Oct
20

Almost worse than 2004

By

When the Rays were up 7-0 in the top of the seventh and had two runners on, they had a 99.3 percent chance of winning the game, according to the game’s win probability. Back in 2004, David Appelman noted this week, the Yanks had an 83.8 percent chance of winning game four and an 87.9 percent chance of winning game five. While I’m still working on the odds that the Sox would win four in a row in 2004, Tampa came very close to out-choking our Yankees. I’m glad they didn’t.

Categories : Asides, Playoffs
  • steve (different one)

    without doing any math, i doubt there is a question that this would have been a bigger “choke”.

    even though the Yankees were up an additional game, the win probability of being up 7 runs in the 7th inning has to dwarf what happened to the Yankees.

    • Chris C.

      The difference being that the Rays have players with less major league experience than AROD has with Kabballah.

    • Brad K

      I disagree. The fact that the Red Sox’s came back from a 0-3 deficit makes the 2004 ALCS the single greatest choke of all time. After all it’s the only time in the MLB that is ever happened. In the NBA teams are 0-81 in 0-3 situations. The only other time it’s ever happened in pro sports was in the 1942 NHL playoff’s and the 1975 NHL playoff’s and that’s if you consider Hockey a major sport.

      • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos

        “and that’s if you consider Hockey a major sport.”

        Nope!

  • http://www.workwithpete.com Pete

    Yeah, as much as I would have liked the Rays to mess up and overshadow what happened in 2004 a bit, it wouldn’t have been worth it to have the Sox get into the Series again.

    Congrats Rays, I was genuinely happy for you guys last night…

    • radnom

      It wouldn’t have worked that way. All the talk would have been how the Rays are young and hadn’t been there before, “didn’t know how to win in the playoffs”. As opposed to the grizzled Red Sox…..

      • http://www.workwithpete.com Pete

        I did say, ‘a bit’…

        On the other hand, 2004 would definitely have been thrown into the Fox highlight reel along with the Rays game had they made the Series.

  • JimT

    As a die hard Red Sox fan it pains me a little to say this but the better team won. The Rays were the best team in the division during the regular season and proved to be the better team in the playoffs.

    Congrats Rays, kick the Phillies butts in the W.S!

  • jsbrendog

    thank. god. the. sucks. lost.

    I could nto and would not be able to handle all the obnoxious espn pieces on their “heart” and “guts” and hearing peter gammons cry and whine on how amazing they are.

    • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos

      Why, Ted Striker’s got more guts in his little pinky finger than most of us have in our entire large intestine, INCLUDING THE COLON!

  • http://www.puristbleedspinstripes.com Rebecca-Optimist Prime

    I’m glad Tampa didn’t choke.

    Question then, what would have been the bigger choke, Tampa ’08 or Mets ’07?

    • radnom

      7 runs over 3 innings to make the WS and you miss out, I don’t know its hard to beat that. Thankfully it didn’t happen, so there is no issue that the Mets are #1 :)

    • http://www.workwithpete.com Pete

      How about Angels ’08?

      • radnom

        How so?

        • http://www.workwithpete.com Pete

          When you’re in first place for pretty much the entire season and you’ve got the top record in all of baseball, it’s a bit of a choke IMO. Same with the Mariners in 2001…

          • radnom

            Ehh, you can list the cubs then this year too. A few teams every year, actually.
            I don’t buy it, anything goes in a five game series.

            • http://www.workwithpete.com Pete

              Cubs maybe, but when you win 100 games you really should be getting out of the first round…

      • Yank Crank 20

        I don’t think the Angels choked this year. They were a great regular season team and didn’t have to play a meaningful game all year until October. They never had to deal with the pressure of a playoff race so they just underperformed. They also have that mental block where they just can’t beat the Red Sox and well, they ran into the Red Sox.

  • Shamus

    This can put to bed all the garage dynasty talk.

    I heard on WEEI the other day that if the Sox won this year (2008), then they should be labeled a dynasty, for going back to back and three in six years.

    I totally disagree.

    They choked in the 2003 ALCS, the last year the supposed ‘Curse’ was still intact.

    They won the WS in 2004.

    They were swept in a butt-kicking fashion in the 2005 ALDS by the White Sox, the year they won the WS.

    In 2006, they finished in 3rd place, missing the playoffs.

    In 2007 they won the WS.

    And in 2008, they lost the ALCS.

    No way that’s a dynasty. Now look at the Yankees run. Heck, I think ‘when did the Yankees dynasty end?” is a better debate than “Are the Sox a dynasty?”

