get the right measure of national interest -- which is what we're really talking about -- we have to take out New York and New England (and Chicago and Miami) from the numbers. Game 7 in 2004 drew a 56 rating in Boston and a 31 in NYC -- two massive markets.

But I thought the whole world was wrapped up in the Boston Red Sox winning the World Series.

Why do people use extreme hyperbole as a data point?


I've already noted that the ratings got a bump from the Red Sox "storyline." But it was really nothing more than that.

History as ratings is certainly rigorous.

All I've said is that it didn't affect me nearly as much as many other Yankee losses. CFB is saying the same thing about the Cardinals. The idea that everyone reacts in the same way to sporting events is surely one of the weirder ideas I've ever seen offered here.

That idea has never been offered here.

C'mon, post 81 is hilarious because it made it obvious that you are trying too hard in your original pretension. A bunch of LDS games mattered more to you? Every single playoff series loss in the era was worse for you than 2004? I don't think anyone here really gets enjoyment out of whatever effect 2004 had on you, but having you desperately claim it mattered so little to you is certainly amusing. It's like someone calling someone else every day just to tell them "I don't care about you! I'm not thinking about you!"

It drew 15% more watchers than Game 7 of Marlins-Cubs.

Which, if the Cubs had won and headed for the World Series, would indeed have been a humongous baseball story and a historic event. The 2003 NLCS was a huge event as it was. The 2003 WS could have been a historic one - it wasn't, because the Cubs lost, but no one is disputing that would have been a story in the same realm of importance / newsworthiness / big dealitude as the '04 Sox.

It's like someone calling someone else every day just to tell them "I don't care about you! I'm not thinking about you!"

Exactly.

Game 7 in 2004 drew a 56 rating in Boston and a 31 in NYC -- two massive markets.

Chicago is a bigger market than Boston.

All I've said is that it didn't affect me nearly as much as many other Yankee losses. CFB is saying the same thing about the Cardinals. The idea that everyone reacts in the same way to sporting events is surely one of the weirder ideas I've ever seen offered here.

That idea has never been offered here.

Then what's this?

C'mon, post 81 is hilarious because it made it obvious that you are trying too hard in your original pretension. A bunch of LDS games mattered more to you?** Every single playoff series loss in the era was worse for you than 2004? I don't think anyone here really gets enjoyment out of whatever effect 2004 had on you, but having you desperately claim it mattered so little to you is certainly amusing. It's like someone calling someone else every day just to tell them "I don't care about you! I'm not thinking about you!"

The problem that you and tfbg have is simple to describe: You're projecting your own reactions to this one particular LCS onto every Yankee fan. It's as if by not "admitting" my alleged deep grief and sorrow over an event which Red Sox fans understandably saw as the defining event of the sporting century, I'm somehow not giving you "closure", or whatever psychobabble term you want to use to describe your obvious emotional needs.

I mean, Jesus, I rooted for the ####### Red Sox in the 2004 World Series. I rooted for the Red Sox in the 2007 World Series. I love to get on the case of Red Sox fans here, largely because so many of them set themselves up for it with their neverending agonizing about every Joba Chamberlain brushback pitch and every bucket of KFC chicken. But that doesn't mean I have anything particularly against the Red Sox, especially those 2003-2004 teams, which I both respected and admired. I realize that this sort of non-bipolar rooting is impossible for most Red Sox fans to understand, especially a borderline mental case like tfbg9, but that's their problem, not mine.

It is baseball in general that is the accounting for taste; once you're over that line, allowing for the fact that you are already following baseball, calling that specific event a matter of taste as opposed to historic seems equally inaccurate.

Ok, then there hasn't been a single "historic" event in American sport for at least several decades. If you want to define your terms this way, you can, but it's not the way people actually use them in discussions about sports.

Look I did not say the victory wasn't historic in its own context, but I think many folks here are blowing out of proportion.

To be more clear news story <> historic. Some smaller stories have legs and become something huge, some flash in the pan stories just die after their explosion. Citing something as "world wide news" does not mean it is historic.

