User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.6964 seconds
53 querie(s) executed
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.
There are two Original 16 droughts left, if you don't count the Senators/Rangers: the Cubs and the Indians. If and when these teams finally win, we will see the same thing, in terms of disproportionate media attention.
As to the argument about Andy, while I am not questioning his Yankee fandom, he is not a guy who was raised in the Bronx and lives in Manhattan. He grew up in the DC area, and his favorite basketball team is the Celtics. His football team is the Redskins. So, his sports worldview is such that what he is saying about the 2004 Red Sox actually makes some sense.
And let's get back to that for a moment.
Joba was throwing at/behind Youk's head. Pedro generally would buzz NYY's waist high, Karim Garcia being a notable exception, however Pedro says in TFA that
this particular and infamous pitch was not on purpose. The Red Sox fan's contention in this entire matter was based on these two facts:
1) Joba was repeatedly engaiging in exceedinly dangerous headhunting. Brushbacks, moving a batter's feet, are an accepted part of the game, and ballplayers seem to take them in stride. This is clearly not the case with balls at the head. It is typical Andy intellectual dishonesty to pretend differently. Then again, the phrase "fair enough" is not in Andy's
vocabulary.
2) When one subtracts-out the 68 mph Timmy the Wake portion of Red Sox pitchers HBP on NYY's from, say, 2003-2011, you get a much different picture.
PS: Nearly 100% of YR's non-boxing posts are trolling. Literally. I know that he's Jewish. So f*cking what? Jews can't be bigots?
No doubt you're correct. I must've conflated it with the Cowboys' 30-28 win at Candlestick in late 12/72, though upon checking I see that Pearson wasn't involved & that the pass (to Ron Sellers) was only a 9-yarder.
Yeah. As a Vikings fan I remember it (though to be honest I am not 100% sure I saw it live). It is semi-mythic here in MN. "Drew Pearson pushed off" is a meme here and is up there with the SB losses. It is that crap that "The Catch" banished from my soul, but I was living in SF at the time, many MN don't have that joy, but like many Sox fans they like wallowing in it, so there is that.
To be fair the NFL is in many ways bigger than MLB and the SB is the biggest event of all. I was in Chicago in '85 and man I hated the Bears. The fans were crazy then and felt entitled for years afterwards. Gah.
And I agree with RR in 303. Though I think the Cubs winning would be bigger than any of the others. They are the big fish of "losers" and breaking that curse would be everything Sox fans think their win was in terms of popular culture (as unfair as that might sound to Sox fans).
EDIT: Though of course the way in which they win is very likely not be be as dramtic as the Sox win, ans so will likely suffer in that way.
Classic frontrunner he is, classic frontrunner. Little ventured, little gained.
I don't disagree with this. But until that actually happenes, the Red Sox stunning run to a title in 2004 remains the biggest victory in American team sports
history. IMHO. Its up there for sure.
I believe your first accusation was plagiarist and liar.
Yes, your list included at least one representative from every single playoff series the Yankees lost within 5 years of 2004, except the '04 ALCS.
Ditto. I'm pretty baseball-centric, not to mention old.
To defend Yankee players from accusations that hadn't been leveled in this thread, and possibly not for over a year's time.
No, to point out that the indignation leveled at Joba wasn't at all present towards a pitcher who openly admits throwing at batter. Of course if Red Sox fans would ever admit that the Pedro and Joba are (a) garden variety hotheads in a long and distinguished line, and (b) equally worthy of indignation OR amused indifference (take your choice), then my original comment wouldn't have been on target.
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.
Matt, I love the Yanks for the uniform, love of the city where I was born, and memories of the melodious voices of Bob Sheppard and Mel Allen, and for nearly all of my life** I've rooted for them over all other teams. But I simply don't have the degree of obsession with their fortunes that others on BTF seem to have with their own teams, the Red Sox in particular.
**With a brief exception in the Steinbrenner as Frankenstein period, when the pre-Angelos Orioles were my favorites, in spite of their own turmoils at the time. If I'd included that period in my little list, I would've added the outcome of the 1980 ALE race, when the O's wound up being an earlier version of the 1993 San Francisco Giants. It's a period analogous to what I've been feeling about the Redskins of the Snyder era, though even Steinbrenner at his worst couldn't match the loathsomeness of Little Napoleon.
