Talk:Boston Red Sox/2004 Archive

Significant missing material
A sentence could be added (should be added?) on each of the following: [reordered approx chronologically with little editing]
 * naming history of Boston baseball teams. Names used (by sports writers, not officially) for the Red Sox prior to Taylor settling on current name.
 * covered. Alkivar 05:50, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Influence of George Wright from the Reds, former use of Red Stockings by Boston teams, decision by JI Taylor to use Red Sox.
 * I created the Boston Red Stockings disambiguation page (formerly mis-redirected to the Red Sox). Covers the use of 'Red Stockings' by other Boston Teams. Econrad 22:37, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * the influence of the Royal Rooters: 'Nuf 'Ced McGreevey and the Third Base
 * Small note about royal rooters in paragraph on 1903 world series AlexKrolewski 18:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ought to find a PD image of HiHi breaking ground for the Huntingdon Avenue Grounds and put it in.
 * importance of Jimmy Collins to the founding of the team
 * four-year leadership of successful team, done (preseason 1901, not)


 * Some mention of Cy Young and the first perfect game in baseball
 * four-year achievement, mentioned
 * I added a few sentences about 1904 pennant race, dougherty trade, and chesbro's wild pitch AlexKrolewski 18:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

1905-1919, presently two or three lines
 * I rewrote 1900-1904 and Sale of Babe Ruth, leaving this practically untouched --P64 03:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I added several sentences on 1905-1919, including a short summary of the basement years 1905-1910s and a summary of the 1910s including speaker, ruth, and championship teams.  AlexKrolewski 18:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

1920(spring)-1938, presently one line on Tom Yawkey's acquistion and investment
 * list of all the championship team players thrown away by JI Taylor when he owned the team as a plaything
 * Added summaries of 1925-1932 seasons, note of earl webb's doubles record, list of players yawkey acquired AlexKrolewski 18:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * a list of _all_ the players sold to NY by Frazee, reason why no trades/sales could be with the Loyal Five clubs. Leaving only NY and Chicago in the AL
 * a note about the loss of Pie Traynor due to Ban Johnson / Frazee feud
 * former banked field under the green monster (Duffy's Cliff)
 * this information is included in both the Green Monster and Fenway Park entries. --Alkivar 05:50, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Loyal NE fans, suffering each autumn and dreaming of victory during the hard winters over hot stoves -- the loooong tradition
 * Done in part but it may be sufficient. I rewrote the first sentence to highlight the 86-year wait, longer than any generation or two, which is the most important feature and belongs at the top until current MLB team pages are redesigned with different tone. --P64 02:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * the influence of Fenway (size, shape, age, ...)
 * the harassment of Williams by the Herald sports writers
 * the Kinder/Parnell years when they came soooo close
 * Malzone at third, one of the few lights in the darkest years
 * Rice's broken wrist before the greatest Series ever played
 * Larry Barnett's non interference call on Ed Armbruster during steal in that Series
 * belongs in some article on famously controversial calls by umpires

and so on. The Sox dese And we don't have to be NPOV to do it either. There IS a long tradition of suffering, and it's part of being a Red Sox fan. There IS (perhaps) more oddity in Red Sox history than for other teams. Not NPOV at all. And of course the Yankees are in league with the Devil. Just honest truth. ww 16:54, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Dewey's throw from right in 75 series that has been called the best outfield play ever seen (Sparky Anderson)
 * loss of Fisk and Burleson because Sox mgmt (Sullivan/LeRoux) couldn't read a calendar
 * improbable history and nature of the LeRoux/Sullivan mgmt team
 * the Coup de LeRoux
 * the Bucky Dent thing
 * the Aaron Boone thing
 * I think this is a worthy list of items to be included, but as far as the "we don't have to be NPOV" lets not behave like yankees - this is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a gripe fest! :) so lets get to work people! Alkivar 05:50, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Curse of the Bambino
I'm pretty sure that in the last month or so one or two New York Times sportswriters have written columns in which they trace the phrase back to about 1976, give or take a year. About the time of the Bucky Dent fiasco, I think. One of them, I recall, wrote that maybe he was the one who originated it. A little research with the NYT could probably take the date back about 10 years.... Hayford Peirce 02:23, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The earliest reference I can find using the keywords "Curse" and "Babe Ruth" is the Oct 28, 1986 edition of the NYT (page D33), a headline in the Sports of the Times section titled "Babe Ruth Curse Strikes Again", by George Vecsy, written after the Mets' victory that year. -khaosworks 03:51, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * this is an ongoing issue, lets see if we can dig some more info up on this. article has been modified to mention this. Alkivar 05:50, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * As an update - I found an article in the previous day's paper, Oct 27, 1986, also by George Vecsy, titled "Why the Mets are still alive" (Page C3) which also mentiones the Curse of Babe Ruth. Another article the day after talks about Boston being haunted by the "curse" of old ghosts, i.e. the loss of previous World Series. I can find no other references to the Babe Ruth curse prior to 1986. -khaosworks 08:33, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I found articles written in 1979 about the Red Sox being cursed, but not until 1986 did it get explicitly linked to Babe Ruth and 1918. I think the Vescey attribution is right. Sympleko 15:33, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

