Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, October 29, 2012

Chicagoside: The World Series Sucked

Leave me alone. I’m going home…to Chicago

What a shitty World Series.

Chicago-area baseball fans were doomed from the start of this post-season, of course, as just about every scenario involved either bitter rivals (the Cardinals or Tigers) or cities we love to hate (New York or Washington) going all the way. A Cardinals-Tigers World Series would have been the best thing for Chicago, as Cub-hating Sox fans could root for St. Louis, and Cardinals-hating Cubs fans could root for Detroit. Whoever won, at least half the city would be happy.

Giants-Tigers? No reason for the Sox to root for the Giants—if anything, the presence of pretty-boy former Cubs shortstop Ryan “My Cajun Name Will Sell A Million Unlicensed T-shirts” Theriot would prevent true-black-and-white Sox fans from supporting the City by the Bay. And Cubs fans just cannot sink to the level of Sox fans and root against the Tigers just because they helped the ’12 White Sox choke like a Superfan inhaling a Polish sah-sidge sangwhich from Johnny O’s down by T’irty-Fit’ an’ Morgan.

So, when there’s no logical rooting interest on either side of town, what do we want?

We want as much baseball as possible.

We root for a 7-game series, one with drama, excitement, great defense and pitching, some historic hitting. Three or four extra-inning games would be ideal. Yeah, the Panda provided that 3-homer game to open the Series, and the other 3 games were close, with the last going 10 innings. But they were all kind of blah. One blowout, and three games characterized as much by lackluster hitting as good pitching or defense. No drama, no last hurrah before the Void.

Repoz Posted: October 29, 2012 at 05:03 PM | 57 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: giants, tigers

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. BourbonSamurai Is a Lazy Nogoodnik Posted: October 29, 2012 at 05:34 PM (#4287661)
Chicago hates Washington D.C.? I have lived in Washington off and on for 22 years, with 5 in chicago on the way and have never heard that before.
   2. DKDC Posted: October 29, 2012 at 05:45 PM (#4287677)
It's general easy coast envy. A Braves-Rays World Series would present the same problem.
   3. Eddo Posted: October 29, 2012 at 05:49 PM (#4287680)
Yeah, me neither.
   4. Bull Pain Posted: October 29, 2012 at 05:58 PM (#4287686)
As a White Sox fan, I found it quite easy to root for the Giants. Against the Cardinals and especially the Tigers. Maybe not as easy as 2010 when Uribe and Rowand were getting their second ring, but rooting against a Tigers team that was a strong rival for 159 games and from a city that has a healthy sports rivalry with Chicago was an easy call.
   5. geonose Posted: October 29, 2012 at 06:11 PM (#4287696)
I think that pretty much the only people in the world who didn't think that the World Series sucked are Giants fans. For the rest of us, it was really no fun at all. Oh, how I long for 2011.
   6. Voros McCracken of Pinkus Posted: October 29, 2012 at 06:41 PM (#4287720)
Chicago hates Washington D.C.?

Every place on the planet outside of Washington D.C. hates Washington D.C.
   7. DL from MN Posted: October 29, 2012 at 06:47 PM (#4287728)
I thought this series was a blast. People are too hard to entertain.
   8. Bhaakon Posted: October 29, 2012 at 07:53 PM (#4287792)
It could have been much worse. If an actual coastal East Coast team had made it, we'd still be waiting for game 4 to start (probably until Friday or so).
   9. Swedish Chef Posted: October 29, 2012 at 07:58 PM (#4287798)
Every place on the planet outside of Washington D.C. hates Washington D.C.

Brussels loves Washington D.C.. It wants to be just like it when it grows up.
   10. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 29, 2012 at 08:01 PM (#4287800)
The object is TO WIN THE GAME(S), not keep it close to entertain the masses.
   11. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: October 29, 2012 at 08:15 PM (#4287815)
I think that pretty much the only people in the world who didn't think that the World Series sucked are Giants fans. For the rest of us, it was really no fun at all.

It wasn't the worst World Series ever, but it was close. Since WWII, the only ones that matched it in overall suckitude were 1976, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2004, 2007, 2008 and 2010. It's not that it was a sweep, since some sweeps (1963, 1966, 2005 especially) had at least two close and exciting games. It was that the Tigers simply didn't show up. It was as if they'd decided to honor the Yankees by playing like the Yankees did in the ALCS.
   12. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: October 29, 2012 at 08:43 PM (#4287850)
1988

I'm pretty sure that any World Series that produces one of the 5 most replayed highlights in the history of baseball is automatically exempt from a list of the suckiest Series outings ever, regardless of what else happens. (And in this case, "what else happens" also included very good Games 3 and 4.)
   13. Baldrick Posted: October 29, 2012 at 08:46 PM (#4287855)
So your theory is that five of the nine worst World Series of the last 70 years all happened within the last decade? Really?

