Official 2011 MLB Thread: Playoffs??

[Spidey-Bat]

I never shrugged off 2004. Never said I did (in fact, my post stated that loss was a massive one). I was disgusted with them in 2004. I was at one of those games (Game 2, when they actually won), and I was almost at Game 7 as well. That was a crushing loss - and it was a choke job.

But there were lots of those. Which one was the biggest depends on your perspective. If you weren't around in 1986, you can't compare it with 2004 the same way as people who were around for both.

Each fan will have a different opinion, I'm talking about it as a historical event. The Yankees were a dynasty. They made the playoffs every year the past 9 years, won 4 world series, 6 pennants, and 8 division titles. They were a dynasty and it ended in the biggest choke in the history of professional sports. They were not the same for another 5 years.

1986 was a gut wrenching World Series lost, but they've happened before and they'll happen again. 2004 was once in a lifetime like the Giants and Dodgers in 1951.

And then you said what you wanted to happen if there were baseball gods.

If there were some deities that gave a **** about baseball, I'd like to think they'd rather bless a team that just lost a teammate with a World Series win as opposed to a bunch of overpaid mercenaries and cheats. It doesn't mean I think the idea is any less stupid.

 

[danoyse]

Each fan will have a different opinion, I'm talking about it as a historical event. The Yankees were a dynasty. They made the playoffs every year the past 9 years, won 4 world series, 6 pennants, and 8 division titles. They were a dynasty and it ended in the biggest choke in the history of professional sports. They were not the same for another 5 years.

1986 was a gut wrenching World Series lost, but they've happened before and they'll happen again. 2004 was once in a lifetime like the Giants and Dodgers in 1951.

First of all...the dynasty ended in 2001. And you don't have to keep explaining it. I've been a Yankees fan for several decades now, I'm well aware of the magnitude of the 2004 loss. In fact, I'm agreeing with you about what a big loss it was.

Secondly...how does a fluke play like the Buckner error not go down as one of the most memorable losses in history (because it has )? They hadn't won a World Series in nearly 70 years. They were one strike away. A "Congratulations" sign was flashing on the scoreboard at Shea. One of my friends worked at Shea during that game - he said people were sobbing because the Mets were just about to lose the World Series. And then that happened. It was huge.

You can't deny that any more than I can't deny what a huge loss the 2004 ALCS was. We'd be in complete denial if we tried to.

If there were some deities that gave a **** about baseball, I'd like to think they'd rather bless a team that just lost a teammate with a World Series win as opposed to a bunch of overpaid mercenaries and cheats.

Well, if that's how championships are decided, then the Yankees should have won in 1979 when Thurman Munson was killed in a plane crash, or in 2001 when NY was reeling from 9/11. By that logic, the Cardinals should have won in 2002 when Darryl Kile died. But baseball doesn't work that way. It never has.

The Yankees payroll didn't take a ring away from Nick Adenhart. An idiot drunk driver took Nick Adenhart from baseball, which was an absolute tragedy. If it hadn't happened, maybe the ALCS would have turned out differently with him in the rotation...but that's not the Yankees' fault, or the fault of any other team.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

First of all...the dynasty ended in 2001. And you don't have to keep explaining it. I've been a Yankees fan for several decades now, I'm well aware of the magnitude of the 2004 loss. In fact, I'm agreeing with you about what a big loss it was.

Secondly...how does a fluke play like the Buckner error not go down as one of the most memorable losses in history (because it has )?
You can't deny that any more than I can't deny what a huge loss the 2004 ALCS was. We'd be in complete denial if we tried to.

As I said, 2004 is more significant because of what it means in the history of professional sports. Teams have lost championships just like Boston did in 86 and they will continue to do so.

Well, if that's how championships are decided, then the Yankees should have won in 1979 when Thurman Munson was killed in a plane crash, or in 2001 when NY was reeling from 9/11. By that logic, the Cardinals should have won in 2002 when Darryl Kile died. But baseball doesn't work that way. It never has.


The Yankees payroll didn't take a ring away from Nick Adenhart. An idiot drunk driver took Nick Adenhart from baseball, which was an absolute tragedy. If it hadn't happened, maybe the ALCS would have turned out differently with him in the rotation...but that's not the Yankees' fault, or the fault of any other team.

Why do you keep thinking I'm blaming the Yankees? We both seem to agree that this idea of baseball gods is stupid so let's leave it at that.

 

[cyborg ninja 14]

Best baseball night ever?