--Jonathancjudd 18:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC) The very last sentence in this section "The trade of Ruth led to a downfall in the Sox fortunes, which would not change until 1939." contradicts the first sentence of the section, which states Ruth was sold. In either case, the mention of the entire "curse" is not appropriate for an encyclopedic article.

2004 Playoff section
Alkivar, I really have problems with your reverting my last edits.
 * Why are you getting rid of the info on acquiring Schilling and Nomar for OCab, Minetkiewicz? This is important.
 * one i'm not, i said ADD not remove, this removal was just a byproduct of the revert. Alkivar 00:33, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Your info on the first three ALCS games is "Game _ (date) delivered a _-to-_ loss at _." Mine actually describes what happened in these games, and therefore is content.
 * Same with the rest of the series. I go into more detail, such as their comeback against Rivera. I don't delete any content.
 * again same reason.
 * Done.


 * The Red Sox aren't really hands-down favorites, so I removed that.
 * for the world series EVERY MAJOR SPORTSWRITER LISTED THEM AS THE FAVORITE! YES INCLUDING THE ST LOUIS RESIDENTS! Alkivar 00:33, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I said exactly how the lead, blowing the lead, and the win occured. This would be considered content.
 * again ADD THIS.
 * I did, you removed it, I just put it back.


 * The "content" I removed was who sang the national anthem, GBA, and the fact that Ben Affleck was in the stands. How is this relevant to an article about the franchise? Affleck's presence has questionable merit being mentioned in an article about the series, but it absolutely doesn't belong here!
 * this matters to some folks. but i'm sorry you dont find knowing that Hall of Fame members of the Red Sox were in attendance.Alkivar 00:33, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove this, but I will repeat that this page is about the franchise. I'd damn well hope that famous former players would show up for their team in the World Series, but in terms of someone who had NOTHING to do with the game in any way, shape or form (like Affleck), it doesn't need to be here!
 * I agree, what is the point? Shall we list every minor celebrity in the crowd so that people can look back and say, "It's not important that the Sox won their first Series in nearly a century, because Ben Affleck and Tom Hanks were there and had a good time and that's what counts."


 * In the same way, a space for Game 2 play-by-play with the note "Game 2 data will go here." is useless.
 * not useless, its stops folks from modifying sections that dont need modification in order to put in the play-by-play which will get added whether we want it or not. Play by play data actually helps us to create the next paragraph because we can AFTER ITS ADDED remove the pointless content. Alkivar 00:33, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Two solutions: 1) Comment it out. People who come to the site don't need to see a work in progress. 2) Work off of the 2004 WS page, or any other play-by-play account. Doesn't have to be on this page.