1988 - Kirk Gibson homerun. One of the iconic baseball moments of the past several generations. Orel Hershiser (in the year of his 59 inning streak) basically kept things going, picking up the NLCS MVP and World Series MVP.
1989 - Bay Bridge series, the defining moment for the very very good A's team of the late 80s and early 90s. Interrupted by the earthquake, which delayed things for several weeks. Which is pretty interesting.
1990 - An A's team that looked like a dynasty in the making get swept by the Nasty Boys Reds. The A's were a much MUCH better team, but got absolutely tonked. It had an extra-innings game (I think it was game 2) and game 4 was 2-1 or something like that.
2004 - The Red Sox break the curse. After having just completed the most epic ALCS comeback of all-time.
2007 - I'll give you that this one was boring, though as a Sox fan I was still pretty excited.
2008 - Had a bunch of close games and it was the breakout year for Tampa.
2010 - The supposedly unbeatable Cliff Lee lost, the Giants win their first World Series since leaving New York,

What the heck is wrong with those series?
   14. Pat Rapper's Delight Posted: October 29, 2012 at 08:49 PM (#4287857)
Since WWII, the only ones that matched it in overall suckitude were 1976,

A World Series where the Yankees lose does not suck.
   15. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: October 29, 2012 at 08:57 PM (#4287870)
It's not that it was a sweep, since some sweeps (1963, 1966, 2005 especially) had at least two close and exciting games.

2005, I'll give you; it's the best sweep of all time by a wide margin. But I don't see how 1966 is any better than this year. The losing Dodgers had a total of 17 hits in the four games played, and the latest inning in which a decisive run was scored was the 5th. Game 4 of this year's Series was worth any two games from '66.
   16. Booey Posted: October 29, 2012 at 09:00 PM (#4287872)
Since WWII, the only ones that matched it in overall suckitude were 1976, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2004, 2007, 2008 and 2010.


Yankees fan, aren't ya? :-)

I think pretty much only Yankees fans wouldn't include 1998, 1999, and 2000 ahead of some of the series on the "sucky" list. Not cuz the Yankees won, but cuz these were boring and one sided series without much drama.

I'd put 2005 and maybe 2006 ahead of some of your suckitude picks too.
   17. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: October 29, 2012 at 09:30 PM (#4287897)
I thought this series was a blast. People are too hard to entertain.

I agree. Thankfully we didn't see a dreaded NY v St. Louis series. I think a lot of fans just would've switched off before it started.

This series seemed interesting to start with Verlander possibly going games 1,5, and 7 for relief. Both, yet to be named MVP's, how will they use Lincecum issue, is Barry Zito actually fooling anyone, will the Giants use Melkey, etc. There were some good story lines to start, who was to know that SF was going to be outrageously stingy with the runs, coupled with Detroit's inability to get hits when they really needed them. Hey, short series, sh*t happens...but it was entertaining. The last 3 games were all tense because of the low scoring and the Panda game was just fun to watch.
   18. Tom Nawrocki Posted: October 29, 2012 at 09:36 PM (#4287901)
2007 - I'll give you that this one was boring, though as a Sox fan I was still pretty excited.


After the Game One blowout, there was a one-run game; a game in which the Sox took a 6-0 lead and the Rockies came back to within 6-5 in the eighth, before the Red Sox pulled away; and another one-run game.

I don't know why people think this series was all one-sided games. The last three were very competitive.
   19. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: October 29, 2012 at 10:09 PM (#4287946)
I don't know why people think this series was all one-sided games. The last three were very competitive.

I would say that the last three games were all competitive, but none of them were extremely memorable; the only specific play I can recall from any of them is Holliday getting picked off of first in the late innings of Game 2. And when a Series is a sweep that doesn't feature any exceptional games, that's going to put it pretty low on a list of exciting Series.
   20. Coot Veal and Cot Deal's cols=“100” rows=“20” Posted: October 29, 2012 at 10:11 PM (#4287947)
Every place on the planet outside of Washington D.C. hates Washington D.C.


I grew up in D.C. and it was a nice town once upon a time... now? if they ever need to give the hemisphere an enema, the nozzle gets shoved right in here.
   21. base ball chick Posted: October 29, 2012 at 10:44 PM (#4287979)
baseball does NOT suck

NO baseball is what sucks

as for the series, well, the tigers bats didn't show up. at ALL. until game 4 and then it was a lil too late. prince fielder looked like my 9 year old with a bat and that is sorry
   22. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: October 29, 2012 at 10:56 PM (#4287989)
So your theory is that five of the nine worst World Series of the last 70 years all happened within the last decade? Really?