 

[danoyse]

As I said, 2004 is more significant because of what it means in the history of professional sports. Teams have lost championships just like Boston did in 86 and they will continue to do so.

Because it was just as historic a loss. No Boston fan shrugs off the 86 World Series like it was just another World Series loss.

And now the 2011 Red Sox season is being called the biggest collapse in baseball history. No team has ever gone into September with a 9-game lead and failed to make the postseason until last night. Think history is going to forget that anytime soon?

Why do you keep thinking I'm blaming the Yankees? We both seem to agree that this idea of baseball gods is stupid so let's leave it at that.

Why do you keep comparing Nick Adenhart's death as comparable to the Yankees payroll? Neither of them have anything to do with the other.

 

[Erzengel]

I still am not over the 2004 Season.

And the Yankees winning in 2009 or the Philadelphia Flyers coming back from 3 down in the playoffs to beat the Boston Bruins (in context as not the only team to be 3 up and blow the next 4 games). I won't feel better about it, if it happens to another MLB even if it is the Red Sox.

In terms of the Sox this year, I think it's the worst season collapse in MLB history blowing 9 games. Think the record was 7 shared by a bunch of teams, Angels, Tigers, Mets, the one I really remember. But it's season not playoffs and yeah, 2004 is worse than 1986. One play < 4 games.

That being said, I would take 2004 and subsequent wins over a 86 year drought.

 

[Poeman]

I dont see how its that bad to a franchise that had been winning championships left and right up that point. 27 rings and always being in the pennant late 90's and early 2000's.

I think the fact that people are overlooking that Red Sox had 27 outs each game to do something to win that particular game is being missed. Buckner was one dribbler, one stop from making the Sox champions.

What affected the fanbase and losing franchise more? the 1986 moment or the 2004 moment?

Ultimately it does not matter now, because at this moment this year the Sox will go down as the team that blew the biggest lead in September. 9 games.

 

[Erzengel]

It doesn't detract from the championships but in terms of bragging rights, the Yankees have the worst playoff collapse in MLB history. 27 championships doesn't change that. Having the Red Sox have the worse season collapse in MLB doesn't change that or deter from their championships. But, it's there now.

 

[Poeman]

You all must watch this. MLB Network's live reaction to yesterday lol

 

[Poeman]

It doesn't detract from the championships but in terms of bragging rights, the Yankees have the worst playoff collapse in MLB history. 27 championships doesn't change that. Having the Red Sox have the worse season collapse in MLB doesn't change that or deter from their championships. But, it's there now.

Even if the Yanks beat the Sox in ALCS, no guarantee the Yankees would have won the World Series.

See 2003.

1986 was a World Series game 6 clinching out. Officially, yeah the Yankees are I think the only team to blow a 3-0 lead in playoffs.

 

[Liam_H]

I wanna see video of the fan reaction in Boston once the Orioles had come back and when Longoria walks off.

 

[Erzengel]

Even if the Yanks beat the Sox in ALCS, no guarantee the Yankees would have won the World Series.

See 2003.

1986 was a World Series game 6 clinching out. Officially, yeah the Yankees are I think the only team to blow a 3-0 lead in playoffs.

I'm trying to be an objective Yankee fan, but the reason the Red Sox loss in 1986 is so dramatic is because it's been like 70 years since they won. If they won prior, this would have been seen like the 2001 World Series with the Yankees having 2 outs more to go.

 

[Poeman]

I wanna see video of the fan reaction in Boston once the Orioles had come back and when Longoria walks off.

me too...in the meantime Im laughing at this

 

[Erzengel]

Also, I got Yankees tickets to the ALCS.

 

[danoyse]

I wanna see video of the fan reaction in Boston once the Orioles had come back and when Longoria walks off.

ESPN got a shot of a kid in tears in the stands in Baltimore. As happy as I was to see the Sox lose, I hate when they play those shots of kids.

 

[danoyse]

You all must watch this. MLB Network's live reaction to yesterday lol

Denis Leary's reaction on Twitter:

@denisleary: To all Red Sox fans age 33 & younger: this is what 1978 feels like. Minus the quaaludes and disco.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

Because it was just as historic a loss. No Boston fan shrugs off the 86 World Series like it was just another World Series loss.

They do now since they've won twice since then. It was a gut wrenching World Series loss that many teams have had. The Yankees in 1960, the Giants in 2002, the Indians in 1997, I can go on.

And now the 2011 Red Sox season is being called the biggest collapse in baseball history. No team has ever gone into September with a 9-game lead and failed to make the postseason until last night. Think history is going to forget that anytime soon?