Clearly it was VERY important for Boston fans (and rightly so). As a Vikings fan, if they ever win the Super Bowl it will be huge. Also the generic narrative of that year is pretty darn good, and the combination of event and narrative is good. However "most imprortant" or whatever terms used is in fact a matter of taste, unless someone can come up with an objective measure for it, it is subjective (how is this even in question).

And yes it is a sports thing, and so in many ways not as significant (in my opinion) as events which cross over into non-sports. Jesse Owens, Jackie Robinson, some of the Ali stuff, and so on. This does not diminish a story from a sports perspective, but I think the real world is more significant than pure sports stories, which the Boston event was.

My feelings should not diminish anyones love of the event though. "The Catch" remains the most significant sports event for me (and many people, btw), but that doesn't make it 'non-sports' historic or anything. And yeah there have not been many sports stories that cross over into truly historic events, why should they. Becoming historic is an unusual outcome, it should be rare, that is kind of the point. What you expect something historic to happen every year or something?

It's as if by not "admitting" my alleged deep grief and sorrow over an event which...

...this sort of non-bipolar rooting ...

If you were saying that no Yankee losses were particularly painful, I wouldn't necessarily buy it, but you'd have a claim. You argued that every single Yankee loss of the last two decades was more painful than 2004. You talked about your pain, your grief and sorrow having to do with every other loss. It was laughable, and it's still providing me joy.

I rooted for the ####### Red Sox in the 2004 World Series. I rooted for the Red Sox in the 2007 World Series.

I rooted for the Yankees in the 2001 WS. It was a city thing, I think.


However "most important" or whatever terms used is in fact a matter of taste

"Most important" =/= "very important", much like "most historic" =/= "historic". I think that's the sticking point. I'm think disagreeing with the latter two is just not inaccurate. I've also lost track if that's splitting hairs or not.

It's like someone calling someone else every day just to tell them "I don't care about you! I'm not thinking about you!"

Exactly.

No, it's more like someone who spends his life obsessing about the fortunes of one particular team** can't understand why everyone else doesn't engage in that sort of obsession. I realize you're just sticking up for the home team here, but surely you're not so stupid as to actually believe this sort of crap.

**The only team that needs to devote an entire separate section of BTF to psychoanalyze itself.

And yes it is a sports thing, and so in many ways not as significant (in my opinion) as events which cross over into non-sports. Jesse Owens, Jackie Robinson, some of the Ali stuff, and so on.

I think everyone here would immediately agree that those three stories are on a completely different plane of interest and importance than the 2004 ALCS. We don't disagree.

But again, your most recent "historic" sports event dates from the period of the Vietnam War, and then previously we're back to the 1950s and 1930s. That's not a crazy way to define the term. But if you want to be a fair reader of the thread, you need to acknowledge that obviously no one else is using the term that way. Has anyone compared Dave Roberts or Curt Schilling to Jesse Owens? Obviously not. So if you want to engage with the arguments being made, rather than making a tangential point about word usage, you need to recognize your definition of the term isn't the one in use in this thread.

I rooted for the ####### Red Sox in the 2004 World Series. I rooted for the Red Sox in the 2007 World Series.

I did too actually. I am certainly more fond of the Sox than the Yankees (who are the second most evil team - sorry but the Dodgers are in fact evil incarnate and always will be). And I think the Yankees/Sox rivalry is great and very good for baseball. It was awesome. It was even sport's historic for sufficiently liberal definitions of historic.

I just think it was all that (which I guess is a sin or something).

Note: And yeah YR you are being totally trolled in a feeble and transparent fashion. Just ignore it.

"The Catch" remains the most significant sports event for me (and many people, btw)

Out of curiosity, why is 'the catch' so significant to you (or others if they want to chime in)? It was a good catch, I get that, but what other significance did it have?

No, it's more like someone who spends his life obsessing about the fortunes of one particular team** can't understand why everyone else doesn't engage in that sort of obsession.

In post 81, you specifically described the painful experience of about two dozen Yankee losses. Your posturing as beyond fandom is ridiculous.