You hear more about the 1972 Dolphins historic run than the 2004 Red Sox. Which is likely not fair because the raw narrative is better for the Sox, but it is what it is.
There is (or was) a Youtube clip of the last 1:30 or so of that game. A couple plays before Pearson made the winning catch, the Cowboys had a 4th and 17 and Pearson made a catch on the sideline that looked like he didn't get both feet down. Then the TD catch was probably offensive PI.
The Vikings got the ball back pinned against their end zone. Tarkenton's livid and eventually calls a time out whereupon he proceeds to absolutely unload on the officals for about two straight minutes. Even with 1975 graininess you can note the f bombs. Whipped the crowd into a frenzy and shortly thereafter the infamous whisky bottle came from the crowd and hit the ref in the head.
I think I read that that team never had to beat a playoff team that year, until the playoffs. or a team with a winning record. Any Fish fans here?
history. IMHO. Its up there for sure.
Good lord, man, get a grip. It's not even close. It's not on the same plane as, say, the Mets' run in 1986 and absolutely nothing the Red Sox did matches up to Game 6 at Shea. Beyond Boston, there isn't a single even memorable, much less iconic, moment or game in the whole run.
Ditto for the Jets' Super Bowl win, though the same caveat (except of course regarding football) applies.
I typed "semi-plagerized" IIRC. And explained it later. My point is he's a troll who continues to get a pass for some reason, because its seen as "tongue in cheek" or some such bullsh1t.
Now address his bigotry, or make you GF a martini, you ball-less, half-male, pu%%y-whipped dink.(Hey-no offense-it's tongue in cheek! Just a joke! See how that works? I can say aything I want! And you're not allowed to get offended! Whoo-wee!).
To be clear, the first catch was made by Preston Pearson, then the winning TD catch was made by Drew Pearson.
Games 4 and 5 are memorable. If you mention only the 2 words 'bloody sock' to sports fans around the country, they will know what your are talking about.
We get it, the Sox are over-hyped and over-exposed. No need to over-exaggerate to prove that point.
Classic frontrunner he is, classic frontrunner. Little ventured, little gained.
That certainly explains the fact that I rooted for Philadelphia and against the Celtics for the entire Bill Russell and Dave Cowens eras; rooted for the Yankees during their entire period of crapitude from 1965 through the early 70's; rooted for the Redskins in the 50's-60's and in the 90's before Snyder; rooted against the Unitas era Colts and the Lombardi era Packers; rooted for the Colts from the mid-70's all the way up through their departure to Indy; rooted against the Duke basketball team for the past 50 years; have rooted for the Detroit Lions my entire life; and so on. But then pigeonholing is so much fun, and what are a few facts that happen to conflict with them?
Once again, the idea seems to be that all sports fans are supposed to act like "USA! USA!" yahoos and stick to one team all their lives or switch allegiances only when they move, but that isn't the way many of us are. Sorry we can't get with your program.
I have no quarrell with these. They're both up there. IIRC, I mentioned the Jets win as one of the "Ones for the Ages" type victories.
Like I said it may not be fair, but it is true. Plus I think the Miricle on Ice is way more significant than either. It has everything including a great name, catch phrase - "Do you believe in Miracles? Yes!", a movie, and so on.
I like that he peppers his damning accusations with repeated claims that I'm "diminutive", "pinch-faced", and other jibes based on my appearance. I'm as sexy a neurobiologist as you're ever likely to meet dammit!
and Game 6 2004 ALCS is an all-timer. Very underreated game.
Show yourself then.
You are forgiven your love of the Yankees. I mean seriously dude.
And SB III is very iconic and significant (though not that great a game actually, ymmv)
Can you point to any posts that exhibit these terrible traits?
Personally I find YR hit or miss (Though totally "Hit" in the recent OT Politics thread, and miss regarding revenue sharing), but this attack on him is really dismal and reflects poorly on you.
You mean the one in which the Sox jumped up 4-0 early and won 4-2? The one with no lead changes, when most of the objective country had already written off the Yankees?
Yeah ... all-timer.
I think what makes you a frontrunner is less when you start and more if/when you stop. Say, the 80's, in the case of the Yankees.