Look at it this way: Someone who knows nothing about the team will learn more about the season by reading my version than by reading yours. I would thank you to not do a whole-scale revert of my page. If you still think the fact that Kelly Clarkson sang God Bless America is important enough to include, do that, but please go point-by-point and put in the useful information. Jonpin 00:26, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * theres an entire fucking page in wikipedia over who sang god bless america at what game. THEREFORE IT MATTERS. and SECOND ... ITS NOT YOUR FUCKING PAGE, ITS EVERYONES. Alkivar 00:33, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * not to mention the fact that you've been a Wiki member for uhm 2 weeks if that. i've been here for MONTHS. Alkivar 00:38, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Which means that you're breaking the rule about not biting the newcomers. But besides I have done a few things on here over the past few months, the fact that I'm taking a large interest in a page now doesn't mean I have any less opinion than you.
 * I agree that it's not my page. It's not yours either. You don't need to curse at me (here or in the edit summary), and I'm not arguing about whether who sang God Bless America matters. I'm not! I have my opinion on it, and it doesn't matter. What I'm saying is that it matters on the page about the series. That DOESN'T mean it has to appear on a page about the FRANCHISE. When this series is over, one way or the other, the page is going to be reviewed. Some stuff will stay, other stuff won't. I'm trying to write content that will remain relevant TO THE FRANCHISE. Jonpin 00:58, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Calm down
Calm down, guys. There is bound to be disagreement over an article dealing with breaking events ... when the Series is over (insert obligatory team-boosting comment here) and blood stops boiling, it will be much easier to examine this article dispasionaltely. Don't get too worked up or Wikipedia will kill you through high blood pressure. - DavidWBrooks 03:19, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) (in N.H. and surrounded by Red Sox fanatics, incidentally)

My own opinion is that in order to avoid cluttering the Red Sox main page, which ought to be about the team itself rather than being a detailed account of its performance, I would be in favor of moving the 2004 postseason section to its own page. It makes little sense for a majority of this article to be devoted to a single postseason in the team's long history. However, I tend to think that a play-by-play is highly unnecessary, especially since it would be more appropriately placed in an article about the World Series itself. Perhaps just a scoring summary. Aerion 07:56, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) (in Cambridge, MA, and surrounded by people who don't particularly care about baseball but root for the Red Sox by default, incidentally)

I agree with you Aerion, this is a page about the team and it's history not a performance record... that should seperated and we should focus more on the history-making events! Either that or just have people go the 2004 ALCS and World Series pages. So everyone let's just cool it, chill out and have fun editing becuase this the Sox's year... 86 years of waiting are gone! (Ok, maybe I'm premature but as a Sox fan, I can feel it...) --Saint-Paddy 17:10, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) (in Lynn, MA, living right next door to the Item sports editor. My school is a diffrent story, it's out in Metro-West so it's a battleground for Sox-Yanks fans there.

I gotta say I agree with you. We should calm down and enjoy the Series. But damn is Alkivar pissing me off right now. Not only did he curse me out in the above conversation, he then deleted it, saying "we both looked like hotheaded idiots." I think I might look like an idiot now, but I figure I had every right to say what I said up there. Further, after a brief search through the rules, I see nothing about wholesale deletion of a substantiative conversation. Refactoring? Yes, after time has passed. Deleting personal attacks? Yes, so maybe the "it's not your fucking page!" should go. But deleting a useful conversation? That should not happen. And in any case, if any of it should be removed as irrelevant, that's not our job because we're clearly not impartial! [sarcasm]And clearly I can't do it because I've only been here for "two weeks if that" while you've been here for months![/sarcasm] When I was saying that "Johnny Pesky was there, and Kelly Clarkson sang God Bless America during the seventh inning stretch" didn't belong, I didn't mean that it was entirely irrelevant. It fits in just fine on the 2004 WS page, as I said. However, does this article say who sang the national anthem at each game of the 1986 World Series? No, because it's a trivial detail that's not related to the franchise. In short, the conversation you removed should stay, for the reasons Aerion mentioned below. It's a good way to avoid arguments from popping up if someone starts typing up how Pedro is doing in the second inning. [In reality, the entire two sections on 2004 will and probably should be reduced to a couple paragraphs, win or lose, sometime over the winter.] Jonpin 22:09, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right, you are continuing to "look like an idiot." But good points nonetheless. Was the issue ever resolved, or should we all just let the page grow until the Series is concluded, and sort it out then? For now, I've just added links in the 2004 Postseason and 2004 World Series sections to the existing main articles. Aerion 00:18, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