Hey it was tongue in cheek. So I get a pass, right? Have The Jim f*cking ring me up, I don't give a sh1t. Somebody had to call the pinched-faced little bigot out. Might as well be me.

And seriously, if you don't already know that much of comment box "expertise" is nothing more than Googling-up info, then you're terribly naive, IMHO. Its either that or assuming all these guys have photographic memories.

Im not saying the little twerp doesn't have an obsession with the often-fixed "sport" of boxing, I'm saying its his obsession that drives the need to appear omniscient via Googling.

**The only team that needs to devote an entire separate section of BTF to psychoanalyze itself

Hey, the Mets have a section too. It's just very rarely used.

But again, your most recent "historic" sports event dates from the period of the Vietnam War, and then previously we're back to the 1950s and 1930s. That's not a crazy way to define the term.

I was listing examples, and not a full list, by the way. There are many other cross over historic events (penty I am not thinking of). I think the miricle on ice (for example qualifies). I don't think there are more than one or two historic events per decade (on average) in sports that cross over. Even within sports I don't think there are very many "sports historic" events, but yeah I could easily have too limiting an opinion on what makes history.

But I was not bagging on any specific posters or anything, I was just throwing out my two cents and trying to suggest people (on both sides) were engaged in some "historic" grade inflation. If it makes you feel better I think the other side has listed a bunch of stuff I would not consider historic also, so using an example from one side of the debate was probably ill advised.

I think the first sox World Series win is probably a top twenty story from the first decade of this century, and may be top ten (I would have to do much more thinking and research on it to narrow it down more than that). So it is not like I am trying to dimish it or anything.

The best venue for 2004 G4 was enjoyed by a co-worker. He was parked on a logging-road bridge crossing the Allagash in northwesternmost Maine. The game came in clearly on the truck radio and was accompanied by coyotes howling from downriver, as the moon entered into a total eclipse. Nothing of earthshaking inportance, of course, but defintely a cool confluence of events.

Out of curiosity, why is 'the catch' so significant to you (or others if they want to chime in)? It was a good catch, I get that, but what other significance did it have?

The Catch refers to the winning touchdown reception by Dwight Clark off a Joe Montana pass in the January 10, 1982, NFC Championship Game between the Dallas Cowboys and San Francisco 49ers. The Catch is widely regarded as one of the most memorable events in NFL history. The game represented the end of Dallas' domination in the NFC since the conference's inception in 1970, and the beginning of San Francisco's rise as both an NFC and Super Bowl power in the 1980s.

Personally? Well I was at the right age, 16, and the height of my love of football. My two teams were the Vikings and 49ers and both had rivalries with the Cowboys (And rivalry is being generous, I am sure the Cowboys did not see it that way). All the superbowl losses and everything else regarding those two teams was terrible. And then that year was total magic and with the catch it was like a curse had been broken in my personal fandom.

I don't think it was all that historic for non-49er fans though (but I am a tough judge on those things).

If you were saying that no Yankee losses were particularly painful, I wouldn't necessarily buy it, but you'd have a claim. You argued that every single Yankee loss of the last two decades was more painful than 2004. You talked about your pain, your grief and sorrow having to do with every other loss. It was laughable, and it's still providing me joy.

Matt, Matt, calm yourself down.

Look, I'm glad my little list has provided you with amusement, but with the exception of the first few examples that took place when I was in elementary or junior high school (the 54 sweep by the Indians, the 55 World Series loss to the Dodgers, the 57 loss to the Braves), none of those games or series stayed with me for more than a day or two at most. The reasons that those other losses seemed worse at the time has to do with a combination of my age at the time, the degree to which I disliked the teams that beat them**, and the way in which they lost.*** Again, there seems to be a difference of team obsession among Red Sox fans here that simply doesn't translate to most Yankee fans I know.

**You might notice I didn't list the 1980 LCS loss to Kansas City, which is another team I both liked and admired. Like the 2004 LCS, I'm sure that 1980 series meant a lot more to the fans of the winners than it did to the fans of the losers.

