Talk:Boston Red Sox/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

The Pilgrims

I came to this article via a link in the Cy Young article. There is a lot of research going on at the moment that tends to show that the Boston Americans were never actually called the "Pilgrims" at the time -- that it was a name that baseball writers later stuck onto the team's history. I belong to the Sabremetric baseball research group and will research this issue a little, then, if necessary, make any changes. Hayford Peirce 03:34, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

there is mention of this now in the article. Lets cosider the issue closed Alkivar 05:50, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There are several highly respected sources (eg., Total Baseball, vol 6 1998; Total Ballclubs 2005) that still cite that the team was in deed referred to as the Pilgrims and the Puritans. If you are going to claim in the article they never were, please cite sources. Until then, I am going to chage it back with a disclaimer.--CrazyTalk 22:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted, and added the sources in order to clarify. Those "highly respected sources" merely parroted the same misinformation that has been out there for 50 or 60 years without bothering to research it. But a SABR member named Bill Nowlin actually went back to the newspapers from that time period and determined that the "Puritans"/"Pilgrims" stuff is bogus. Wahkeenah 23:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Take a deep breath, calm down, this needs to be civil. Please do not edit my comments; you can fix spelling in the article, but not on the talk page. I have reverted the misspelling in my above comment and please leave it be. Your edit to the article is still POV (Assume good faith}; you say "never" yet I have official publications of Major League Baseball stating otherwise, thereby nullifying the term "never" which is an inappropriate use of the word, and I believe John Thorn and Pete Palmer are also SABR members so they should know. If you can give me a SABR reference, then I will believe it. Until then, you cannot represent what is not yet fully accepted in baseball circles. Even the above comment by Hayford Peirce says he was going to do more research and edit as necessary - he never did state his findings nor make any edit to the page. I personally am not really interested in it, but "never" is an inappropriate stance. In the mean time, I have lessened the POV of the edit and combined it to show both sides. Once SABR fully embraces it, I think you have a point, but until then, it should be left open. What say you?--CrazyTalk 23:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

You are in deed, or indeed, lacking a sense of humor. I'm not the one who put the emphasis on never, someone else did that. In fact, I'm not sure whether I even used the word "never", which I agree is a risky absolute. And the sources were listed earlier in the year, and someone excised them. Here's the deal: Bill Nowlin's writeup, copied on the Baseball Almanac page, first appeared in the SABR publication The National Pastime, No. 23, in the summer of 2003. Nowlin actually went back to the best source available, the newspapers of that time, researched the matter thoroughly, and found no evidence that the team was ever widely known as the Pilgrims or the Puritans, if at all. And near as I can tell, NO ONE besides Nowlin has bothered to do any actual research on the matter, they've all simply parroted this stuff for many years. What supposedly "credible sources" have to say about it now has no relevance when stacked up against what contemporary sources had to say (or not say) about it. Wahkeenah 00:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

This is ridiculous in-deed. Why did you now remove Sommersets? "Conventional wisdom" is a weasel term. At least what the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum and SABR recognize is not totally removed from the article; although it is still POV. Even the article that was provided as a source is one man's opinion - if you can provide me a Bill James article, I will buy you dinner. No offense, but you seem to be heavily invested in the anti-Puritan camp and are presenting more emotion than fact. Can I ask you to step back for awhile and discuss it at a later time? Please leave the article as it is for now. Work toward agreement.--CrazyTalk 01:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC) (BTW, your statement "You are in deed, or indeed, lacking a sense of humor," appears to be atacking me, not the issue.)

I was tweaking you for going ballastic over my schoolmarm-like correction of "in deed" to "indeed", that's the only "personal" part about it. I could have thrown "Somersets" into the list, it just seemed less important. I doubt if Bill James has ever written about it, he's mostly a "figger filbert". You say it's one man's "opinion", but HE DID THE RESEARCH, and apparently not to discredit it, but to try to confirm it, only he couldn't because IT AIN'T TRUE. No one else has bothered to do any real research, they just repeat the same stuff over and over. You'd be surprised how many people still think Abner Doubleday invented baseball, which is false... or Alex Cartwright, which is not verifiably true either. I'm not emotionally invested in the Red Sox, I just like to see true facts presented (which is a SABR credo), rather than the usual hand-me-down "conventional wisdom", which if you can come up with a better term, feel free. Wahkeenah 02:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, I softened down the supposed POV further, and included a reference to "Somersets". Wahkeenah 02:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Someone should mention how they blew a 5 game lead and the Yankees won the East again this year Maddux31holytrinity