Yeah. And I've seen every World Series since 1952, so at least my opinion's based on first hand information. The 40's through the 80's featured one 7 game Series after another, as many as four in a row at one point. The past 25 years have seen some of the greatest ever (1991 and 2011 in particular, with 2001 an honorable mention in spite of 3 blowouts), but it's also had more snoozers than any period since 1927-44. (If you want snoozers where the Yankees won, you can have 1928, 1936 through 1939, and 1943, and 1932 gets left out only because of game 3.)

One amendment to my above list: I shouldn't have included 1988, since game 1 was truly memorable, and IIRC game 3 also ended in a walkoff.

But the others were terrible, unless you're just giving bonus points for history, as opposed to any real drama on the field that wasn't caused by an earthquake. In every one of them, there was a total sense of inevitability about the winner, and the losing team was just plain flat, like this year's Tigers.

2004 was a great story but a terrible Series. Game 1 was close for awhile but poorly played, and after that the Cards just folded.

2008 was ruined by weather and by games that never ended. By the time it did end about 16 people were watching.

2010 was in the category of 2004 Lite, and like this year, it wasn't boring only if you were a Giants fan.

I think pretty much only Yankees fans wouldn't include 1998, 1999, and 2000 ahead of some of the series on the "sucky" list. Not cuz the Yankees won, but cuz these were boring and one sided series without much drama.

1998's game 1 was highly dramatic, when a bad call on Tino kept him alive and the result was a grand slam and a comeback. But 1998 almost makes the list, because of the lopsided quality of the matchup.

1999 had a great pitcher's duel in game 1, and a big comeback in game 3. That keeps it off.

And 2000 had an extra inning comeback game 1, the Clemens and Mo meltdowns in game 2, and a tense game 5 that wasn't decided until the 9th inning.

1966 might get there, but two straight 1-0 pitchers' duels decided by solo home runs were pretty damn dramatic. And then there was Sandy Koufax being done in in his final game by Jim Palmer and Willie Davis's malfunctioning sunglasses. It was also the first World Series win in the Browns / O's combined history, and a pretty big upset at that. It was roughly the equivalent of 1963, in that both of the last two games were terrific pitchers' duels that could have gone either way.
   23. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: October 29, 2012 at 11:10 PM (#4288001)
1966 might get there, but two straight 1-0 pitchers' duels decided by solo home runs were pretty damn dramatic.

And this series had two straight 2-0 pitchers' duels, the second of which had the losing team put runners on first and second with one out twice, and load the bases with one out once, followed by an extra-inning game with two regulation lead changes to decide things. '66 appears more historically significant in hindsight (although obviously we have no idea what this year will look like in hindsight), but in terms of the actual level of drama in the games, I'll take the series that actually included at least one lead change.
   24. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: October 29, 2012 at 11:14 PM (#4288005)
Every place on the planet outside of Washington D.C. hates Washington D.C.

Funny how the people who claim they hate it the most---Republican congressmen---often wind up camping here for the duration, denouncing it all the while.

Admittedly Washington is fast becoming a yuppie theme park, but you can say the same thing about many other newly rehabbed downtowns. There's not all that much wrong with DC that a lot of extra disposable income wouldn't cure.
   25. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: October 29, 2012 at 11:19 PM (#4288008)
1966 might get there, but two straight 1-0 pitchers' duels decided by solo home runs were pretty damn dramatic.

And this series had two straight 2-0 pitchers' duels, the second of which had the losing team put runners on first and second with one out twice, and load the bases with one out once, followed by an extra-inning game with two regulation lead changes to decide things. '66 appears more historically significant in hindsight (although obviously we have no idea what this year will look like in hindsight), but in terms of the actual level of drama in the games, I'll take the series that actually included at least one lead change.


And I'll take duels that involved three HoF pitchers. YMMV.

And BTW the reason that '66 was historically significant is that the O's were the first AL team other than the Yankees to win a World Series since 1948. It was the beginning of a slow and gradual AL climb from virtual AAAA status to rough equity by the 80's.
   26. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: October 29, 2012 at 11:23 PM (#4288011)
1998's game 1 was highly dramatic, when a bad call on Tino kept him alive and the result was a grand slam and a comeback. But 1998 almost makes the list, because of the lopsided quality of the matchup.

1999 had a great pitcher's duel in game 1, and a big comeback in game 3. That keeps it off.

And 2000 had an extra inning comeback game 1, the Clemens and Mo meltdowns in game 2, and a tense game 5 that wasn't decided until the 9th inning.