You know, I actually would add a 2004 loss to the Red Sox that steamed me about as much as some of those later playoff losses on my list. Not any of the games during the ALCS, but that game in July where Varitek got into A-Rod's face and then Mo blew the save to a walkoff. The details are a bit fuzzy after 9 years, but that one was really annoying.
2) Miracle on Ice
3) Namath poolside's boast comes in
4) Miracle Mets
5) '51 Giants cheat their way to the NL Flag
My top 5, OTTOMH.
Edit-just noticed, 3 of the 5 are/were NY teams, and the other two either took place in NY state, or involved a NY team.
Whatever. I think if you ever actually agreed with any post I made, my king-sized domer would explode.
Yes, even though I was born in a largely Italian neighborhood on the Upper West Side of New York and first become aware of baseball at the age of six when the Yanks' four best players were Italian Americans. I should have rooted for the Browns instead.
I'm probably showing my own fanboy stripes (Andy's Yankee fandom has got nothing on my Lost fandom) but that is a great scene. Just a happy confluence of events with the Red Sox winning triggering Jack's daddy issues, and the jarring realism of seeing the World Series clip after spending 2+ years on the island. Good fun. They made good use of that TV, Juliet's Bob Dylan impression was a great scene too.
EDIT: As per the 2004 Red Sox fiasco. I can only speak anecdotally, but at my university in the distant wilderness of Canada we were all glued to that series. To be fair, of the people in my dorm one was a Red Sox fan, but the rest of us were various other teams or non-baseball fans.
So, you are saying that in addition to being a classic frontrunner, you're a spineless conformist, and it manifested itself early on?
Come on, you can do better than this, even judging by the quality of your posts upthread. Work it dude, work it!
I've already said repeatedly the 2004 AL post-season was historic. Good work paying attention.
And of course the same type of thing happended for the 2005 Chisox? Right?
Send me your phone number via PM and I'll happily discuss any aspect of the heavyweight division beginning with the Sullivan-Kilrain bare-knuckler in Mississippi up through the end of the Tyson era. My specific area of expertise is 1897-1930 and the technical transition from the London Prize Ring bare knuckle striking style into the "small glove" era but you can ask me about whether Kid Matthews should be considered a big win for Rocky Marciano or if Gerry Cooney was any good or who deserved to win the third Ali vs Norton fight, whatever you want. I also served as a technical consultant on a documentary on Jewish boxers of the 1920s if you'd rather talk about Kid Lewis or Benny Leonard. Since I restore old fight footage as a hobby I'll even send you, say, some Sam Langford footage in advance and we can discuss technique. I never claimed to be "omniscient" but I can guarantee you I'm conversant.
And I'm guessing you're much more selective about hurling these personal insults, "little twerp" and such, when you're addressing actual people in person. Internet tough guy, you make me chuckle.
I will respond was soon as I am done gathering the various pieces of my head from around the office.
The 80s era Yankees were actually pretty awesome to root for though. Some truly great players to watch, wacky Steinbrenner hijinks on a regular basis, and Phil Rizzuto calling the games. Good times man.
I don't think so, because tfbg9 has not made an impression (on me at least) on those threads. Maybe he was offended by something YR said there though I guess (though that is unpossible, because YR was a rock star in the recent Schilling thread).
I remember having a discussion with a friend of mine during the 2005 playoffs about why no one seemed to care about the White Sox ending their championship drought. We had it down to narrative fatigue (almost centuries long streak ends was a story we'd all just heard), and the fact that no one actually likes the White Sox. I'm told some people in Chicago do, but I've never been there and I'm not sure I believe those stories.
Of course, the two of us didn't watch that World Series either.
YR is a vicious anti-catholic bigot and tfbg9 is, IIRC, a devout catholic believer. I'm guessing it just boiled over.
Edit: nahhh.
Yep. When I blocked him a few years back, he'd made a point of proclaiming a certain child molestation ring made up of fabulous dress-wearing super-rich Nazi apologists as the greatest institution in the history of mankind.
Which I know makes me a vicious anti-catholic bigot as well. Woe is me.
When they go out their way, on repeated occasions, to make bigoted remarks at my people, my heritage? If I can reasonably expect to hold my own with them in a fight-just like any body else, I'm not afraid to get in a fight if I have to. And I'm sure you are just as insulting when you meet a young black man, a Muslim, or an Italian Catholic? Again, nearly 100% of your non-boxing posts are trolls, usually deliberately insulting trolling. That fact that you tend to stick to entire groups of people you look down upon, rather an individual matters zero. Turnabout is fair play.