Yes. You think I give a **** about the Mets 2 collapses anymore? It was a kick in the groin when it happened but I'm over it, and that's with them being awful the last few years. This relates to my point above, I'm over 2007 and 2008. But I still get mad thinking about 2006. 1 hit gets them to the World Series and they've only gotten further from one since then.

Buckner was one dribbler, one stop from making the Sox champions.

No, he wans't. The game was tied at that point. If he fields the ball, it just goes to the 11th inning.

 

[Poeman]

"The following is not mathematically rigorous, since the events of yesterday evening were contingent upon one another in various ways. But just for fun, let&#8217;s put all of them together in sequence:

The Red Sox had just a 0.3 percent chance of failing to make the playoffs on Sept. 3.
The Rays had just a 0.3 percent chance of coming back after trailing 7-0 with two innings to play.
The Red Sox had only about a 2 percent chance of losing their game against Baltimore, when the Orioles were down to their last strike.
The Rays had about a 2 percent chance of winning in the bottom of the 9th, with Johnson also down to his last strike.
Multiply those four probabilities together, and you get a combined probability of about one chance in 278 million of all these events coming together in quite this way.

....
There is some evidence, for instance, that the Red Sox&#8217; pitchers may have &#8220;choked&#8221; in key situations during the final few weeks of the season to a degree that withstands some statistical scrutiny. "

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/29/bill-buckner-strikes-again/?hp

 

[Dr. Evil]

Does Tampa still play in front of ten fans?

 

[FCEEVIPER]

You all must watch this. MLB Network's live reaction to yesterday lol

Priceless.

 

[Mace Bloodstone]

Does Tampa still play in front of ten fans?

It's doubled to 20 now.

 

[danoyse]

They do now since they've won twice since then. It was a gut wrenching World Series loss that many teams have had. The Yankees in 1960, the Giants in 2002, the Indians in 1997, I can go on.

And why are we still talking about them, if they aren't still historic collapses? Bill Buckner didn't lose the WS (even though he's always blamed for it), but what happened with that play still leaves it as a huge part of a catastrophic loss in the history of sports. 2004 didn't undo 1986, or any other huge loss.

Yankees have won since since 2004. By your logic, that makes 2004 irrelevant now too. But it's not, no more than the 1986 series is after Boston finally won.

Yes. You think I give a **** about the Mets 2 collapses anymore? It was a kick in the groin when it happened but I'm over it, and that's with them being awful the last few years. This relates to my point above, I'm over 2007 and 2008. But I still get mad thinking about 2006. 1 hit gets them to the World Series and they've only gotten further from one since then.

But we're still talking about the 2007 Mets collapse. We're still talking about the 1978 Boston collapse. Just because you don't care about them doesn't mean history has too.

I'm over 2004, but it still happened. And it was still bad. Read the articles about the Red Sox today, and see how many times Buckner and Bucky Dent and Aaron Boone (all pre-2004) are mentioned alongside what happened this month. They're all being put in the same category.

 

[Franklin Richards]

51' is the worst!

 

[Spidey-Bat]

And why are we still talking about them, if they aren't still historic collapses? Bill Buckner didn't lose the WS (even though he's always blamed for it), but what happened with that play still leaves it as a huge part of a catastrophic loss in the history of sports. 2004 didn't undo 1986, or any other huge loss.

The Buckner error is just that single moment everyone remembers that defined the series. It's like Don Dekinger and Steve Bartman.

Yankees have won since since 2004. By your logic, that makes 2004 irrelevant now too. But it's not, no more than the 1986 series is after Boston finally won.

2004 is something completely different. I've been over this already.

But we're still talking about the 2007 Mets collapse. We're still talking about the 1978 Boston collapse. Just because you don't care about them doesn't mean history has too.

The Mets collapse is only being talked about because of what's been happening the last few weeks. Between 2009 and last month it barely got any attention.

I'm over 2004, but it still happened. And it was still bad. Read the articles about the Red Sox today, and see how many times Buckner and Bucky Dent and Aaron Boone (all pre-2004) are mentioned alongside what happened this month. They're all being put in the same category.

They're being mentioned now because everyone loves to a kick a team when they're down, especially the Red Sox so they can add it to their list of disappointments.

Now, I'm done with this discussion. We disagree and aren't changing are minds so no need to keep this going in circles.

 

[Raiden]

Someday, they will make a movie about this 2011 Boston Red Sox, titled "The Big Collapse".