You could have saved yourself time by just saying, "Yeah, Yankees fan."

All of those series have something to offer, but the same can be said for all of these on the list (just this past one had Zito's redemption, Panda's 3 homers, an extra-inning affair, etc). As WS go, those three Yankee victories have nothing special to offer the average baseball fan. They had plenty to offer the average Yankee fan, which is why they seem so much more compelling to you.

   27. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: October 29, 2012 at 11:26 PM (#4288012)
And I'll take duels that involved three HoF pitchers. YMMV.

Again, that's hindsight talking; there was no way of knowing in '66 that Palmer was going to the Hall of Fame, just like there's no way of knowing whether Bumgarner or Cain is from this series. (Koufax and Drysdale would have been more obvious at the time, of course.)
   28. pthomas Posted: October 29, 2012 at 11:26 PM (#4288013)
No love for the Angels series win in 2002?

Game 6 too much of a snoozer for you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_World_Series
   29. just plain joe Posted: October 29, 2012 at 11:38 PM (#4288024)
if they ever need to give the hemisphere an enema, the nozzle gets shoved right in here.


I'll bet you have never been to Wichita Falls, Texas.
   30. Baldrick Posted: October 30, 2012 at 02:02 AM (#4288087)
Heck, if it turns out that the regular season this year was some kind of fluke, then Lincecum could very well still be a HOFer. Which could make this the World Series where a HOF pitcher just a couple years removed from winning multiple Cy Young awards was sent to the bullpen where he pitched lights-out. It could even be seen as the moment that helped him turn things back around.

Buster Posey and Miguel Cabrera trading lead-changing homeruns in the deciding game is pretty cool. Since there's every chance those guys end up as HOFers, maybe inner-circle ones.

Who knows?

It just seems pretty darn silly for serious baseball fans to get into a fight about what are the most-boring World Series. Once you get beyond 'amazing end to the year,' you've just got a bunch of baseball games between teams trying to become Champs.

If you want to, you can be bored by all kinds of things. I'll just enjoy the baseball.
   31. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 30, 2012 at 08:04 AM (#4288128)
Brussels loves Washington D.C.. It wants to be just like it when it grows up.


This is an awesome line and true. Of course I like both cities, so I am biased. And I enjoyed the series. Some of it was my Giants winning, some was neither the Dodgers nor the Yankees winning. Watching Panda in game 1 was awesome. In an objective world it might have been boring (especially compared to last year, but that is just not fair), but sports is not objective.
   32. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: October 30, 2012 at 08:10 AM (#4288129)
No love for the Angels series win in 2002?

Game 6 too much of a snoozer for you?


It was up there, but not on the level of 1991, 2011 or 2001. In terms of the past 25 years, 1991's four walkoffs, with two of them in extra innings in games 6 and 7, keeps it in a class by itself. In fact I'd still call that Series the best of all time, period, even if it didn't involve the Yankees.
   33. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: October 30, 2012 at 08:34 AM (#4288135)
So your theory is that five of the nine worst World Series of the last 70 years all happened within the last decade? Really?

That's exactly what you'd expect given the historical discontinuity. The World Series isn't the World Series anymore, it's the MLB Finals.

Moreover, several stories have been written about how momentum is a bigger factor in the playoffs now. So many series are now decided by mini-slumps that are nonetheless long enough to last the requisite three or four games.(*) The ALCS and World Series were both, undeniably, exemplars of this trend.

Freakish momentum as determinative plus less-deserving, inferior teams plus worse weather equals far less compelling baseball.

(*) Perhaps an inevitable result of the hit or miss, TTO baseball that defines the wild-card era, and that has gradually gotten worse through 2012.
   34. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: October 30, 2012 at 08:43 AM (#4288137)
I don't think there is much dispute that the World Series sucked for non-partisans. It was a blowout and other than Panda in Game One nothing that will be particularly memorable (though that's a hell of a memory). Unless you don't like baseball I think the post-season was a pretty goshdarned good one though. Five out of seven series went the distance and I'll take that any day.
   35. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: October 30, 2012 at 08:50 AM (#4288141)
In an unfortunate irony, the evolution of baseball and sabermetrics has made teams very intelligent about trading off short-term noise for teams and rosters and approaches that maximize success over the longer term. Unfortunately, that short-term noise is long enough to last an entire postseason series.

