Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Myself to Death: There's Still Baseball in Boston

Friday, October 17, 2008

There's Still Baseball in Boston

Boy, these guys don't seem to like breathing room, do they? The Boston Red Sox in Game 5 once again faced elimination and once again came together to pull out a victory. But this is nerve-wracking.

I'll admit that earlier tonight I'd resigned myself to getting eliminated. It would've been disappointing to have been swept in Fenway, but the Sox bats were cold, and the pitchers were getting manhandled. Under such circumstances, it's not always possible to be the masters of your own fate. That's why the Sox had to turn it around tonight. And although they got a slower start at it than I'd like, they got the job done when they needed to.

According to a story at the Red Sox site, the seven runs the team was down in the bottom of the seventh was the second-largest deficit to be overcome in postseason history. The Athletics (when did they start using A's as a nickname?) came back from eight runs down against the Cubs in Game 4 of the 1918 1929 World Series. They then went on to win the whole thing in Game 5.

Do the Red Sox thrive on this kind of situation? It sure looks like it. The two World Series they've won in the last five years have been the result of situations exactly like this, 0-3 against the Yankees in 2004 and 1-3 against the Indians in 2007. There are still two more wins they need against the Rays on Saturday and Sunday to move to the next level, but the fact that they've made this their proven road to success sure goes a long way to reassure us that they're capable of doing it again.

7 Comments:

At 6:23 AM, October 17, 2008, Blogger Jim C. said...

The Athletics (when did they start using A's as a nickname?) came back from eight runs down against the Cubs in Game 4 of the 1918 World Series. They then went on to win the whole thing in Game 5.

That would be the 1929 World Series. (The 1918 Series did also feature the Cubs, but they faced the Red Sox. And, until 2004, it was the last World Series the Sox won. It was otherwise not memorable.)

The funny thing is, while I know the pertinent facts about these long-distant World Series, I could probably not correctly identify either participants, let alone the winner, of the vast majority of the World Series in the last 20 years. (1988-91, 2004, 2006 for certain. Others... I'd probably keep guessing Yankees and Braves.) There's a lesson in that somewhere.

 
At 12:08 PM, October 17, 2008, Anonymous Doug said...

Yes, that would be 1929, wouldn't it. I must have some vestigial shame or something still connected to 1918, and my fingers just went and typed those numbers. If you haven't clicked through the link, the article doesn't just identify 1929 as the year, it ties the economic troubles of that year with those we're experiencing now just to identify the year further. I have no excuse for having typed 1918 instead (unless one believes in curses).

For more recent series, the winner of 2007 is worth remembering for my money. I'm a bit surprised that 2005 doesn't mean anything to you. You probably live too far north.

 
At 4:44 PM, October 17, 2008, Blogger Jim C. said...

I'll admit I was baffled when I read the article. It made me wonder just what the sam scratch they were writing about *before* they corrected the date! ;-)

I'm a bit surprised that 2005 doesn't mean anything to you.

I read that, and I actually had to think for a few moments... and yes. I suppose I would. (In my defense, I did shut my baseball watching eyes largely at the end of the NLCS that year.) And, yeah, I guess the 2007 one I knew, but I don't remember who they beat. The Padres?

 
At 5:41 PM, October 17, 2008, Anonymous Doug said...

The Rockies. Did that article actually say 1918? Because in my mind as I was writing, I was clear that the year was 1929--I just typed it wrong.

 
At 6:39 PM, October 17, 2008, Blogger Jim C. said...

As far as I know it didn't ever say 1918. As I read the article, though, I had to wonder what they would have expounded on to correlate to present day. The war, maybe?

The Rockies. Did they win one earlier in the decade, or was it just the Marlins twice and the Diamondbacks? (Or did they lose? I stopped paying attention to that one after the D-Backs beat a certain team)

 
At 11:44 PM, October 17, 2008, Anonymous Doug said...

The past ten years should be easier to remember than I find them to be, because that New York team won three times ('98, '99, and '00) and the Red Sox won twice ('04 and '07), so there's only five other teams to remember. Those are the D-Backs ('01), the Angels ('02), the Marlins ('03--they previously won in '97, just missing the last ten years), the White Sox ('05), and the Cards ('06). You can find any other details that might interest you at the postseason page at baseball-reference.com.

 
At 10:01 AM, October 18, 2008, Anonymous stevie t said...

About the A's, the Sports E-Cyclopedia talks about the A's and Athletics interchangeably from their 1902 description, although that doesn't necessarily mean people were using it.
www.sportsecyclopedia.com/al/philadelphia/phillya_s.html

 

Post a Comment

<< Home