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

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

YAHOO! SPORTS: Oz: Pedro Martinez Admits 90% Of Batters He Hit Were On Purpose

Pedro admitted to reporters that 90 percent of the batters he hit were on purpose. Say what you want about Pedro, but he always did have control.

No surprise hear, for those who were paying attention.

The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 19, 2013 at 05:57 PM | 505 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: hitting, red sox

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.

Page 3 of 6 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 > 
   201. tfbg9 Posted: February 21, 2013 at 06:39 PM (#4373617)
My original claim is that the 2004 ALCS/WS is the biggest victory in American sports history, the most significant win, not the "greatest moment" ever.
And the flipside as well, of course, the Yankees losing was the biggest loss/choke. Ever.

Both of these statments can obviously be debated, but they pass the straight face test.

THATS THE STRAIGHT FACE TEST ANDY. THE STRAIGHT FACE TEST!

My point being, it was obviously a huge win, and a huge loss. You can disagree, but you can't laugh it out of the room, IMHO.
   202. Publius Publicola Posted: February 21, 2013 at 06:50 PM (#4373627)
Why the hell did the ref wave Tom McMillen away from the baseline when he was trying to defend the in-bounds pass? Was that an international rules thing?


A better question would be why did McMillen then run away from the inbounder. It appeared to me the ref, by waving his arm up and down vertically over the line, was just warning McMillen not to encroach. McMillen should have known the rules and not backed away like that. If the long pass had a higher arc, the two defenders would have had a much better chance to deflect it.

I think Tom choked a little there.
   203. Publius Publicola Posted: February 21, 2013 at 06:52 PM (#4373629)
My point being, it was obviously a huge win, and a huge loss. You can disagree, but you can't laugh it out of the room, IMHO.


Let it go, t. Andy is going to continue to be a birther on this one.
   204. Greg K Posted: February 21, 2013 at 07:15 PM (#4373637)
Belarus beating Sweden at the 2002 Olympics has to be up there for upsets. Especially as up to that point I couldn't conceive of how Canada would possibly be able to beat Sweden. They looked unstoppable, and then to lose the way they did, to Belarus of all nations.
   205. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 21, 2013 at 07:18 PM (#4373639)
now I believe Tyson was largely a hype-created bully, who quickly panicked when in a real fight.

YR is the boxing expert here. He says so, I'll believe it. Otherwise, not so much.


It's funny, Tyson was surrounded by so much media hype and received so much attention and adulation that many serious boxing historians found themselves almost compelled to throw as much cold water on his legacy as possible in order to counteract the hyperbole. Now Tyson may actually be in the position of being somewhat underrated as a result.

Tyson's meteoric rise in the late-80s was a near perfect confluence of events; the talent level of the heavyweight division was at a serious ebb, with most of the best contenders suffering from drug problems, conditioning issues, and other factors that made them a fairly weak field despite some fantastic raw talent. Tyson's style alone made him a captivating figure and stood in stark contrast to Larry Holmes' workmanlike magnificence and surly relationship with a boxing press who always demeaned him for the sin of not being Muhammad Ali. Tyson was well-trained and well-conditioned by a true veteran of the sport and had honed a style almost perfectly-suited for his physical gifts and the weaknesses inherent in the heavyweight field - if you can get away with patterning yourself on Jack Dempsey, you'd be hard-pressed to pick a more dangerous style.

Tyson shredded the field in an impressive manner that recalled the ascent of several of the all-time greats; Joe Louis went 31-1 with devastating KO's over three former champions before receiving his title over Jim Braddock in 1937, but the loss to former champ Max Schmeling muted a bit of the hype. A more apt comparison may be the Jack Dempsey who went 32-0 with 28 KO's immediately leading up to his 1919 title shot against champion Jess Willard, a remarkable streak that saw Dempsey score a ridiculous 17 first-round KO's (naysayers, bring up Willie Meehan at your own peril if you haven't read the newspaper reports). Streaks like that electrify the sporting press and common fan alike and Tyson rode that wave of hype straight to a series of title wins against middling opponents like Trevor Berbick and a trembling Michael Spinks.

That Mike Tyson from his meteoric ascent was a formidable opponent, but even there questions remained to be answered. The simple criticism was that Tyson was so successful that he never developed the internal toughness needed to weather the storm against equally talented opposition and I do think there's something to that, but of course you can't fault a man for being too good for his level of competition.

The death of Cus D'Amato and subsequent insertion of Don King and his slime-trailing cronies in place of trainer Kevin Rooney is usually cited as the point when Tyson's descent began and there's something to that in terms of stylistic faults becoming more manifest, even while Tyson was continuing to win by impressive knockout. Even granting him this (not a sure thing in my eyes, the elite champions know what needs to be done to keep themselves at their best) you can't discount the fact that the next generation of heavyweights ascending in the 1990s were a large step above the weak crop of the late-80s. In place of Carl Williams, Tony Tucker, Trevor Berbick, Tim Witherspoon, Bonecrusher Smith and Pinklon Thomas the 1990s saw a truly impressive generation of heavyweights take the stage - Evander Holyfield, Riddick Bowe, Lennox Lewis, Tony Morrison, Ray Mercer, David Tua, and Michael Moorer were all talented, hungry young fighters with skillsets ranging from "good" to "elite", and even old, pudgy sideshow George Foreman remained a very dangerous presence in the division. 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. Even George Foreman was studiously avoided by Tyson and with good reason, as I personally have no doubt that even the long-past-prime Big George would have sent Tyson sprawling in a manner not unlike Joe Frazier, a similar small active slugger who couldn't weather Foreman's massive power.