Thus, as baseball time has unfolded, the reasons to reduce the number of teams in the postseason have increased. We'd have been better off -- in terms of the postseason meaning something and determining something important -- with a multi-tiered system in the 10s and 20s reducing to a two or four team postseason today, and not the opposite.
   36. spycake Posted: October 30, 2012 at 09:26 AM (#4288151)
Simply judging by World Series length, 1988-1990 was the most notable dry spell since WWII. Then it was repeated by the Yankees in 1998-2000. And then extended by a collection of teams from 2004-2008. Thank goodness for 2011 (and Cliff Lee in 2009) or that could almost be extended through 2012.

Any thoughts why we have more sweeps and 5-gamers? Has it been pushed too late in the season? Too long season/playoffs in the wild card era? Less incentive to win?

(I'm thinking that last one might be a factor to some degree, as evidenced by the vast majority of managers being unwilling to deviate from regular season pitcher usage patterns anymore, even in the World Series. Girardi seems to be alone in that regard. And now we have general managers holding pitchers out of the playoffs, for speculative injury prevention gains...)
   37. TerpNats Posted: October 30, 2012 at 09:35 AM (#4288157)
Thus, as baseball time has unfolded, the reasons to reduce the number of teams in the postseason have increased. We'd have been better off -- in terms of the postseason meaning something and determining something important -- with a multi-tiered system in the 10s and 20s reducing to a two or four team postseason today, and not the opposite.
Reminds me of something Mary Pickford once said -- that it would have made more sense (artistically, rather than technically) if silent film had developed from talking pictures, instead of the other way around. Alas, technology (and business) work to make things more, not less, complex.
   38. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: October 30, 2012 at 10:05 AM (#4288172)
Any thoughts why we have more sweeps and 5-gamers? Has it been pushed too late in the season? Too long season/playoffs in the wild card era? Less incentive to win?


I can't think of any that stand up to any analysis. Momentum doesn't work because obviously momentum should exist for both teams heading to the WS. The idea that a lesser team is facing a stronger team doesn't work because the team with fewer wins has actually won 10 of the 18 WC era World Series. I think there is ample incentive for both teams in the WS, there isn't a series I can think of where a team lost because of any obvious lack of incentive such as holding out a player (like the Strasburg thing).

One thing I would wonder about is the impact of information; scouting, stats, hit charts, stuff like that. We have access to SO much information now that there is going to be a real edge for those teams with the ability to best prepare. The NFL has seen certain teams flourish coming off bye weeks because of that sort of preparation and I wonder if there is something at work here. It's the type of edge that the day to day aspect of a regular season might offset but with all the off days during a post-season I'm thinking it might be a factor.

Ultimately I think it's probably just randomness at work. We're inclined to look for patterns where none exists, to make order out of things and I suspect this is just one of those periods like '88-'90, '98-'00 or the late 30s/early 40s.
   39. VCar Posted: October 30, 2012 at 10:15 AM (#4288183)
1966 might get there, but two straight 1-0 pitchers' duels decided by solo home runs were pretty damn dramatic.

By definition, any series where the Orioles win can't suck (kind of the contra-positive of the "any series where the Yanks get swept doesn't suck" rule). I was too young to remember '66, but looking back historically it doesn't sound like the most exciting series. Which got me thinking about the excitement factor of other championships won by the Balto-Wash teams I follow:

SuperBowl V - Colts win the worst played SB game ever; something like 10 turnovers between the 2 teams

02 NCCAB - Terps win a really boring game (I was lucky enough to attend the game and it was amazing at the time, but I watched the tape later and said "wow, this must have sucked to watch for someone who wasn't rooting for either team")

SuperBowl XXXV - Ravens shellack the Giants

SuperBowl XXII - Redskins dismantle the Broncos; only competitive for 1 quarter

O's won 2 WS, each 4-1 with no real drama

Come to think of it, some of the championship losses weren't good either. Colts-Jets in SBIII was never close, Caps-RedWings around 98 was a sweep. The only excitement/drama was during the O's 2 7-game losses to the Buccos. I guess I'll take the boring championship over the exciting loss.
   40. bunyon Posted: October 30, 2012 at 10:26 AM (#4288191)
It could have been much worse. If an actual coastal East Coast team had made it, we'd still be waiting for game 4 to start (probably until Friday or so).

I disagree. I think it would have been hilarious to have had a Yankee/Cardinal world series in which it became clear that God was not amused. In fact, my guess is that the genesis of this storm was God just being prepared to smack down these two teams in Yankee stadium.
   41. Charles S. will not yield to this monkey court Posted: October 30, 2012 at 10:26 AM (#4288192)
I don't have much to add here. I enjoyed the series. The infectious excitement of the Giants fans and players really rubbed off on me. It's fun when you're neutral going in, and one team just grabs you and makes you want to root for them.

