Red Sox acquire Curt Schilling!

[Wisertime]

Nice addition to the staff. A closer would help now, too, maybe even another starter. Then we'll actually be able to take on the Yanks in 2004.

 

[Tom Wittrock]

Could have used him in October.

 

[kingsleyd]

Only reason they didn't beat the Yanks in 2003 was the manager elected to stay with Pedro instead of going with the relievers that had proven themselves all series long.

That said, I'm not unhappy to see Schilling in town. My uncle (ESPN's Peter Gammons) is, though, because his vacation week was rudely interrupted by ESPN's camera trucks showing up at his house so he could share his $0.02 on the whole thing.

As for a closer, Williamson seemed OK to me once he got his personal life back together.

 

[doodman]

Only reason they didn't beat the Yanks in 2003 was the manager elected to stay with Pedro instead of going with the relievers that had proven themselves all series long.

Give the Yankees SOME credit!! There was more than ONE reason. How about the other 3 games the Yankees won? They beat the best the BoSox had. Sure he should have left the game, but there was no guarantee that the bullpen wouldn't have allowed 10 runs.

Are you one of those that thinks Buckner lost the 1986 Series?

 

[kingsleyd]

Are you one of those that thinks Buckner lost the 1986 Series?

Nope. Like Pedro, Buckner never should have been in the game at that point, not with Dave Stapleton on the bench. But McNamara was already too drunk to make an intelligent decision. And, for that matter, I would have brought Stanley in to start the inning.

Doodman, of course you're right, the Mets in '86 and the Skankees in '03 did what they needed to do to win. And Boston's relievers *could* have come in and done what your Cubbies pitchers did and give up 10 runs or something. My point was, Timlin/Embree/Williamson had earned the right to be given the ball at the start of the 8th, and IF they had done the job as they had been doing all series, the Bosox would have won. Simple as that.

 

[Wisertime]

Nope. Like Pedro, Buckner never should have been in the game at that point, not with Dave Stapleton on the bench. But McNamara was already too drunk to make an intelligent decision. And, for that matter, I would have brought Stanley in to start the inning.

Why do you say that? Is there any truth to the statement that McNamara was drunk? I think he was one of the best managers the Sox ever had. You're right about Buckner and Martinez, though; two instances in which players shouldn't have been on the field.

 

[SimonBarSinister]

Nope. Like Pedro, Buckner never should have been in the game at that point, not with Dave Stapleton on the bench. But McNamara was already too drunk to make an intelligent decision. And, for that matter, I would have brought Stanley in to start the inning.

Doodman, of course you're right, the Mets in '86 and the Skankees in '03 did what they needed to do to win. And Boston's relievers *could* have come in and done what your Cubbies pitchers did and give up 10 runs or something. My point was, Timlin/Embree/Williamson had earned the right to be given the ball at the start of the 8th, and IF they had done the job as they had been doing all series, the Bosox would have won. Simple as that.

FWIW Your Dave Stapleton excuse is a little flawed according to the Major League Baseball Statistics Website

Keith Hernandez who is regarded as one of the best defensive first basemen ever had a lifetime fielding % of 994. He is generally viewed as the best at his position for his era.

Bill Buckner had a lifetime fielding % of 991

Dave Stapleton had a lifetime fielding % of 987

I do realize that both Buckner and Stapleton played more than 1B but if you look, their % is pretty consistant through all positions..Buckner was a great player and it is a bummer that he is only remembered for that one play. He had over 2700 hits in his career and was viewed as a gamer by all of his past teammates

Let's go Mets!!! SBS ducks runs and hides

 

[kingsleyd]

RE: McNamara's state... my source is the uncle mentioned earlier in this thread. Pretty authoritative -- he, if anyone, would know.

RE: Buckner... true enough in general terms, and no question he was a far superior player to Stapleton in career terms, but at that particular moment, due to an injury, Buckner could hardly walk, let alone run or get quickly to a grounder down the line.

 

[Wisertime]

As for a closer, Williamson seemed OK to me once he got his personal life back together.

Sure did; but with him in that spot, then they'll need more relievers. Middle relief and setup was what killed them last season.