I suppose the limits of his devotion will be tested by how many of his shameful lies about me make it into weekly confession.
Is being against the Church bigotry in the strict sense of the word? I have seen him post against the Church and specific members of that Church, but don't remember* the virulence against Catholics in general. It might be a distinction without difference for some, but to me it seems meaningful.
* My memory is terrible, so maybe there are whole threads of it and I am forgetting.
YR is a vicious bigot. Period. But since he hates the Church, he gets a pass.
American public school teachers have sex with their students at a far greater that any type of clergy, and their Union covers for them, tooth and nail, biting and scratching, straight down the line. I think this is what you might've been referring to?
KEITH FOULKE!!!!
Nah. Its tongue in cheek. So its OK! Every single thing I said about YR, every claim, is tongue in cheek. So I'm spotless.
Go sacrafice a goat. You'll feel better about things.(again, tongue in cheek--I get a pass!)
Come on, you can do better than this, even judging by the quality of your posts upthread.
Judging by his borderline psychopathic tirades against YR, what makes you think he's capable of anything else beyond non sequiturs and schoolyard level insults? He's got a chip on his shoulder the size of a 2 x 4 that seems to carry over from the Red Sox to everything else.
Oh...her?
OK, now all this makes sense ....
I thought it was more like someone calling everyday to ask if you still care about them and when you say "who are you", they respond with "See I am important to you, because you protest too much"...
Post #81 doesn't fit in at all with your version
Oh for Pete's sake, the guy is 33% Meir Kahane, 33% Jack Chick, 34% David Duke. He knows his boxing. So what? He's a giant, honking bigot. Not just anti-Catholic
stuff, he has dozens and dozens of posts that are anti-you name it, under the guise of "hey-just kidding". But I expect he'll tone it down from now on. Just watch.
You will notice if you look, that he has not once defended himself from charges of bigotry here. Because he simply can't. Except for the sheepish "Just kidding boys."
I aint buying that. He's a hater.
Obviously he's just personally offended by the presence of what he views as an uppity Jew. He's nostalgic for the good old days.
Agreed.
That is certifiable. It was a remarkable comeback, but that is it. It was a nice piece of history, but I'm not sure how stunning a run is, when a team that has averaged 95 wins over the previous three seasons, wins the world series. The Red Sox were a good to great team at that point in time, and them winning the world series is just not that surprising, the nature of the comeback adds a little to the story, along with the drought, but not enough to make it the biggest victory in american team sports. Miracle Mets, 1960 Pirates, Reds over the A's, 1926 Cardinals over the Yankees(Others would be the 1906 Cubs, 1954 Giants) .....and that is if you are going under the silly concept that the biggest victory in american team sports is baseball related. I don't see how it's bigger than Super Bowl 3, and yes I acknowledge that is hyped by the east coast media. Still don't see how anyone can downplay the 1980 Hockey team----there was a major motion picture about that one, the Red Sox got Mike Myers kissing Drew Barrymore.
Really? I thought it fit in pretty well, Andy was saying it's not that big of a deal and Red Sox nutjobs kept calling him out on it, so he responded with a detailed response. Which of course then the nutjobs took that as evidence that "You do care...." I have met some psycho women in my time, but a few on this thread really need to get a restraining order from Yankee fans.
It's alright for my guys to molest children, because other people are doing it at a higher degree.... Are you sure you want to go with that argument?
See, I'm learning something new about your devout theology right here.
Wait, so I'm 67% in favor of the Jews going to hell?
Would you like to talk about boxing, or perhaps the definition of plagiarism? C'mon, call me maybe.
The only think I'm honking is your big red clown nose.
Yes, just watch. I'm cowed.
That's because the charge is stupid and unworthy of rebuke. But of course I have refuted charges of bigotry on this very forum. And in fact, you yourself noted that the claims were baseless. "Shrill, hysterical accusations of bigotry" indeed.
Do you buy it? Do you accept that it is merely a coincidence that every other Yankee playoff series loss from that era bothered him more than that one?