When judged against the all-time heavyweight greats Tyson comes up quite short on almost every measure, but I do think, as someone who leans heavily on film analysis in considering boxers, that the mid-80s Tyson had all the tools required to be exactly the fighter everyone thought he was - blistering handspeed, agile footwork, slippery defense, and if not true mental toughness, at the very least a fearless aggression that served him well against the middling talents of the time. I've always felt that even the best Tyson would have been mentally cowed by the truly elite heavyweights of most eras, even before Evander Holyfield openly exposed Tyson's mental weakness for all to see in two fights that saw "Iron Mike" shoved around the ring and bullied until he literally quit in their second bout. Still, I don't think it's entirely unfair to place Tyson in the rankings of all-time heavyweight greats, somewhere around #20 or so although I haven't given the matter much thought in many years. He was a good swarming heavyweight with power in both hands, and small swarming heavyweights tend to have short lifespans even when they're as dedicated and fearless as Joe Frazier. No version of Mike Tyson ever beats a prime Evander Holyfield or Lennox Lewis, nor a prime Foreman or Larry Holmes or any of a dozen other truly great heavyweights through the ages. That doesn't mean Tyson was a bum or a pure product of hype, it just means that absent all the hype and granted some historic distance, an honest appraisal shows him falling well short of what he was perceived to be during his championship years.

   206. smileyy Posted: February 21, 2013 at 07:24 PM (#4373641)
More unexpected than Buster Douglas's beating Mike Tyson?


I'm sure it was true of a lot of Tyson's other opponents that I never looked at, but I remember being a kid and looking at the measurements before the fight and thinking "Huh...Buster Douglas has quite a reach advantage." I have no idea how much of a factor that actually played in the fight though.
   207. cardsfanboy Posted: February 21, 2013 at 07:34 PM (#4373643)
My original claim is that the 2004 ALCS/WS is the biggest victory in American sports history,


And that is about the silliest claim in history. It's a great comeback story of course, but beyond that it is no different than dozens of other series. I don't see how it's better than the Royals '85 world series win. Just because it featured the Yankees, and their wannabee rivals, the Red Sox, doesn't make it anything more special. It's a nice footnote in history, but that is it. Only Red Sox fans would pump it up to any heights of importance.
   208. smileyy Posted: February 21, 2013 at 07:34 PM (#4373644)
[205] is why I love this site.
   209. phredbird Posted: February 21, 2013 at 07:57 PM (#4373649)
seconded.


Me three.


"Champs no more! Champs no more! Hahahahahaha! My 3 year nightmare is over!"


I think what we see here is a fine illustration of why Yankee fans have so much more character than the rest. A Yankee fan roots for the Yankees. The rest of you cockroaches get to root for the field, and it's considered poor manners to point out what a shameless cadre of gutless bandwagon-hopping jockriders you all are.


gimme a break, YR. i'm a lifelong cardinal fan, and now i live in L.A. ... why would i ever root for the yankees in the world series? character? most of the yankee fans i know are nice guys and all, but they are frontrunners. talk about bandwagon hopping.
   210. phredbird Posted: February 21, 2013 at 07:57 PM (#4373650)
good post on tyson, btw.
   211. cardsfanboy Posted: February 21, 2013 at 08:00 PM (#4373652)
Sure. I have almost no recall of the 1980 hockey win -- it meant nothing to me at the time. It obviously meant something to plenty of people, but as I said, this is a pretty subjective exercise. Just scanning the SI list (which SBB correctly observed was in order of year, not "greatness"), I would put these ahead of the "Miracle": Bobby Thompson, Jesse Owens in Berlin, Bannister's 4-minute mile, Mays '54 catch, Ali-Liston, Ali-Frazier, Namath/Jets '69, Secretariat triple-crown, King v. Riggs (yes), Aaron 715, Thrilla in Manilla, Game 6 1975 Series, Comaneci 1976 Olympics. OK, that takes me thru the 1970s, so I'll stop there. I would also add Robinson '47 and Louis vs Schmeling. And Jim Thorpe in the 1912 Olympics probably belongs too, but that was a little before my time.....


And I just don't get a few of those, I still don't see the importance of Mays catch. A nice catch, in the first game of a world series? As far as great catches go on the big stage, I'll take Endy Chavez's catch... I think it was a better play than Mays, and had a much higher impact on the game.