2004 Postseason Riots
Do the riots that occured after this year's ALCS win deserve to be mentioned somewhere in the 2004 postseason section? (briefly - no need for too much detail, at least not in this article) Same with any riots that may erupt if the Sox win the World Series. In the wake of last week's student death, we've been given specific instructions to avoid Kenmore Square in the event the Sox do win, but I doubt many people will be deterred. Who can resist a huge party just 364.4 smoots (and 1 ear) away? Aerion 00:17, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I think the riots and the girl who was killed deserve mention, especially considering her entry page is VfD'd. With 1 very strong stipulation, IT HAS TO BE NEUTRAL, no negative angle about the Boston PD. Alkivar 01:22, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you, NPOV needs no mention. As a side note, I don't think the deletion of the entire section above was a wise idea. The discussion can serve as a guide to future editors. But I'll let you and Jonpin make the call on that. Aerion 14:03, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I added the comment because the page for her was starting to turn into a rant about the Boston PD. Alkivar 23:35, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Aerion 00:19, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

'Idiots'
I wasn't paying attention to MLB - could there be some explanation about the whole affectionate "Idiots" thing w.r.t. the Sox? Krupo 05:31, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * I think I saw it before then, but before the ALCS, Johnny Damon said "We're a lot of cowboys and a bunch of idiots and people like that. Kids like that." After that, it was pretty much a running joke about how they were playing like they had nothing to lose. Jonpin 08:59, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

2004 Post Season
Once the fervor and shock have settled down, the section about this years amazing feats will need to be extensively trimmed down. It's completely out of proportion with the rest of the article. There's still the 2004 Post Season article itself to link to ... -- GWO


 * I've taken a shot at trimming some of it, but it still needs to be shortened a lot more. I hope you folks can help out. --Modemac 12:14, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * This is very much needed, and has been (almost) discussed in the past few days. Hopefully, now that the postseason is complete, somebody will take the time to clean it up. There are already extensive articles on the topic, and I imagine there's not that much new material here. What little there is here that is not redundant should be merged into those articles, then a summary and a link to the main articles should be included on this page. Aerion 18:25, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have found three errors (actually, one is just a poorly communicated sentence) in the 2004 season entry. The Red Sox overcame a 5-run deficit in the July 24th game (down 9-4). Olerud's Yankees were already leading 1-0 in ALCS Game 2, though the entry currently implies that Olerud's team was trailing. Lastly, the 14 inning Game 5 was the longest by innings in American LCS history, but ranked behind the Mets/Astros in 1986 (16 innings) and the Mets/Braves in 1999 (15 innings) as the longest League Championship Series games, as the entry currently claims. (I have no reason to want to tout myself by putting my name on this page...I'd just like to see these 3 inaccuracies rectified.)

Game 4 eclipse
Perhaps whoever wrote that bit about the eclipse being "fitting" should explain their metaphor a little more, as it's not terribly obvious right now. I realize that my deletion of "total darkness" may have made it even less clear, but the fact is that it wasn't total darkness. The moon is still very much visible during a total eclipse, it's just somewhat darker and redder. Also, it was apparently cloudy in St. Louis that night, so the eclipse was only occasionally visible at the site of the game. (Nice view here in Boston, though.) Aerion 18:29, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * i'm the one who originally added that statement. As the Sox blanked the cardinals 3-0 it sorta compares to the shadow of the earth blanking the moon does it not? And as it began well before the game was over it foreshadowed the outcome. On a seperate note this was a Category 3 Total eclipse ... 75% obstruction where I live, and from some planar angles in north america the moon reached almost a 90% black out. Alkivar 21:20, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Alright. Do you want to put that on the main article? Aerion 22:26, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * It was added once ... i'm not wasting my time doing it again when its gonna get removed entirely. at this point i wash my hands of anything to do with world series/boston red sox. it seems everyone keeps either reverting or completely deleting my contributions. so F--k it. Alkivar 22:31, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Can I recommend adding it to 2004 World Series. -- GWO