Also, I'm glad I lived long enough to see a BBTF comment that starts with Reminds me of something Mary Pickford once said. That's not a phrase I ever expected to see here.
   42. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: October 30, 2012 at 10:57 AM (#4288215)
By definition, any series where the Orioles win can't suck (kind of the contra-positive of the "any series where the Yanks get swept doesn't suck" rule). I was too young to remember '66, but looking back historically it doesn't sound like the most exciting series.

I've seen all the Orioles' WS and all the Redskins', Colts' and Ravens' Super Bowls. Here's as objective a POV as I can make about them:

1973 Redskins - Dolphins SB: 5 on a 10 scale. The final score was 14 to 7, but in terms of actual domination it was totally lopsided. The Skins' lone score came on a botched Miami play, and the Dolphins stuffed the Skins' offense all day.

1983 Redskins - Dolphins SB: 9 on a 10 scale. Riggins' game winning run was the greatest single moment in Redskins' history this side of Bobby Mitchell's first appearance in a Redskins' uniform, and the game featured several lead changes and dramatic plays.

1984 Redskins - Raiders SB: 1 on a 10 scale. 38 to 9 says it all. The Raiders totally dominated the game from start to finish.

1988 Redskins - Broncos SB: 4 on a 10 scale. A 42 to 10 massacre due to that 35 point second quarter, but if the Redskins hadn't recovered their own fumble after the Broncos raced off to an early 10-0 lead, it would almost certainly have been 17 to 0 and the Redskins would have been reeling. And that second quarter outburst was truly a marvel to witness.

1992 Redskins - Bills SB: 2 on a 10 scale. Total Redskins domination until a couple of late garbage time Bills' scores stopped it from achieving 49ers-Broncos status. IMO that Redskins team was up there in the top 3 or 4 teams of all time, and maybe even # 1.

1966 Orioles - Dodgers WS: 5 on a 10 scale. The Dodgers were big favorites, but the O's rocked them with back-to-back homers in the top of the 1st, and every one of those games had dramatic moments.

1969 Orioles - Mets WS: 7 on a 10 scale: The Mets' "story" overwhelmed everything else, but objectively there were only 2 games with much drama: Game 2 when the Mets rallied in the 9th with 3 singles to tie the Series, and game 4, which featured several circus catches and a terrible call that wound up winning the game for the Mets.

1970 Orioles - Mets WS: 6 on a 10 scale: The first two games featured big O's comebacks, and Brooksie's historic Series added all kinds of individual drama, and elevates it from a 5 to a 6.

1971 Orioles - Pirates WS: 6 on a 10 scale, despite being 7 games. The only really tense game was game 6. Games 4 and 7 were close but lackluster, and only Clemente's heroics raises it to a 6.

1979 Orioles - Pirates WS: 4 on a 10 scale, again in spite of the 7 games. First, the entire Series was played under the worst imaginable conditions, with near freezing temperatures and constant precipitation. Second, only game 4 had any real drama, and after that the Orioles' bats went into a deep freeze. Game 2 was decided by a Pirates' run in the top of the 9th, but even that was more a case of bad Orioles' fielding than anything else.

1983 Orioles - Phillies WS: 6 on a 10 scale. Games 3 and 4 were close and pivotal, and could have gone either way. Games 1 and 2 were split and set the stage for those. Game 5 with Murray's two home runs was full of drama if you were an Orioles' fan, but objectively it wasn't any more dramatic than this year's game 1.

1958 Colts - Giants NFL championship: 10 on a 10 scale. The sudden death game that put the NFL on the map, with two seismic shifts of momentum that finally turned on a Giants' drive that was stopped by inches on a play in which Gino Marchetti broke his ankle. This game deserves every bit of hype it's received over the years.

1959 Colts - Giants championship: 6 on a 10 scale. It might have been much higher, since the Giants actually led after 3 quarters, but the Colts scored 24 points to open the 4th quarter and let the air out of the balloon.

1971 Colts - Cowboys SB: 7 on a 10 scale. It was close all the way, and it ended with a game winning field goal as time ran out, but it was perhaps the sloppiest Super Bowl ever played.

2001 Ravens - Giants SB: 2 on a 10 scale. Totally forgettable unless you're a Ravens fan. Not quite as lopsided as some of those 80's SBs, but in terms of domination it was close.
   43. Tippecanoe Posted: October 30, 2012 at 11:17 AM (#4288233)
1970 Orioles - Mets WS


The Pete Rose ban has gone too far.
   44. SoSH U at work Posted: October 30, 2012 at 11:23 AM (#4288239)
The Pete Rose ban has gone too far.


Not as far as Andy's Don Maynard ban has gone. That game's been wiped off the books entirely.
   45. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: October 30, 2012 at 11:59 AM (#4288284)
The Pete Rose ban has gone too far.