Considering their injury problems, it's surprising the Beantowners held on as long as they did. However, let's not jump to any conclusions about anybody's chances. Don't forget that the Chicago White Sox (!) will hold the home field edge throughout the post-season, and since they seem to be getting back on track, there is always a chance they will be this year's Red Sox. Being a Chicago North Sider, though, it matters not to me. 0:) Wahkeenah 05:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

According to the boston redsox official major league web site www.bostonredsox.com the nickname of Pilgrims was used by the team from 1903 to 1906.For a second source the book Baseball an illustrated history by Geoffrey C. Ward and Ken Burns states that the American League team playing in Boston called the Pilgrims played in the first World Series against the Pittsburgh Pirates in 1903.

let's not overdo game summaries

I just removed a couple paragraphs added to a game summary ... this isn't a play-by-play or color commentary - the article is very long as it is. - DavidWBrooks 00:28, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Main Rivals ?

Some well-meaning anonymous editor has been posting what he considers to be the primary rivals of each major league team. For example, for the Boston Red Sox he had the Cubs, New York Yankees, Giants and Cardinals. The only one of those that makes sense is the Yankees. It is not at all clear where he came up with the others, aside from the fact that they have played in the World Series at some point in the past, or possibly recently in interleague play.

In fact, it's effectively a "Point of View", is it not? Some rivalries are obvious because of the hype: Yankees-Red Sox, Cubs-Cardinals, Giants-Dodgers, and also any two teams in the same city or at least in close proximity, which were initially just financial rivals until interleague play came along: Yankees-Mets, Cubs-Sox, Dodgers-Angels, A's-Giants.

But to label other interleague competitors as "main" rivals is rather a stretch. To do it objectively, you would have to look at average attendance figures of a given team vs. any statistically significant increase vs. specific visiting teams. That could be hard to do at a place like Fenway or Wrigley, which generally sell out no matter what. A better approach would be to compare TV ratings, where available.

Does anyone have time to go through all that research, just to try and prove which teams are "main" rivals? I certainly do not. Maybe someone else would. Wahkeenah 4 July 2005 03:03 (UTC)

You are quite correct. I'm dumping it all but the Yankees. - DavidWBrooks 5 July 2005 15:39 (UTC)

Actually, now that I look through the article (as I haven't done in a while) I'm throwing up my hands - what an amateurish, gushing load of fanboy crud it has become. I think wikipedia's sports articles have become worse than the anime articles, which I didn't think was possible. - DavidWBrooks 5 July 2005 15:45 (UTC)

Not to be forgotten

Well... I think there are simply too many players without supporting pages. If this anonymous user think they are NTBF, how about creating a page for them first explaining why, then add them to this list? And what about some oscure players like Agbayani, Alcantara, Benzinger, Checo, Pemberton, and a long etcetera, joining distinguished ones such as Roger Clemens, Dick Radatz, Duffy Lewis, Lee Smith, Wes Ferrell, Jim Lonborg and Dwight Evans, between others? MusiCitizen 13:08, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, this section is really supposed to be for notable players, not a comprehensive list. If a player doesn't even have a stub, it's unlikely they should be in this section. Carbonite | Talk 14:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I also agree, that latest list was rediculously long. It might even be better to simply list those with retired numbers and those in the RS HOF to prevent too much POV. See the Talk:Boston_Bruins page for some good reasoning. Pal 14:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like y'all need another section: "To be forgotten". Wahkeenah 17:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Fellas, get off your high horse for a second here. The additions of players like Alcantara, Benzinger and Pemberton were made as a goof. If this is such a sacred list, then why do you already have guys such as the immortal Randy Kutcher, Carlos Quintana, Rob Murphy and Chris Stynes on there? Not to mention the inclusion of Frank Tanana, who pitched all of 24 games for the Sox and went 4-10 in that short stint. Now while a lot of forgettable players were added, there were also several noteworthy guys put on the list that you had previously missed, and virtually every one has a stub. Also, positions were added as well. So open your mind and please stop changing everything that was created by someone outside the regular Boston Red Sox Wikipedia circle. Thanks.

• —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.63.96.109 (talk • contribs) 11:38, August 3, 2005.

Indeed. Hence the need for a "To Be Forgotten" list. Pumpsie Green should be right near the top of it. Yet he has his own article. Where is the Justice, David? Wahkeenah 22:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup?