As far as great baseball series's go, the Red Sox vs Yankees I don't think that the 2004 Yankee/Red Sox would crack the top ten of great series, I'm not sure it would crack the top three playoffs of either teams personal list, I think 1986 playoffs was a better series that the Sox won, that 2008 was a better played and enjoyable series that the Sox lost, that 77/76 for the Yankees were probably better series etc. I'm not even sure it would be the best championship series the Red Sox participated in, in the past 10 years, or that it was the best Championship series of that particular year.

Heck the greatest World series of all time features the Red Sox, and is so much higher on the scale than a piddling come from behind victory in 2004. It might have been a great feeling for Red Sox fans, but the rest of the country only cared because of spite/schadenfreude for the Yankees. If you are going for statistically unlikely, how about the only team to ever blow a 3-1 lead in a post season series more than once, doing it for a third time against the Giants...and being outscored by the Giants 20-1 in those last three games, the Braves outscored them 32-1 when they did it to the Cardinals, and the Royals 19-2 against the Cardinals.
   212. tfbg9 Posted: February 21, 2013 at 08:01 PM (#4373653)
Gee, the 2004 WS really hurts, eh CFB? Its a huge huge story. Your anti-East Coast bias is showing. It was a top NEWS story all over the world. Not just a sports story. The 85 Royals did'nt generate that kind of international intrest.

I contend that the evil dwarf from Alabama or wherever largely verified my quick assessment of Tyson: overrated, and a quitter when anybody seriously gave him a good fight.

   213. robinred Posted: February 21, 2013 at 08:03 PM (#4373655)
I don't even follow boxing, but YR's boxing history posts are good reads.
   214. Nasty Nate Posted: February 21, 2013 at 08:07 PM (#4373657)
My original claim is that the 2004 ALCS/WS is the biggest victory in American sports history,




Only Red Sox fans would pump it up to any heights of importance.


cmon can't we find some sensible middle ground. Being the first team to come back from 3-0 (and with how it happened in games 4 and 5), happening after the same 2 teams played the series a year before which ended with the opposite team winning an 11-inning game 7, would have some height of importance even if the two teams were the St. Louis Browns and Seattle Pilots.
   215. cardsfanboy Posted: February 21, 2013 at 08:37 PM (#4373666)
Gee, the 2004 WS really hurts, eh CFB? Its a huge huge story. Your anti-East Coast bias is showing. It was a top NEWS story all over the world. Not just a sports story. The 85 Royals did'nt generate that kind of international intrest.


Not really, the 2004 WS was over quickly and painlessly. Trust me 2012 hurts a hell of a lot more than 2004. Heck of all the World Series and playoffs that the Cardinals have been in, in my lifetime, the 2004 World Series is at the bottom of the list for painful loss. It wasn't even a fight, who can get broken up by that?


Again, the East coast bias showing in your posts. NOBODY cares about the Red Sox west of Atlanta. The Yankees sure, but the Red Sox? Who really cares about them outside of Boston? And top news story over the world, give me a break. It was a come from behind victory...yippee, good for them. But seriously hardly anybody cares about the Red Sox, the Yankees barely care about the Red Sox. Only Red Sox fans care about the Red Sox and only they hype this #### up.

It was a playoff series... that is it. It wasn't a historic moment of any amount. It wasn't the most soul crushing experience that a older than 21 year old(now) Yankee fan has experienced, it was a playoff loss.

   216. JJ1986 Posted: February 21, 2013 at 08:40 PM (#4373667)
The first 3-0 comeback in the sport is a big deal. It would have been a big deal if it was the Rays over the Mariners.
   217. cardsfanboy Posted: February 21, 2013 at 08:41 PM (#4373668)
The first 3-0 comeback in the sport is a big deal. It would have been a big deal if it was the Rays over the Mariners.


It's a statistical oddity, that is about it. Placing more importance on it, is just giving in to the people that talk about character and choking. It's no inherently different than a series where the visitors win all the games or the home team wins all the games. The appeal of that series was the 4th and 5th game, the last two were ho-hum boring games along with the first two...so somewhere, someone thinks that 2 very good games in the middle of a boring series is the greatest victory in american sports history. Gotcha.
   218. Nasty Nate Posted: February 21, 2013 at 08:49 PM (#4373671)
Heck of all the World Series and playoffs that the Cardinals have been in, in my lifetime, the 2004 World Series is at the bottom of the list for painful loss.


Wow, below being swept in the LDS?

Who really cares about them outside of Boston?


You, apparently, if you are so hell-bent on pretending that losing a world series with a 105 win team was not as disappointing as losing some LDS's or some blowout NLCS's. Somewhat paradoxically, your forced effort to contribute to the (somewhat justified and needed) backlash against east coast over-hype makes you seem like someone who cares a lot about the Sox - as you go out of your way to pretend that the '04 ALCS was just another ho-hum playoff series.
   219. cardsfanboy Posted: February 21, 2013 at 09:01 PM (#4373674)
You apparently, if you are so hell-bent on pretending that losing a world series with a 105 win team was not as disappointing as losing some LDS's or some blowout NLCS's. Somewhat paradoxically, your forced effort to contribute to the (somewhat justified) backlash against east coast over-hype makes you seem like someone who cares a lot about the Sox - as you go out of your way to pretend that the '04 ALCS was just another ho-hum playoff series.


