the spectre/stigma of "backing in"

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Beantowne. Show Beantowne's posts

    Re: the spectre/stigma of "backing in"

    In Response to Re: the spectre/stigma of "backing in":
    [QUOTE]Rex Ryan and the Jets is a great analogy. I am sure they didn't mind backing their way into the Conference championship game. I just will never understand fans who want to jump off the train before the seaosn has ended.
    Posted by jesseyeric[/QUOTE]

    Those that jump off aren't fans...most of the nysayers on this board aren't fans either...devils advocates...
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from pinstripezac32. Show pinstripezac32's posts

    Re: the spectre/stigma of "backing in"







    Anything can and often does happen in October and that has been the case over the past decade. Don't think anyone in their right mind expected the WS matchup we had last year (Giants and Rangers) and I think it's very fair to view the 2002 Angels, 2003 Marlins, the 2004 Red Sox, the 2005 White Sox, the 2006 Cards, the 2007 Rockies and the 2008 Rays as unlikely pennant winners. All it takes to win a few games here and there is a good amount of luck, a few position players to get hot and couple of starters to simply do their jobs and keep their team in games. Baseball is the most unpredictable of all of the major sports for good reason.



    well said WilcyMoore

    and all that needs to be said


    let's  keep the 2000 yanks out of this

    they were a 1 of a kind team in  the last 50 yrs
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from jaytf25. Show jaytf25's posts

    Re: the spectre/stigma of "backing in"

    In Response to Re: the spectre/stigma of "backing in":
    [QUOTE]Rex Ryan and the Jets is a great analogy. I am sure they didn't mind backing their way into the Conference championship game. I just will never understand fans who want to jump off the train before the seaosn has ended.
    Posted by jesseyeric[/QUOTE]

    Hey Jess, glad you're back. It looks like your team has a very good chance of meeting the Phillies again like two years ago. This time the Phillies are really stacked. Even if the Sox do "back" in, do you really think they can beat the Rangers or Tigers? I don't. I'm not being negative just realistic. Two or three weeks ago I thought we could beat the Tigers but would have trouble with the Rangers. You're right the 1998 Yanks went 16-11 in September. On amusic note I saw Roger Daltry last night. I swear he sounds just like he did in the late 60's and early 70's. Much better then Jagger sounds now. He did all of "Tommy" and about 8 other songs.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from CablesWyndBairn. Show CablesWyndBairn's posts

    Re: the spectre/stigma of "backing in"

    Haven't we all watched enough baseball to know that the playoffs are the playoffs and the results do not necessarily coincide with how well or poorly a team played getting there? 

    Am I concerned enough about what I've seen from the Sox lately?  Yes.  Is the reason for their poor September easy to understand?  No, there is no one reason, yet some people have to have a scapegoat. 

    I'd rather sit back and watch it play out.  There is enough talent on this roster to get it done in the playoffs if they get there.  Is it really worth letting your blood boil?  To some, yes.  To me, I'll just let things play out.    
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from tomnev. Show tomnev's posts

    Re: the spectre/stigma of "backing in"

    In Response to Re: the spectre/stigma of "backing in":
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: the spectre/stigma of "backing in" : The 2000 World Series champion New York Yankees went 3-15 in their final 18 regular-season games: http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/NYY/2000-schedule-scores.shtml The Yankees were outscored 68-15 in losing the final seven games of the season.
    Posted by hill55[/QUOTE]

    I ahte to defend a Yankee team, but I wouldnt say the 2000 Yankees backed in despite their poor finish....they had a 9 1/2 games lead when they started sliding and had clinched the division before they lost their final 6 games.....and Joe Torre was resting everybody and setting up his rotation and as I recalls getting alot of heat for doing so. Inessecne they finished poorly because they could......the sox need to win to get in and if they dont and still keep their lead(like the last 2 days).....that is the definition of backing in.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from jaytf25. Show jaytf25's posts

    Re: the spectre/stigma of "backing in"

    In Response to Re: the spectre/stigma of "backing in":
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: the spectre/stigma of "backing in" : I ahte to defend a Yankee team, but I wouldnt say the 2000 Yankees backed in despite their poor finish....they had a 9 1/2 games lead when they started sliding and had clinched the division before they lost their final 6 games.....and Joe Torre was resting everybody and setting up his rotation and as I recalls getting alot of heat for doing so. Inessecne they finished poorly because they could......the sox need to win to get in and if they dont and still keep their lead(like the last 2 days).....that is the definition of backing in.
    Posted by tomnev[/QUOTE]

    You're right and wrong. They (Yanks) started the month with a good lead but the Sox actually we're still in it on the 158th or 159th game which was a Thursday night. Then they lost to the Rays on Friday night and the Yanks clinched even though they lost their last 4. Check Baseball-Reference.com
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from jaytf25. Show jaytf25's posts

    Re: the spectre/stigma of "backing in"

    I'm not giving up. I never do. I'm just being realistic at the way they are playing. My first year as a fan was 1965,62-100. I've been through it all. If they win the ALDS(if they get in) then come back at me and say I told you so. Our pitching is two guys and our bats are up and down. The 06 Cards are a great example as are the 2000 Yanks. But I don't think they had any injury issues. Jete thanks for being a voice of reason. If we meet you guys in the ALCS I'll be happy.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: the spectre/stigma of "backing in"