OTOH if the Yanks lost a World Series to Atlanta, that would immediately go to the top of my list. All bets would be off after that one.

***You'll also notice that I listed only game 2 of the 2007 DS, not the entire series. I also liked that Indians team, but I admit that those moths got under my skin.

If you were saying that no Yankee losses were particularly painful, I wouldn't necessarily buy it, but you'd have a claim. You argued that every single Yankee loss of the last two decades was more painful than 2004. You talked about your pain, your grief and sorrow having to do with every other loss. It was laughable, and it's still providing me joy.

I understood Andy's 81 to contain some hyperbole, but Red Sox fans' insistence that Yankee fans by the very working of the cosmos, must have been devastated by 2004 is very reminiscent of Michigan State fans nipping at Michigan's heels, insisting that Sparty's our biggest rival when they aren't in the same stratosphere as Ohio State, and aren't even as big a rival as Notre Dame.

I don't think there are more than one or two historic events per decade (on average) in sports that cross over.

And from the 2000s, which events were those?

Again, there seems to be a difference of team obsession among Red Sox fans here that simply doesn't translate to most Yankee fans I know.

Yeah, that's definitely what's driving you in this thread. A lack of team obsession. If you don't care, stop talking about it so much. People might even start to believe you eventually.

The Catch refers to the winning touchdown reception by Dwight Clark off a Joe Montana pass in the January 10, 1982, NFC Championship Game between the Dallas Cowboys and San Francisco 49ers. The Catch is widely regarded as one of the most memorable events in NFL history. The game represented the end of Dallas' domination in the NFC since the conference's inception in 1970, and the beginning of San Francisco's rise as both an NFC and Super Bowl power in the 1980s.

That was indeed a truly historic catch that marked the beginning of the 49ers run, but it was also the second straight year (out of three) that Dallas had lost in the NFC championship game, and the third straight year they hadn't made it to the Super Bowl.

I admit that those moths got under my skin.

As a devotee of horror movies, I approve this image.

but Red Sox fans' insistence that Yankee fans by the very working of the cosmos, must have been devastated by 2004

No one has been insisting that at all. We were just pointing out that he was pretending too hard by including every other Yankee playoff disappointment from that era as worse than 2004, which by magical coincidence is the only one that involved the Sox.

There is no way that a sporting event can have the same societal impact as Jackie Robinson or Jesse Owens anymore. The 2004 ALCS "crossed over" as much as a sporting event that has no real social impact can.

Yeah, that's definitely what's driving you in this thread. A lack of team obsession. If you don't care, stop talking about it so much. People might even start to believe you eventually.

I wrote one post noting the contrast between the lack of reaction to Pedro Martinez's admission that he threw at batters to the ongoing agonizing about Joba Chamberlain's "headhunting" that's gone on here for several years. You and your fellow Red Sox fans have taken it from there, but you're perfectly capable of closing this by simply acknowledging that different people react to sporting events in different ways, and that what's epic in the eyes of one championship-starved fan base isn't necessarily considered correspondingly traumatic by the fan base of the losing team.

Hadn't followed the NFL in early a decade when the above-described "The Catch" occurred, so wasn't aware of its near-mythic status, or for that matter of its existence, really. When I think of great receptions, I guess I think of Franco Harris' Immaculate Reception & (even though I've always hated Dallas) some big catch that (IIRC) Drew Pearson made of a Roger Staubach pass en route to an (again, IIRC) improbable playoff win over SF (whom I liked, thanks to the presence of the likes of John Brodie, Vic Washington & Cedrick Hardman) around the same time.

I admit that those moths got under my skin.

As a devotee of horror movies, I approve this image.

It almost made me want to go out and buy a Bushmaster in order to protect myself from the threat.

what's epic in the eyes of one championship-starved fan base isn't necessarily considered correspondingly traumatic by the fan base of the losing team.

To be clear, I acknowledge that entirely.

It's just that it so obviously was a big deal to you, and your posturing that it wasn't is hilariously transparent.