You are right, I'm probably over correcting. It was a very good series. It was not, and no way can I stress this enough, on the list of top 30 greatest victory in american sports history, forget calling it number one. It had one element to it... that was the 3-0 comeback, but as pointed out, if this was the Rays versus Mariners, that would give it some pizzaz/oomph. The fact that it's the Yankees getting beat by their wannabee rivals, doesn't really add a thing except for the east coast bias bump.

But I don't really see anything separating 04 Yanks/Red Sox from 06 Mets/Cardinal or 2011 Cardinals/Rangers or 75 Red Sox/Reds etc. A seven game series, in the post season is always going to be impressive and enjoyable, the come from behind nature is dwarfed by better game 6/7's of other series. Heck,I'm pretty sure that 30 years from now people are going to still remember 1986 better than they do 2004.
   220. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: February 21, 2013 at 09:07 PM (#4373675)
The odds of an upset is a World Series are never really that long. If anybody offers you 4-1 on a baseball playoff series, you oughta jump on it.
So, 1906 is mot really that shocking.


I said it was the "Greatest upset" in a sport's biggest event, meaning in this case the World Series. And no World Series upset ever topped 1906.

My original claim is that the 2004 ALCS/WS is the biggest victory in American sports history, the most significant win, not the "greatest moment" ever.
And the flipside as well, of course, the Yankees losing was the biggest loss/choke. Ever.

Both of these statments can obviously be debated, but they pass the straight face test.

THATS THE STRAIGHT FACE TEST ANDY. THE STRAIGHT FACE TEST!

My point being, it was obviously a huge win, and a huge loss. You can disagree, but you can't laugh it out of the room, IMHO.


I wasn't trying to "laugh it out of the room." Obviously a Red Sox fan would have every reason to believe it, and as I said, "it totally depends on where you're coming from." I wouldn't put any World Series or any playoff above Jackie Robinson's debut in a ranking of "greatest sport event", or above Joe Louis's KO of Max Schmeling, or above the first Giants-Patriots Super Bowl, or above the 1984 NBA finals. I doubt if a single other person in the world would agree with all of those choices, but I doubt if a single person in the world would agree with all of yours, either.

"Greatest victory" or "greatest defeat" are also both wholly subjective concepts, and if you want to think that the 2004 ALCS represents both of those, more power to you. But what you don't seem yet to realize (or simply acknowledge) is that that 2004 ALCS meant less to me (and to lots of other non-Red Sox fans) than those other games or series I mentioned way back in #81. It's your pretensions to mindreading that I do find laughable.
   221. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: February 21, 2013 at 09:13 PM (#4373676)
But I don't really see anything separating 04 Yanks/Red Sox from 06 Mets/Cardinal or 2011 Cardinals/Rangers or 75 Red Sox/Reds etc. A seven game series, in the post season is always going to be impressive and enjoyable, the come from behind nature is dwarfed by better game 6/7's of other series. Heck,I'm pretty sure that 30 years from now people are going to still remember 1986 better than they do 2004.

And if they're not totally East Coast-centric or fans of the winning team, they'll remember the 1991 World Series more than any of them. 5 one run games, 4 decided by walkoffs, and the last two in extra innings. No World Series can top that one for drama and nailbiting moments, and no more than a tiny handful are even close.
   222. phredbird Posted: February 21, 2013 at 10:05 PM (#4373693)
Trust me 2012 hurts a hell of a lot more than 2004. Heck of all the World Series and playoffs that the Cardinals have been in, in my lifetime, the 2004 World Series is at the bottom of the list for painful loss.


agree with this, but i'm already over 2012; it was a wild ride, and everything after the WC playoff was a bonus.

what really still gets under my skin is 1985. we had no business dropping that one. 1968 too. i'm hard pressed to decide which one was worse for me.
   223. Publius Publicola Posted: February 21, 2013 at 10:27 PM (#4373701)
Concur with praise of 205. If you told me that YR's piece had been cut and pasted from SI or Esquire, I wouldn't have batted an eyelash. Also concur with the content and analysis. Tyson actually proved his own axiom in that fight with Douglass: "Everybody has a plan until you punch him in the mouth.".

Two things YR left out, IMO:

1) That fight was around the same time that Robin Givens and her crazy mother were ####### with his head. The Barbara Walters interview he did with her was one of the most humiliating thing I have ever seen on TV. He sat there silent and shamed like a scolded puppy while Givens eviscerated him.