Well, yeah, but the 1980 hockey team only beat the Soviets. The '04 Red Sox beat Hymietown.
From "diminutive" to "giant" in the space of a page or thereabouts, then.
Detectives believe HGH was involved.
oh come on. tfbg, you're missing the point. YR isn't kidding about anything. YR is an expert satirist. i'm trying to recall when he's actually used insult and/or ad hominem against any particular poster. Which unfortunately tfbg seems to be all to capable of.
i can personally vouch for his expertise in boxing being the result of actual study, not 'plagiarizing' or 'semi-plagiarizing'.
i've argued with YR at length about some of his more extreme claims about Jack Johnson and Muhammad Ali. but his points are based on real boxing scholarship, not capricious bigotry.
he hates the catholic church? are you sure? from my pov, it seems more like he's bemused by the church's defenders, of which i am certainly not one. ymmv.
tfbg, you're trying too hard. you've almost made me turn against your original point about 04, and andy's silly attempts to look unaffected by it.
btw, YR ate everybody's lunch in the OT schilling thread, imho.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt, going on 4 years ago, yes. But that was before I became aware of your various other bigoted posts. Nice try.
Politics do indeed make strange bedfellows.
Not my arguement. The point is the your outrage is selective.
Every single one, no.(I think it was more a point of illustration that there are a lot to chose from, than a real list of pain rankings) But it doesn't surprise me one bit that the 2004 loss isn't high on the list of painful. The Red Sox were a very good to great team, Game 4 was a tremendous deal, and game five had to be somewhat painful, but by the time game six rolled around, it had to feel like it was inevitable that the Sox were going to win and that probably dulled the pain.
Yes.
Yes, because nobody was outraged by Sandusky. Maybe if he was a priest, it would have made the news.
Maybe if he was a priest he'd be the real victim.
Just out of curiosity, what inside information do you have about me that would make you doubt any of my claims on that list? I'd guess off the top of my head that 2003 pained most Red Sox fans more than 1986 or 1975 or 1945 or 1978 or 1967 or 1920 or 1974 or 1948 or 1999 or 1995 or 1946 or 1949,** but not knowing more details about their ages, their knowledge of Red Sox history, and other aspects of their biography, I wouldn't make any presumption about any individual. And yet you seem to think that you have some sort of unique insight about all Yankee fans, regardless of any actual evidence.
**P.S. I stop there only on account of mercy.
I'd still like to listen to Andy and cardsfanboy tell us how the 2004 ALCS really meant nothing in the larger scheme of things and then refuse to ever back down from that. Makes me all warm and fuzzy inside.
Almost all playoff losses come against very good to great teams.
See, this part seems like revisionist history. Before they actually won, very few baseball fans (and even fewer Yankees fans) would ever think of Sox playoff success as inevitable.
My grandparents were devout catholics. Snapper is a devout catholic. Tfbg9 is certainly catholic, but I'm going to stop short of granting him that additional adjective based on his interactions on BTF.
sacredly held beliefs of a billion people, not to mention dozens of other, at best, extremely borderline comments as well about other groups. He hides behind a guise of
humor. Its wrong. I fail to understand why he gets away with it. Perhaps its because his anti-Catholism is one of the last acceptable forms of bigotry in America these days. I have never described my faith as devout. Its very shakey. I try to live by the rules of the Church. I have a terrible temper that will often get the best of me. I would more accurately describe myself as "observant."
Thank you Lassus, for you charitable remark.
The numerous posts today that suggest that Catholics are unconcerned with the sexual abuse of minors in the care of the Church is bigotry. Pure and simple. Its no different than saying Asians all enjoy eating dogs, that sort of thing. Its insulting, inaccurate, its ignorant*. And as a matter of fact, there's a recent YR comment to that effect, somewhere, IIRC. But I'm not going to bother to look it up.
*Jackie Childs, anybody?
you're kidding, right? who needs to know anything about you after the display you've been putting on? the list itself is so telling. this sh-1-t is getting boring and repetitive.
i'll go back to being a bystander. or better yet, back to work.
sheesh. everybody on this thread needs to take some kinda pill.
Good lord, man. Time for an intervention!
That's a cry for help if I've ever heard one.
Historically it was monumental, due to the combination of the breaking of The Curse and the unprecedented nature of the comeback. In those terms, it probably won't be surpassed until the Cubs win the World Series sometime in the 22nd century. If you think I'm denying that, you're mistaken.