Not as far as Andy's Don Maynard ban has gone. That game's been wiped off the books entirely.

Oops. Although I didn't actually become a Colts fan until the Bert Jones era, and I was rooting for the Jets in that game, just as I was pulling for the Giants in 1958 and 1959.

But using the same criteria as above, I'd give that 1969 Colts-Jets SB a 6 on a 10 scale, with 4 of those 6 points for the historical significance and the buildup. The game itself was no better than the 1973 Redskins-Dolphins SB, since the early drama was purely speculative---"When are the Colts going to wake up?"---and by the end of the first half it was obvious that the Colts were going nowhere.
   46. Booey Posted: October 30, 2012 at 12:07 PM (#4288294)
Series in years ending in "1" are always the best. I've watched every World Series since 1988 and 1991, 2001, and 2011 were the top 3. 1997 probably should've ranked up with those 3 as well, but hindsight kinda kills it since the Marlins scrapped their team immediately afterwards.

2002 was great too, but it loses a few points because (A) game 7 wasn't anything special. If game 6 was game 7 instead, it would've rated higher. And (B) the way the Angels tried to take Bonds out of the series by intentionally walking him seemingly every PA was completely understandable and all, but it sure killed the drama from a non biased fans POV. As far as entertainment goes, it would have been much, much more fun to watch if they'd taken their chances with him.

I'd probably rank 1999 as the least interesting WS I've seen. The only thing I even remember about it was the nonsense the announcers were spouting about how that series would determine the "team of the 90's."
   47. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: October 30, 2012 at 12:24 PM (#4288314)
Series in years ending in "1" are always the best. I've watched every World Series since 1988 and 1991, 2001, and 2011 were the top 3. 1997 probably should've ranked up with those 3 as well, but hindsight kinda kills it since the Marlins scrapped their team immediately afterwards.

Plus that Series was played sloppily and in sloppy weather conditions. It's nowhere near those other three.

Other years ending in a "1":

1911 A's - Giants: 5/10. A six game Series known mostly for Home Run Baker's heroics in game 2

1921 Giants - Yankees: 8/10. First subway Series that featured a big Giants' comeback that ended in a bizarre fashion.

1931 Cards - A's: 7/10. A seven game Series without a whole lot of individual game drama. Remembered mainly for Pepper Martin's heroics.

1941 Yanks - Dodgers: 7/10. Tightly fought five game Series best known for Mickey Owen's passed ball. Was also the first Bronx-Brooklyn subway Series.

1951 Yanks - Giants: 5/10. Six game Series that ended with a spectacular game saving sliding catch with the tying run on base, but without much doubt about the outcomes of any of the first five games.

1961 Yanks - Reds: 4/10. Only a memorable game 3 and a good pitcher's duel in game 1 saves this from being even lower.

1971 Pirates - Orioles: 6/10. See #42 above.

1981 Dodgers - Yankees: 7/10. The final game blowout costs this one a point or two, but with the Yanks ahead by 2 games to 0, the Dodgers won 3 straight tight games to take control of the Series. If the Yanks had forced a game 7, this might have wound up in one of the top categories.
   48. just plain joe Posted: October 30, 2012 at 12:24 PM (#4288315)
Series in years ending in "1" are always the best.


Eh, if you were old enough to remember the 1961 WS you might think differently. The Yankees won in 1961 and pretty much dominated Cincinnati. Only Game 3 had much drama as New York scored single runs in the 7th, 8th and 9th innings to earn a come from behind win. Otherwise the Yankees shut the Reds out in two of the games, and the deciding Game 5 was a 13-5 blowout that saw the Yankees score 5 runs in 2 separate innings. One can envision the teenaged Andy doing his happy dance.
   49. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: October 30, 2012 at 12:38 PM (#4288336)
Eh, if you were old enough to remember the 1961 WS you might think differently. The Yankees won in 1961 and pretty much dominated Cincinnati. Only Game 3 had much drama as New York scored single runs in the 7th, 8th and 9th innings to earn a come from behind win. Otherwise the Yankees shut the Reds out in two of the games, and the deciding Game 5 was a 13-5 blowout that saw the Yankees score 5 runs in 2 separate innings. One can envision the teenaged Andy doing his happy dance.

Objectively I rated it a 4/10. Subjectively you're also right. I bought the NY Daily News the next day and still remember its headline:

LAST ACT----
RED MURDER
   50. RMc's desperate, often sordid world Posted: October 30, 2012 at 01:11 PM (#4288380)
1984 Tigers - Padres: 10/10. You might disagree with me when I say this series was the greatest event in human history. You'd be wrong, of course.