2) Tyson was only effective on the offensive. If you backed him up, his power was dissipated. That's what Douglass did. He was bigger and had longer arms and he kept backing him up and pushing him around. Tyson had no backup plan. And he was never the same after. His aura was gone and Buster provided the blueprint for beating him.
   224. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: February 21, 2013 at 10:31 PM (#4373706)
Red Sox vs Yankees I don't think that the 2004 Yankee/Red Sox would crack the top ten of great series, I'm not sure it would crack the top three playoffs of either teams personal list


Both clubs have played quite a few post-season series (Yankees have played many more of course) but I have a tough time thinking that 2004 wouldn't crack the Sox' top three list. The comeback is a big deal and 5 of the first 6 games ended either with the tie/winning run at the plate or in walkoff fashion.

By contrast 1986, while featuring two dramatic series, were not so dramatic game to game. In very simple terms I think 2004 featured 5-6 dramatic games while in 1986 just 2-3 of the LCS games were dramatic and the WS had3-4 dramatic games. Likewise 1967 and 2007 (LCS) did not feature much in the way of game to game excitement.

For Red Sox history I have a tough time seeing any series other than 1912 and 1975 belonging ahead of 2004 (sticking to 7 game series for simplicity sake).

In an overall MLB sense I think the first 3-0 comeback is meaningful but there have been enough great series that depending on what you want it may or may not be top ten.
   225. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: February 21, 2013 at 10:35 PM (#4373708)
agree with this, but i'm already over 2012; it was a wild ride, and everything after the WC playoff was a bonus.

I'm kind of the same way about the A's in 2012: I was so damn happy they did as well as they did, and I didn't even mind when they finally lost (especially after the curtain call at the Coliseum). The 2001 loss felt much worse - Amazing GF said she'd never seen me so fidgety as during the opening of "Moneyball," when I was muttering profane imprecations and twitching like my seat was mildly electrified - but even that's kind of reached "Eh!" territory at this point. So, basically, either I've matured, or I haven't.
   226. tfbg9 Posted: February 21, 2013 at 11:11 PM (#4373715)
Notice that the two most vociferous voices in denial about the importance of the Red Sox stunning playoff run in 2004 just happen, purely by coincidence naturally, to big big fans of the pair of teams the got their asses handed to them as a result of Boston's incredible 8-0 sprint to the finish?

Heh.
   227. tfbg9 Posted: February 21, 2013 at 11:14 PM (#4373717)
By the way, I'm reasonably certain that the diminutive YR semi-plagerizes most of his "expert content".
   228. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: February 21, 2013 at 11:39 PM (#4373722)
Teddy has a point. That 2004 comeback was huge news worldwide(well at least here in Sydney). It lead the news. They gave a little background and the history of it to put it in perspective. The emphasis being the first comeback from a 3-0 deficit and the fact the the perennial chokers finally defeated the team that had kicked sand in their faces for so long. It was a really, big effing deal. It was if the devil had been finally put to rest. I wore a Red Sox t-shirt to work the next day and actually had a few people say Go Sox to me in the street...it was kind of weird.
   229. tfbg9 Posted: February 22, 2013 at 12:09 AM (#4373727)
Thanks Hugh. Like I said. It was f*cking huge.
   230. Gonfalon B. Posted: February 22, 2013 at 12:13 AM (#4373728)
Notice that the two most vociferous voices in denial about the importance of the Red Sox stunning playoff run in 2004 just happen, purely by coincidence naturally, to big big fans of the pair of teams the got their asses handed to them as a result of Boston's incredible 8-0 sprint to the finish?

I'm not buying the "eh, the 2004 comeback was okay, I guess" line at all. Totally unconvincing. But the 2005 White Sox had an incredible 8-0 sprint at the finish, and the 1999 Yankees went an incredible 8-1, and the 1989 A's went an incredible 8-1, and the 1984 Tigers went an incredible 7-1. When these sprints happens once every six or seven years, maybe they're a little bit credible.
   231. Morty Causa Posted: February 22, 2013 at 12:21 AM (#4373732)
Pedro should be placed on the ineligible list.
   232. tfbg9 Posted: February 22, 2013 at 12:30 AM (#4373736)
And none of the teams you listed were down and out at 0-3 to their arch rival that theretofore had perenially rubbed their noses in it, now were they, GB (a NYY fan, yes?)?

Therefore, far less incredible. Context matters.
   233. tfbg9 Posted: February 22, 2013 at 12:34 AM (#4373738)
We're talkin' about the NYY's baby! Everything they do is BIG! So when they choke on one, they choke on the BIGGEST ONE.

Ya gotta hand it to 'em. It was done in Grand Yankee Style®!
   234. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: February 22, 2013 at 12:38 AM (#4373741)
Notice that the two most vociferous voices in denial about the importance of the Red Sox stunning playoff run in 2004

Who's denying its "importance"? 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. I didn't give a #### about that 1980 hockey game, either, or that oh-so-important 1972 Olympics basketball game. The only time I've even taken any interest in the Olympics is when Tonya Harding ordered that kneecap job on Nancy Kerrigan---now that was entertainment!