Yankee fans who don't go out of their way over several days to insist that a ten separate divisional series games were "far more painful" than the 2004 ALCS, them I'm entirely happy to trust when they say 2004 didn't affect them all that much.

No one has been insisting that at all. We were just pointing out that he was pretending too hard by including every other Yankee playoff disappointment from that era as worse than 2004, which by magical coincidence is the only one that involved the Sox.

First, it wasn't "every" one, and second, you have no idea how I reacted to any of them. I note that no Red Sox fan has reacted to the fact that I rooted for the Red Sox in both the 2004 and 2007 World Series (and in 1967-75-86 for that matter), possibly because that might cause them to reconsider their thoughts about my "denial" about the 2004 LCS.

Yankee fans who don't go out of their way over several days to insist that a several random divisional series game were "far more painful" than the 2004 ALCS, them I'm entirely happy to trust when they say 2004 didn't affect them all that much.

Simple question: Who raised the subject of the 2004 ALCS in the first place? I came onto this thread talking about the reaction to pitchers throwing at hitters.

some big catch that (IIRC) Drew Pearson made of a Roger Staubach pass en route to an (again, IIRC) improbable playoff win over SF (whom I liked, thanks to the presence of the likes of John Brodie, Vic Washington & Cedrick Hardman) around the same time.

It was Drew Pearson (and he very clearly committed offensive pass interference on the play), but the game you're thinking of was against the Vikings. If you're interested, I wrote in great detail about that game here.

It's telling that Tyson went to some lengths to avoid almost all of these men in the ring following his loss to Buster Douglas, with only Holyfield, a blown-up cruiserweight, managing to get a crack at a time when Tyson was still considered by many to be a championship-caliber fighter.

I saw the first Holyfield/Tyson fight with about 20 people in a friend's basement- what I recall was that Tyson was seen by most (fans if not "experts") as a prohibitive favorite - and the broadcast announcers were extremely biased in favor of Tyson (if you listened to just the audio you would have had no idea that Tyson was losing)- one announcer insisted - repeatedly- after Tyson was knocked down that it was "a slip, no knockdown- a slip..."

we also had a pool going, people had drawn cards- a card might say "Tyson KO Round 7" or "Holyfield on points"
One guy had gotten "Holyfield by KO round 6)" and complained and whined and complained and whined, people told him to shut up, but he kept complaining and whining - see there was no way Holyfield was gonna win, let alone by KO in the 6th...so the dude had lost the poll before the bout started- the only indication he wa spaying attention to the fight came in the 6th when Holyfield knocked Tyson down - instantly the whining stopped and segued into a very loud "WOO HOOO!!!!!!" Then when the announcer tried to claim it was a"slip" he started screaming at the screen, "no you suck up! He went down, he's a bum he's always been a bum!!!"

I came onto this thread talking about the reaction to pitchers throwing at hitters.

To defend Yankee players from accusations that hadn't been leveled in this thread, and possibly not for over a year's time.

Again, you're a fan with a deep emotional connection to your team. I had no idea you thought you weren't until this thread happened. Accept it, make it an honest part of who you are. Not everyone has a fandom connection like this, but you do. I recognize it, because I do too.

The 2004 ALCS "crossed over" as much as a sporting event that has no real social impact can.

Except no real evidence, other than anecdote, has been proferred to support this point. How would you measure "cross over" (*) and why does the 2004 ALCS rank so highly in the measurments?

As noted, there appears to have been some marginal increased interest from TV viewers, but the numbers have to be adjusted for the huge numbers of watchers in the combatant markets.

(*) By which I assume you mean "impact on the culture or zeitgeist beyond serious baseball fans."

Personally? Well I was at the right age, 16, and the height of my love of football. My two teams were the Vikings and 49ers and both had rivalries with the Cowboys (And rivalry is being generous, I am sure the Cowboys did not see it that way). All the superbowl losses and everything else regarding those two teams was terrible. And then that year was total magic and with the catch it was like a curse had been broken in my personal fandom.

Hah, sorry, I was thinking of Willie May's over-the-should catch when reading 'the catch'.

flip.