2006 Tigers - Cardinals: 0/10. Proof there is no God.

2012 Tigers - Giants: -3/10. Proof that there is a God, and he hates Detroit.

OK, OK. Objectively: 5/10 (and three of those points coming from Game 5 and Gibby's HRs); 2/10 (just plain awful); and incomplete (hey, when do the Tigers bats show up?).
   51. Rusty Mitchener Posted: October 30, 2012 at 02:19 PM (#4288448)
I agree. Thankfully we didn't see a dreaded NY v St. Louis series. I think a lot of fans just would've switched off before it started.


Yankees-Cardinals would have CRUSHED this in the ratings.
   52. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: October 30, 2012 at 02:27 PM (#4288458)
Yankees-Cardinals would have CRUSHED this in the ratings.

Well, at first, no question. But then if the real ALCS Yankees had showed up to play the last three NCLS games' version of the Cardinals, that crushing might have disappeared after the first two games. We'd have been much better off with the Orioles and the Giants.
   53. TerpNats Posted: October 30, 2012 at 02:30 PM (#4288463)
A Yanks-Nats WS might have been interesting, if only for the Washington novelty factor...but right now, we'd be in limbo, awaiting Game 4. And it probably wouldn't resume until this weekend (if at all -- with no NYC mass transit, Series logistics would become rather difficult), resulting in a 1989-like vibe.
   54. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: October 30, 2012 at 02:41 PM (#4288471)
We'd have been much better off with the Orioles and the Giants.


Too much orange.
   55. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: October 30, 2012 at 04:05 PM (#4288570)
We'd have been much better off with the Orioles and the Giants.

Too much orange.


2012 NLCS: Too much red
2012 ALCS: Too much blue
2011 WS: Too much red
2011 ALCS: Too much blue
2011 NLDS: Too much red
2010 ALDS: Too much blue
2010 NLDS: Too much red

And so on. Give the orange a little love, why doncha?
   56. SoSH U at work Posted: October 30, 2012 at 04:09 PM (#4288581)
2012 NLCS: Too much red


I think you need to adjust the tint knob on your Magnavox.
   57. Booey Posted: October 30, 2012 at 04:18 PM (#4288594)
2012 NLCS: Too much red

I think you need to adjust the tint knob on your Magnavox.


It had the Cardinals. For many people, isn't that too much right there?

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Ray (RDP)
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogDoug Glanville: I Was Racially Profiled in My Own Driveway
(85 - 12:38am, Apr 16)
Last: theboyqueen

NewsblogOMNICHATTER for April 14, 2014
(116 - 12:37am, Apr 16)
Last: Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim

NewsblogOT: NBA Monthly Thread - April 2014
(207 - 12:06am, Apr 16)
Last: Spivey

NewsblogOTP April 2014: BurstNET Sued for Not Making Equipment Lease Payments
(1271 - 12:06am, Apr 16)
Last: OCF

NewsblogBud Selig calls replay start 'remarkable'
(12 - 11:52pm, Apr 15)
Last: boteman digs the circuit clout

Jim's Lab NotesWe're Moved! (And Burst.net can bite me!)
(81 - 11:49pm, Apr 15)
Last: boteman digs the circuit clout

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 4-15-2014
(20 - 11:11pm, Apr 15)
Last: greenback likes millwall

NewsblogKimbrel given night off with soreness in shoulder | braves.com: News
(10 - 11:07pm, Apr 15)
Last: greenback likes millwall

NewsblogNY Post: Davidoff: Why the Yankees are using the shift more than ever
(4 - 11:04pm, Apr 15)
Last: Jose Can Still Seabiscuit

NewsblogJoe Torre: John Farrell Will Be Fined By MLB For His Replay Criticism
(35 - 11:02pm, Apr 15)
Last: Jose Can Still Seabiscuit

NewsblogGothamist: Yankee Stadium Is Selling Nachos In A Helmet For $20
(28 - 10:24pm, Apr 15)
Last: KT's Pot Arb

NewsblogOT: The NHL is finally back thread, part 2
(126 - 10:21pm, Apr 15)
Last: zack

NewsblogRight-hander Joe Blanton retires
(36 - 8:42pm, Apr 15)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogCalcaterra: "An embarrassing mishmash of fringe ranting and ill-informed, shrill bomb-throwing"
(99 - 8:40pm, Apr 15)
Last: Moeball

NewsblogBrewers win ninth straight game behind dominant Lohse
(31 - 7:17pm, Apr 15)
Last: STEAGLES is all out of bubblegum

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 0.7688 seconds
52 querie(s) executed