And if you want to talk about truly historic upsets, you might want to look at the 2007 Super Bowl, where a 10 and 6 wild card team---a team that was 2 and 6 in its own stadium---beat an 18 and 0 team that was being touted as the Greatest Team Ever. By your logic, if you don't admit you were practically contemplating suicide after that one, you're not passing a "smell test", and yet strangely enough, you still seem to hang on, though perhaps only with life support.
   235. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 22, 2013 at 01:18 AM (#4373748)
I'm reasonably certain that the diminutive YR semi-plagerizes most of his "expert content".

One would think that such a statement would be accompanied by some evidence, or not made at all.
   236. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 22, 2013 at 01:36 AM (#4373752)
By the way, I'm reasonably certain that the diminutive YR semi-plagerizes most of his "expert content".


I'm completely certain that you're wrong. I'm also a bit insulted but I'll get over it.
   237. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 22, 2013 at 02:55 AM (#4373761)
2) Tyson was only effective on the offensive. If you backed him up, his power was dissipated. That's what Douglass did. He was bigger and had longer arms and he kept backing him up and pushing him around. Tyson had no backup plan


To be fair plenty of excellent fighters weren't able to fight effectively while backing up - Joe Frazier, another small, slugging heavyweight springs to mind. That isn't such a damning indictment of Tyson in my eyes, he was a physically small fighter and needed aggression to compensate for his anatomical difficulty fighting in the pocket. The only undersized heavyweight I can think of off-hand who excelled fighting off the back foot was Negro champion Sam Langford, and he was simply a freak.

Douglas was able to work Tyson with one weapon - his jab. Tyson had fought skilled jabbers before (Tony Tucker took him 12 rounds, Larry Holmes was arguably the greatest heavyweight jabber of all-time, even if he was clearly rusty and unprepared for Tyson) but Douglas really took the measure of him at arm's length and Tyson couldn't adapt. His corner work for that fight was notoriously reprehensible - I'm sure even casual boxing fans recall the image of Tyson's cornerman attempting to treat his swollen face with a rubber glove filled with cold water. The cornering was so inept it lacked even the most basic triage items such as an Endswell, a large hunk of aluminum kept in a bucket of ice and pressed against a fighter's face to reduce swelling in such instances. A corner that unprepared sure as hell doesn't have the experience or brainpower to advise a swarming fighter how to counter the jab, as Tyson did effectively in the Tucker fight under the guidance of Kevin Rooney.
   238. Lassus Posted: February 22, 2013 at 08:10 AM (#4373774)
By the way, I'm reasonably certain that the diminutive YR semi-plagerizes most of his "expert content".

Jesus Christmas, wtf is wrong with you?
   239. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: February 22, 2013 at 08:48 AM (#4373780)
By the way, I'm reasonably certain that the diminutive YR semi-plagerizes most of his "expert content".


Jesus Christmas, wtf is wrong with you?

You haven't been noticing anything before this? This guy walks around all day with a Red Sox propeller beanie and sleeps with a stuffed animal called Teddybear Ballgame, and he can't believe that not everyone else shares his peculiar obsession with the outcomes of games.
   240. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 22, 2013 at 09:12 AM (#4373786)
A couple notes. With no dog in the fight 2004 was a big news story at the time, but that doesn't really make it historic (Like Jesse Owens is for example). There is no accounting for taste though.

And yeah accusing someone of what YR is accussed of with no evidence or anythign else is seriously feeble, especially since I think his posts are really really good (and I don't even like boxing).
   241. Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere Posted: February 22, 2013 at 09:18 AM (#4373788)
I'm not buying the "eh, the 2004 comeback was okay, I guess" line at all. Totally unconvincing. But the 2005 White Sox had an incredible 8-0 sprint at the finish, and the 1999 Yankees went an incredible 8-1, and the 1989 A's went an incredible 8-1, and the 1984 Tigers went an incredible 7-1. When these sprints happens once every six or seven years, maybe they're a little bit credible.


The 1998 Yankees also went 8-1, as did the 1990 Reds

edit: both went 7-1, after splitting the first 2 games of the LCS.
   242. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 22, 2013 at 09:27 AM (#4373789)
I hate boxing and I love YR's boxing posts. I think they're clearly written in his own literary style and not plagiarized. Teddy should take that back, unless he has evidence.

As Hugh correctly points out, the 2004 ALCS was a worldwide story. It played as a top story on the national news in the US, and got into the news in other countries that don't even care about baseball. The humongous backlash against Red Sox / Yankees hype is predicated on the climax of the Red Sox / Yankees narrative being splashed all over the news when it happened.

The night the Sox won the World Series, a bunch of my friends, none of whom are Sox fans, drove up to Boston from NYC to see the city on the night when they finally won. It was a thing you wanted to experience, it was a big ass deal.
   243. Lassus Posted: February 22, 2013 at 09:31 AM (#4373790)
A couple notes. With no dog in the fight 2004 was a big news story at the time, but that doesn't really make it historic (Like Jesse Owens is for example).

Regarding the 2004 comeback and World Series win, as no one had ever done it before, ever, and it was the breaking of a historic curse, calling it NOT historic really does not seem accurate at all.


There is no accounting for taste though.

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.


I hate boxing and I love YR's boxing posts.