All I've said is that for the reasons I've spelled out that you obviously just want to gloss over, it didn't get under my skin in any comparably "historic" fashion. Within a few short days, I was rooting for the Red Sox to win the World Series.
You know, maybe if you just started off like this you would have made a positive impression on people. Instead you decided to go full retard from the start and made YR look like the sane one.
That pretty much summarizes what you've written up to now.
i'll go back to being a bystander. or better yet, back to work.
Is that a promise?
Come one, blowing the ALCS hurts, but losing the WS when you are one out away? Um, no. Context DOES matter, seems like some of the posts here have been trying to isolate the games from their context. OF COURSE it matters that the media hyped the ####### Curse during the '04 ALCS. Having to hear about some ######## thing constantly while losing is a lot worse than just losing. And if/when the Cubs do ever get to the WS you better believe the media will be all over that. Which will make it important.
You know what cracks me up phredbird? I went back and read that thread I linked to in #368 for the first time in, geez, a long time, and I'd totally forgotten how me and you were really going at each other in it. I mean, I remember some of the things said but never linked your name to it. You seriously thought I was a dick :)
But, as nobody here except you and I know, we've totally reconciled off-forum and are, I think it's fair to say, "online homies" solely because you were decent enough to reach out to me when you had a question about vintage boxing which I couldn't have been more enthusiastic to assist with. There are no fewer than two other people on that thread who were at least nominally "against me" with whom I've had similarly positive experiences. Fair to say that while I'll readily cop to being something of an unreconstructed wiseass, I'm pretty far from being a hateful bigot or anything of that stripe.
If anyone thinks I'm being unfair to the Catholics it's only because there aren't enough Scientologists opining on their inviolate faith.
This goes back to Jolly St. Nick's point about age and the individual. I was too young for '86 to matter to me as much as '03. Likewise, it is plausible that some Ranger fan out there was more wounded by them losing in 1996 in their first playoff appearance than by the 2011 world series.
And if he had simply said that those Yankees disappointments from his childhood had caused him more pain than '04 and even maybe sprinkled in some modern WS losses, no one would have disputed it. But it was including 4-game LDS losses from directly before and after 2004, as well as pretty much every other Yankees non-WS win in the last 50 years (we don't know what else would have appeared on the list of half a hundred) that revealed it as a laughable pretension.
Nevertheless, the specific timing of the comeback (Games 4-7, on the heels of that 285-8 score in Game Three), and the manner in which Games 4-6 were played and won, and the fact that it was the culmination of a heated two-year narrative on top of two 80-to-90-year narratives... I mean, come on, who watched these games rooting for pythagorean outcomes and average run distribution?
The result wasn't staggeringly remarkable in its unlikelihood, but was off the charts in terms of its drama. I can see anyone whose interest in sports ends with Willis Reed or Alan Ameche or Kerri Strug not getting emotionally involved, but how any baseball fan could say otherwise seems ridiculous. Even the protractor-carrying geeks down in mom's basement must have wet their spreadsheets a little bit.
oh brother. no wonder YR and sam and just about everybody else on this site sport with you the way they do.
sure, i'll bash off. it won't help you though. your posts are still up for everybody to get a good chuckle from.
I once had the idea of a novelty deck of cards made for these years, with a card for each of the 52 times they met. The game 7's would be the ace of spades and ace of hearts, naturally. I guess the deuce of clubs would have to be the extra Sox win.
The problem I'm having with it, is the claim of greatest... not great, not significant, but the claim of greatest. That is a ####### joke of monumental proportions. I'm sorry, but it's a good story, etc... but greatest? That is just silly on so many levels, that I can't believe more than one person is actually supporting that claim. I understand one insane person on this thread, but multiples?
2013, maybe... 2015 after two years of making the post season, and averaging 95 wins a year...I doubt it. There is a reason the Miracle Mets make these type of lists, it's unexpected and unpredicted, but the Red Sox had been on the short list of favorites for the World Series for several seasons, it wasn't a matter of if they were going to do it, but when.
Just like the A's of the same time frame.
No. And no. For the 8 millionth time. Its a matter of when they finally did it, who they did it to, and how they did it.
revisionist history
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main