    In Response to Re: the spectre/stigma of "backing in":
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: the spectre/stigma of "backing in" : Hey pschuller, The Yanks have also been beaten by the Rays too and since 2008 4 years all three have missed the playoffs at least once... Too me the biggest question I have is why have we not been able to field a healthy team in late september since 2007?
    Posted by Beantowne[/QUOTE]

    Well, being the oldest team in the A.L. doesn't help.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from massillon8. Show massillon8's posts

    Re: the spectre/stigma of "backing in"

    In Response to the spectre/stigma of "backing in":
    [QUOTE]Good morning all, this has been on my mind since watching the Sox the past couple of weeks from afar and from the past week of posts on here...let me preface by saying i'm still fairly certain the Sox will hold off the Rays and get in, with that, how they fare from there will remain to be seen...some think they will not farewell because of their current rate of play, but should they finish ahead of Tampa not having played well, there is still a bit of precedent(sp) for their chances...the 99' Yanks, 04' Cards, and 05' Chisox ..three teams that went into LDS play on the heels of some uninspired play, to advance to the WS...conversely the 07' Rox entered postseason play on an absolute tear only to get steamrolled by the Sox, now i'm not suggesting Sox fans should ignore the Sox' recent play, but just keep an open mind to the fact that once in, you never know... 2004 being exhibit A...
    Posted by jete02fan[/QUOTE]
    I realize your just trying to play the "jete is a good guy" role here.  But if your going to try an bolster Red Sox fans spirit you should at least get your facts right.  The 1999 Yankees had a very good September that year, 17-12 or something.  The 2000 team, after opening up a 7 game lead in the loss column on Sept. 15 began a losing pattern in which they went 3-15.  The 2005 White Sox went 17-12 in the month of September, faced a slight chase from the Indians, but then stomped them like a bug.  The 2006 Cards were not a very good team the entire season, winning only 83 games,  September they were 12-15.  The Red Sox this month are HISTORICALLY BAD, Its not a question of Clinching or being on the verge of Clinching, this all started when the Yankees beat Bard in the 8th inning back in August. 
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from jete02fan. Show jete02fan's posts

    Re: the spectre/stigma of "backing in"

    In Response to Re: the spectre/stigma of "backing in":
    [QUOTE]In Response to the spectre/stigma of "backing in" : I realize your just trying to play the "jete is a good guy" role here.  But if your going to try an bolster Red Sox fans spirit you should at least get your facts right.  The 1999 Yankees had a very good September that year, 17-12 or something.  The 2000 team, after opening up a 7 game lead in the loss column on Sept. 15 began a losing pattern in which they went 3-15.  The 2005 White Sox went 17-12 in the month of September, faced a slight chase from the Indians, but then stomped them like a bug.  The 2006 Cards were not a very good team the entire season, winning only 83 games,  September they were 12-15.  The Red Sox this month are HISTORICALLY BAD, Its not a question of Clinching or being on the verge of Clinching, this all started when the Yankees beat Bard in the 8th inning back in August. 
    Posted by massillon8[/QUOTE] first, i'm not trying play any "role",wasn't posting to have someone give me "kudos", just giving my opinion on a subject, same as you, and my point on the teams i cited wasn't about the month as a whole, just the last handful of games i realize they weren't bad the entire time..thanks for feeling the need to label my opinion, your corrections are duly noted..
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from tetonman50. Show tetonman50's posts

    Re: the spectre/stigma of "backing in"

    In Response to Re: the spectre/stigma of "backing in":
    [QUOTE]great posts everybody, i hope noone thinks i'm accusing the Sox of backing in, my thread title is more in line of the labeling of teams so called having "backed in" by the sports talkies, media and such, just pointing out that teams have thrived in the face of said labeling...
    Posted by jete02fan[/QUOTE]

    Hi Jete.   BTW congrats AGAIN!!!! ...........  "Backing in" to the post season in baseball to me is really not possible.  No team could possibly "back in" given that getting to to PS requires you to play well enough for over 160 games to even have any chance to get there. Unlike other sports in baseball only a few teams have the records over a long reason to qualify for a PS. Clearly the Red Sox over a very long season do have one of the better records in all of baseball so I don't think "backing in" really applies even if they don't win another game this season. Which I know you agree with. 

    However to me, coming in second place to your Yankees every year, and being content to be the yearly WC entry from the AL is to me unacceptable. This has to change!!!!!! I doubt that attitude would be acceptable in NY for very long, by the FO, the team itself, or even you fans, and to me it is time it no longer is acceptable in Boston either.

    Honestly when considering just how good or bad a team is, from front office, to ball persons ( trying to be politically correct there!)  I place far more significance on winning the divison, then on winning the WS which we all know can go to any team that gets hot for a week or two.

    Don't get me wrong, winning it all will never get old for any of us. But I do feel winning our division, which no question the Sox should have been able to do this year, is just as important.


     

Share