 

[Bluburst135]

Excellent addition to the team...

however, I'm not all that positive he'll make that much of a difference.Surely Boston will have to make room in th budget, who'll they release? and when it comes down to a Yankee Vs. Red Sox,,throw the stats out the window....they're playin' for pride.

 

[doodman]

I actually didn't think this was the greatest move for them. They have some MAJOR issues at the end of next season that, I believe, they should address NOW- Nomar, Pete, and Manny are the three biggest. Trying to catch the Yankees by "joining them" isn't the smartest idea. If they bust this year- they are going to have to unload some dollars somewhere. Then throw-in the fact that they can't resign any key players. It just doesn't seem very smart to me.

 

[Wisertime]

There was a rumor going around for a while about an even trade: Nomar for Arod; that would be nice, imo.

They're talking now about acquiring free agent closer Keith Foulke from Oakland: (9-1, 2.08 ERA, 43 saves with Oakland in 2003). He spent two days meeting with the Sox in Boston last week, and preliminary negotiations took place.

____________________
Quote:
But McNamara was already too drunk to make an intelligent decision. And, for that matter, I would have brought Stanley in to start the inning.
____________________

If that's true, man, what a hangover he must've ended up with the next day. Whew!

 

[kingsleyd]

If that's true, man, what a hangover he must've ended up with the next day. Whew!

Hell, man, you're from Boston, you know... that's the mother of all hangovers. We're all still smarting from that game, 17 years later.

I'm already over the Skankees (03) thing; it was a great series and I can understand Grady's decision to stick with Pedro even though I would have made a different call. But '86, man, I still get a twinge every time I think about it.

 

[Wisertime]

For those who didn't know, poor John McNamara ran into some pretty hard times 10 years after that World Series loss. This was real sad.

A Nightmare

 

[LP_Gothic_Dude]

But '86, man, I still get a twinge every time I think about it.

the thing that bugs me about all the crap with Buckner is that he was a GREAT player. look at his career stats and they speak for themselves. hall of famer? no, but a great player none the less.


AND it was game 6......there still was a game seven for them to win it.

 

[doodman]

the thing that bugs me about all the crap with Buckner is that he was a GREAT player. look at his career stats and they speak for themselves. hall of famer? no, but a great player none the less.


AND it was game 6......there still was a game seven for them to win it.

AND... there was a wild pitch right before it.
AND... the Mets did win 2 games before THAT one.


NO game is defined by one play.

 

[LP_Gothic_Dude]

testify my brother !!!!

 

[kingsleyd]

NO game is defined by one play.

Maybe not, but games can TURN on one play. Example: yesterday's Pats/Colts game. 38-34 Pats. Fourth down. Colts on Pats 1 yard line. 12 seconds left. Neither team has a time-out. One of two things is gonna happen:

Colts score and win.
Pats stop them and win.

Of course the whole trajectory of the game set it up, but still it came down to that one play determining who won. Thank you, Willie McGinest!

As for the original topic of discussion, I never said or implied that Buckner was in any way to blame for the loss in game 6. My point was that a different managerial decision may well have led to a different outcome. Schiraldi, like Pedro, was The Man but a little gassed. The Mets/Yanks both had opportunistic hitters that took advantage and won a game the Sox should have been able to put away to end the series as winners.

 

[Tom Wittrock]

Maybe not, but games can TURN on one play. Example: yesterday's Pats/Colts game. 38-34 Pats. Fourth down. Colts on Pats 1 yard line. 12 seconds left. Neither team has a time-out. One of two things is gonna happen:

Colts score and win.
Pats stop them and win.

What about the 4th and goal a few minutes before,

when the Colts kicked a field goal!?! :wtf

THAT could be the one play that decided the game.

 

[doodman]

If the game is decided by one play, then something could have been done on offense or defense (regardless of sport) to avoid the situation. Good or bad. If the score was 0-0 and a field goal from the one-yard line was kicked, was the kicker the deciding player of the game? Probably not. The defense would be the crediting factor.

If a game- or series- came down to one play (or decision) we wouldn't even watch the WHOLE game. The Red Sox lost both WS because the whole team wasn't as good as the other. That is what is so good about baseball, basketball, and hockey: a series instead of a winner-take-all game. Because-in the end- it is difinitive.