Yes.
   244. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 22, 2013 at 09:33 AM (#4373791)
that doesn't really make it historic (Like Jesse Owens is for example).
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.
   245. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: February 22, 2013 at 09:39 AM (#4373794)
And none of the teams you listed were down and out at 0-3 to their arch rival that theretofore had perenially rubbed their noses in it, now were they, GB (a NYY fan, yes?)?


But outside of CHB and the dumbed-down NY tabloids, and ESPN, no one really cares that much about the rivalry, anymore than a Midwestern college football fan cares about Alabama-Auburn.

From a nonpartisan perspective, 2003 was a better LCS than 2004. Cubs-Marlins 2003 was better than both.

Nor are the '03 and '04 LCSs aging particularly well. The two biggest payrolls, chockablock filled with expensive roiders -- yuck. Those years and those games play the same role in baseball history that the Cuban Missile Crisis played in the long twilight struggle -- Ground Zero in a low, dishonest epoch.
   246. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: February 22, 2013 at 09:43 AM (#4373795)
Again, the East coast bias showing in your posts. NOBODY cares about the Red Sox west of Atlanta. The Yankees sure, but the Red Sox? Who really cares about them outside of Boston? And top news story over the world, give me a break. It was a come from behind victory...yippee, good for them. But seriously hardly anybody cares about the Red Sox, the Yankees barely care about the Red Sox. Only Red Sox fans care about the Red Sox and only they hype this #### up.


And this is just horseshit. The Sox and Yankees were both in the top 5 for road attendance every year from 2001 through 2010. After '04 they were 1 & 2 for three straight years. Saying no one outside of Boston cares about Boston is factually incorrect.

   247. tfbg9 Posted: February 22, 2013 at 09:47 AM (#4373796)
YR plagerizes directly from Jack Chick. Its no stretch of the imagination to expect him to lift passages from long-forgotten old Ring Magzine articles, especially since Burt Sugar's dead, to prop-up the pathetic, ongoing and intentionally insulting little personna he has developed.

He's a nastly little bigot. One who has for far too long gotten a pass here. F' him. And the dirty business he's an "expert" on. A crank's expertise only goes so far. He's a little insulted? Tough. And I don't give a rats ass if he couches his bigotry as "tongue-in-cheek".
   248. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 22, 2013 at 09:49 AM (#4373797)
So, let's say I was a Twins fan, born and bred in Minneapolis, never cared much for the east coast. Certainly never cared for their various bullying sports teams with their ridiculous payrolls and even more ridiculous self-mythologizing. While I would have watched it and certainly appreciated the brilliant drama of games 4-6, I would have found the 2004 ALCS annoying, and I would have found its ubiquity in culture even more annoying. That's perfectly reasonable.

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. The whole reason that hypothetical Minnesotan MCoA felt this backlash against the 2004 ALCS was precisely that so many folks around me were experiencing it as a historic sports event. At the same time, games 4-6 of the ALCS were just completely bugnuts insane for baseball drama.
   249. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 22, 2013 at 09:53 AM (#4373798)
YR plagerizes directly from Jack Chick. Its no stretch of the imagination to expect him to lift passages from long-forgotten old Ring Magzine articles, especially since Burt Sugar's dead, to prop-up the pathetic, ongoing and intentionally insulting little personna he has developed.


Oh, ok, you're trolling. To your credit you are at least correct about Burt Sugar being dead, although I have no idea how that supports your trolling.
   250. Lassus Posted: February 22, 2013 at 09:55 AM (#4373799)
YR plagerizes directly from Jack Chick.

And the relevant passages would be?
   251. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: February 22, 2013 at 10:00 AM (#4373803)
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.
   252. Tom Nawrocki Posted: February 22, 2013 at 10:04 AM (#4373805)
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.
   253. Publius Publicola Posted: February 22, 2013 at 10:05 AM (#4373806)
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.
   254. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 22, 2013 at 10:10 AM (#4373809)
I'd never heard of Jack Chick until now.


Well that's the real offense here.
   255. JJ1986 Posted: February 22, 2013 at 10:12 AM (#4373810)
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.
   256. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 22, 2013 at 10:13 AM (#4373811)
It's SugarBearBlanks. He is perhaps the single most dishonest data handler on the site. You may know him from the Jack Morris threads.
   257. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: February 22, 2013 at 10:13 AM (#4373812)

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.
   258. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: February 22, 2013 at 10:14 AM (#4373813)
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?
   259. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 22, 2013 at 10:17 AM (#4373814)
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.
   260. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: February 22, 2013 at 10:17 AM (#4373815)
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.
   261. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: February 22, 2013 at 10:27 AM (#4373822)
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.
   262. Lassus Posted: February 22, 2013 at 10:28 AM (#4373823)
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.

   263. Nasty Nate Posted: February 22, 2013 at 10:33 AM (#4373825)
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!"
   264. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 22, 2013 at 10:38 AM (#4373828)
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.
   265. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 22, 2013 at 10:39 AM (#4373829)
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.
   266. Tom Nawrocki Posted: February 22, 2013 at 10:44 AM (#4373830)
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.
   267. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: February 22, 2013 at 11:02 AM (#4373843)
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.