    (Some may think it ended this year, while others, like Buster Olney claim it ended in 2001. But thena small percentage feel it ended in 2004… Make your arguement.)

    1996- Yankees win WS
    1997- Yankees out ALDS
    1998- Yankees win WS, arguably best team EVER
    1999- Yankees win WS
    2000- Yankees win WS
    2001- Yankees lose WS, 7 games
    2002- Yankees out, ALDS
    2003- Yankees lose WS, 6 games
    2004- Yankees lose ALCS, 7 games
    2005- Yankees out, ALDS
    2006- Yankees out, ALDS
    2007- YAnkees out, ALDS

    • http://www.riveraveblues.com Mike A.

      Saying the Sox would be a dynasty would be a travesty, a sham, and a mockery. It would be a traveshamockery.

    • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos

      Dynasties never end in the present, they end in the recent past. The D-Bags winning the ’01 Series was the end of the Yankees Dynasty, but that didn’t become official until we lost the ’03 series. Had we topped the Marlins then, you could have made a link from ’96 to ’03, but ultimately, dynasties equal titles. So really, even Buster Olney was only partially right: The Yankee dynasty ended immediately after beating the Mets in the 2000 series.

      Here’s my thinking. A “dynasty” is at least three titles with no more than one year passing between titles. I personally think that anything longer than one year where you’re not a champion dilutes the true dominance associated with the term “dynasty”. However, back to back titles may convince me to give an extra year of fudge room. So yes, had the Sox won their third title in 2008, they would have been a dynasty with three rings in a 5 year period. Not winning this year, however, means they shouldn’t be considered a dynasty, because their titles are too few and far apart, IMO.

      Here’s what I will give them, though: while they can’t be called a dynasty, the 2000′s can still be the Red Sox “decade”, provided they win some more. I think three or more titles in a ten year period, mixed in with consistent success and contention in the intervening, non-title years, allows you to claim ownership of a Decade, like how the Yankees owned ’94 to ’03.

      • http://www.new.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/profile.php?id=594331910&ref=name Jamal G.

        I agree with you that a title is what cements the notion of a dynasty, but making the playoffs for thirteen straight seasons can be considered a form of “dominance”, no?

        • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos

          Exactly. The Yankee “Dynasty” was 1996-2000. Yankee “Dominance” was 1994-2004.

      • Slugger27

        olney only claimed that cuz thats when the yanks ((under big georges demand)) changed the way they run things… he claims they stopped looking for character in players and just chased “the soulless numbers” as he puts it. in this regard, and really most other regards, i agree with him, game 7 in 2001 was indeed the end of the yanks dynasty… but u are correct in saying we didnt know it at the time til we saw the yanks teams for a few years after that

        i know the sox year in and year out for the past 6 or 7 years have been WS contenders… but 2 titles in the last 5 years?? thats it?? thats no dynasty, theres a lot teams in every sport that can say they won 2 titles in 5 years… were the blue jays a dynasty?? were the houston rockets a dynasty??

        the yanks were a true dynasty… and that dynasty ended in 2001, PARTLY cuz most of the core group left, but MAINLY cuz thats when their run of championships ended… and like tommie said, championships are what define dynasties… and in that regard, the yanks havent been dynastic since that game 7

        sox were a good team having a great run… but that my friends was no dynasty

        • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos

          “he claims they stopped looking for character in players and just chased ‘the soulless numbers’ as he puts it.”

          That’s a load of hot bullshit. The Yankee players from the dynasty years are not players of any additional “character” or “guts” or “grit” or any other bunk catchphrase buzzword than Yankee players from 2001 forward. Or from any other team, for that matter.

          We had a decided advantage in talent over our competition from ’96 to ’00, and thus, we won titles. We essentially remained as talented as we were from 2001 to the present, but the LEAGUE caught up to us. We didn’t regress or make the “mistake” of not signing character guys or any other Olney or Gammons inspired nonsense talk… the other teams in the league just adapted and started scouting, acquiring talent, and developing and retaining that talent much more consistently and aggressively and thus, reduced the margin of error we had during our dynasty years. So that, now, instead of being heads and shoulders above the league, we’re simply one of several good franchises all capable of winning it all.