   268. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 22, 2013 at 11:04 AM (#4373844)
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?
   269. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 22, 2013 at 11:06 AM (#4373849)
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.
   270. Lassus Posted: February 22, 2013 at 11:07 AM (#4373850)
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.
   271. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: February 22, 2013 at 11:09 AM (#4373851)
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.
   272. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 22, 2013 at 11:10 AM (#4373855)
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.
   273. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 22, 2013 at 11:11 AM (#4373856)
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.
   274. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: February 22, 2013 at 11:11 AM (#4373857)
"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?
   275. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 22, 2013 at 11:12 AM (#4373858)
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.
   276. tfbg9 Posted: February 22, 2013 at 11:13 AM (#4373860)
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.
   277. JJ1986 Posted: February 22, 2013 at 11:15 AM (#4373863)
**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.
   278. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 22, 2013 at 11:18 AM (#4373867)
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.
   279. SandyRiver Posted: February 22, 2013 at 11:22 AM (#4373872)
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.
   280. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 22, 2013 at 11:24 AM (#4373874)
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).
   281. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: February 22, 2013 at 11:24 AM (#4373875)
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.
   282. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: February 22, 2013 at 11:24 AM (#4373876)
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.

   283. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 22, 2013 at 11:25 AM (#4373879)
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?
   284. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 22, 2013 at 11:27 AM (#4373880)
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.
   285. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: February 22, 2013 at 11:28 AM (#4373881)
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.
   286. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: February 22, 2013 at 11:32 AM (#4373885)
I admit that those moths got under my skin.


As a devotee of horror movies, I approve this image.
   287. Nasty Nate Posted: February 22, 2013 at 11:33 AM (#4373886)
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.
   288. JJ1986 Posted: February 22, 2013 at 11:33 AM (#4373887)
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.
   289. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: February 22, 2013 at 11:36 AM (#4373889)
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.
   290. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: February 22, 2013 at 11:36 AM (#4373890)
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.
   291. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: February 22, 2013 at 11:38 AM (#4373893)
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.
   292. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 22, 2013 at 11:39 AM (#4373895)
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.
   293. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: February 22, 2013 at 11:42 AM (#4373898)
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.
   294. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: February 22, 2013 at 11:44 AM (#4373900)
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.
   295. Tom Nawrocki Posted: February 22, 2013 at 11:45 AM (#4373902)
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.
   296. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: February 22, 2013 at 11:45 AM (#4373903)
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!!!"
   297. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 22, 2013 at 11:46 AM (#4373904)
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.
   298. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: February 22, 2013 at 11:48 AM (#4373907)
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."
   299. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: February 22, 2013 at 11:49 AM (#4373908)
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'.
   300. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 22, 2013 at 11:49 AM (#4373910)
flip.
Page 3 of 6 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Adam M
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogFletcher: Foes have slowed Trout in one category so far - steals
(2 - 9:13am, Apr 18)
Last: sinicalypse

NewsblogOrioles launch D.C. invasion with billboard near Nationals Park
(19 - 9:09am, Apr 18)
Last: Chris Needham

NewsblogNightengale: Pujols nears 500 home runs...and no one seems to care
(79 - 9:07am, Apr 18)
Last: Rob_Wood

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread March, 2014
(882 - 9:06am, Apr 18)
Last: Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14!

NewsblogOTP April 2014: BurstNET Sued for Not Making Equipment Lease Payments
(1585 - 9:03am, Apr 18)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 4-18-2014
(1 - 9:00am, Apr 18)
Last: Dan Lee prefers good shortstops to great paintings

NewsblogDesign Room: Top 10 Logos in MLB History.
(26 - 8:54am, Apr 18)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogRobothal: What a relief! A’s could use bullpen differently than other teams
(8 - 8:22am, Apr 18)
Last: Dag Nabbit: secretary of the World Banana Forum

NewsblogGleeman: Mets minor league team is hosting “Seinfeld night”
(140 - 8:21am, Apr 18)
Last: Greg K

Jim's Lab NotesWe're Moved! (And Burst.net can bite me!)
(101 - 8:16am, Apr 18)
Last: zonk

NewsblogOT: The NHL is finally back thread, part 2
(139 - 7:58am, Apr 18)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogDaniel Bryan's 'YES!' chant has spread to the Pirates' dugout
(72 - 7:40am, Apr 18)
Last: Doris from Rego Park

NewsblogChris Resop - The Most Interesting Reliever in the World
(20 - 6:17am, Apr 18)
Last: MuttsIdolCochrane

NewsblogOT: NBA Monthly Thread - April 2014
(306 - 2:50am, Apr 18)
Last: theboyqueen

NewsblogGeorge Brett, Inspiration for the Song “Royals”, Meets Lorde
(29 - 2:25am, Apr 18)
Last: vortex of dissipation

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 0.8826 seconds
52 querie(s) executed