          • Slugger27

            whoa whoa i totally agree with u. those were olneys words not mine… i think hes incorrect for his reasoning but hes right when it comes to when the dynasty ended… all 3 of us agree on that

            dynasties must contain titles…. the sox only have 2, with a 2 year gap (1 that didnt contain october) in between… not even comparable to what the yankees did

            u and shamus brought up olney and all i was saying was that he was right but not necessarily for the right reasons

            the stark reality was that the “dynasty” yanks fan refer to ended in 2001… after that, the yankees run of playoff appearances can only be referred to as “consistent success in the AL”

            • steve (different one)

              yeah, just on pile on Olney (not you Slugger), the Yankee championship teams were absolutely RIFE with “poor” character guys.

              MUCH, MUCH worse than the present version of the Yankees.

              Gooden, Strawberry, Raines, Clemens, Pettitte, Canseco, Hill, Stanton, Justice, Grimsley, Knoblaugh, Leyritz, Polonia, Boggs, etc.

              all of those guys have been known for character “issues” whether it be cocaine, PEDs, statutory rape, etc. etc.

              • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos

                Yeah, Slugger, I wasn’t cracking on you, just on Olney. I get so tired of the crap people say to try and attribute all this grit and heart and moxie and character to the title teams, because it does us a disservice of trying to chase a ghost that can’t be caught, because it never existed in the first place.

                Those teams were friggin loaded and the rest of the league didn’t have any other truly great competition. Character had nothing to do with it. It was sheer talent dominance.

      • Ivan

        I disagree with ya with the yankee dynasty being over in 00. When you use the word “end” inconcern with dynasty, to me you have to be defeated, beaten and also after the years of being beaten their was a sorta downward trend. Onley use 01 as the end of the Dynasty cuz hey after the 01 loss in the WS, there was major changes after that and a big turnover on the team. Sure you had the core guys but O’Neil was gone, same with Tino and Brosious. Also, it started the trend of neglate of player development, signing FA’s to enormous contracts and also just alot of reckless desicion making.

        I do agree with your perspective of what a dynasty is though. I do feel that winning back to back championships should be considered a dynasty albeit not a huge one but still a very productive run. Do you consider the Jays that won the WS in 92 & 93 a dynasty or the same with the big red machine of 75 & 76 or even the yanks of 77 & 78?

        It’s a very interesting arguement cuz the word dynasty in sports thrown alot when it happens or even ends.

        • Slugger27

          it appears we see eye to eye on this one.. cant have dynasty without titles… and theyve had TWO titles since 04… nothing dynastic about that

          people sometimes forget their asses werent even in the playoffs in 06

        • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos

          Do you consider the Jays that won the WS in 92 & 93 a dynasty or the same with the big red machine of 75 & 76 or even the yanks of 77 & 78?

          No, no, and no. Great teams, yes, but not enough titles to claim a “dynasty”. Look, being back-to-back champs is great. It’s just not a “dynasty”.

    • http://www.new.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/profile.php?id=594331910&ref=name Jamal G.

      I say it ended last season. I don’t care what anybody says, the making the postseason is a worthy accomplishment, $209M or not. The Yankees’ recent dynasty (Ha! Recent! It feels good to say that.) lasted thirteen years (1995-2007).

      • Ivan

        If that’s the case then the Braves from 91-05 are a dynasty right? Yes the braves only won on WS but the yanks for the last couple years have not won a WS and dynasties are measured by championships in my opinion.

        • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos

          Braves had a great decade of competitiveness, and should be praised for winning all those division titles in a row. But they’re not a dynasty or even a team that could be considered the dominant team of a decade or period. They have one title in the past FIFTY years. That’s fewer than the Marlins, Reds, and Blue Jays.

          • Ivan

            Totally agree and you have to consider that they lost to the true “dynasty” team twice.

  • Baseballnation

    You know, in the eith inning when things what at it’s climax suspens point…The camera kept going back and forth from the game to the fans in the crowd, and the fans were at their seats chering making noise….and I thought…How fake are these Rays fans, never showed an ouunce of this kind of support for the team when they were winning in the regular season let alone show up to games….yet their posing as die hards in the crowd now…

    Note to Ray fans: Real fans show up and support their team no matter what the win loss column says!

    • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos

      Give me your address, please, so I can mail you a dictionary.

      • Baseballnation

        I’m on my laptop in school killing time before I head off to political science class cut me a break lol. I should have checked read considering the keys on the laptop are not as touch sensitive as my home cpu…

        Corrects:

        Eight*
        suspense*
        Ounce*

        • Baseballnation

          And…

          Cheering*

          • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos

            I know, normally you’re not that bad. Just breaking your balls a bit.

            NOW GO HOME AND GET YOUR FUCKING SHINEBOX.