I've added the cleanup template to this article in the hopes that someone with more time can perhaps trim the accounts of recent seasons. As a Red Sox fan, I'm as excited about the team and their recent progress, but this article is poorly written for an encyclopedia. Rife with redundancy, clear bias, and unclear phrasing, this piece isn't quite in need of a total rewrite, but needs some serious structural reorganization near the end. Should I get some time soon, I'll try my hand at it myself. --Dsibilly 02:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I've done some of this cleanup, but there still remains a lot of work - there is a noticeable gap in the team's history: the 1980s (Morgan's Magic, the 86 Series). Also the former players section probably needs to be cleaned up (see above comments). Pal 04:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I can't imagine why the Sox fans wouldn't want to write about the 1986 World Series. Did something go wrong? Wahkeenah 04:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• I think this article is sufficiently cleaned up to the point where it no longer needs the cleanup template, so it is now removed. - Pal 17:50, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

2005 & tiebreaker

The statement "2005 could be considered the 6th division title" is patently false. MLB rules [1] state quite clearly that "the" division champion is the team with the best record, or if tied, the team that wins certain tiebreakers. There is no provision for a "shared" division title; in all scenarios, a single team is the division champion. The 2005 Red Sox can certainly claim their wild card berth, but there is no valid reason to state that 2005 is also a division title, whether it "should be" or "would be" historically. The statement at the beginning of the article seems fairly obvious POV. Simishag 16:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

And of course, by the same logic, the Red Sox did not win a division title in 1979 either. Simishag 17:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

In 1979, the Baltimore Orioles won the division title. I assume you mean 1978. After 162 games, they were tied with the Yankees, and a 163rd game (a playoff game) was held to decide the winner, because only one of the two could go to the post-season. In 2005 (as with 2001 in the NL Central), there was no need for a playoff game because both teams already qualified for the post-season. Had the Indians swept the White Sox this past weekend, there would have to have been a playoff scenario. That's why the news reported after this past Saturday that the Yankees win along with the Indians' loss gave the Yankees the division championship. Red Sox Nation can rightly say they finished with the same record as the Yankees in 2005, but they are incorrect if they claim it to be a division co-champion. There is no such thing, not now, and not in 1978, either. Wahkeenah 17:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this shouldn't be included at this point. However, if the Red Sox organization claims to be 2005 AL East co-champs at some point in the future (like the Cardinals did in 2001) then we'll have to add a note similar to the one on the St. Louis page. - Pal 18:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Simishag, I guess this is why you are having a serious problem here. That is actually false, as Wahkeenah notes. This is NOT why the Sox did not win in 1978. The Yankees would have won a tiebreaker (having a better division record) in 1978, but there was no such thing: they had a playoff game. This is new, and as it has happened only once before, many people don't understand it -- including you, as you just showed by comparing it to 1979 [sic] -- and thus a note is worth having. -- http://pudge.net/

It is at best trivia and at worst fanboy BS, and at least 4 people over the past 2 days felt strongly enough about it to revert it. Your statement "this could be considered the 6th division title" implies some level of consensus. Yankees fans certainly wouldn't agree. Sports writers wouldn't agree. MLB wouldn't agree. If you wanted to say "Red Sox fans sentimentally claim this as a 6th division title", and put it in a place a little less obvious than the top of the page, that might be acceptable, but rules are rules, and the rules say the Yanks won it this year. There is simply no provision for a shared division title, not now and not then. The fact that they have the same record at the end of the year is interesting, but it does not mean they won the division, not now and not then. Whether they would have won it "historically" is irrelevant to 2005. Simishag 18:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

So when many Yankees fans are asking me to explain how the team with the best record didn't win the division -- something that has only happened once before in the major leagues -- they are being Red Sox fanboys? Stop being stupid. And so what if it is trivia; what about the page isn't? You really think this is less important than the fact that Sweet Caroline is played in the middle of the eighth inning? Stop being stupid. And "my statement" is not mine. Check your History. That was from the St. Louis Cardinals' page, and Jredmond put it in, not me; if you didn't like that, then you could have changed that one part. As to sports writers: did you take a poll? Stop being stupid. Really. And if you don't like my tone, you can stuff it: you're the one who is removing edits without even understanding what they were about, and then went on to get all self-righteous about it. -- http://pudge.net/

I don't get why any sports fan would be astute enough to look at the standings and yet be so ignorant as to not understand, in a one-sentence explanation if necessary, why the Yankees get the division title and the Red Sox get the wild card. Most MLB fans follow the NFL, I should think. And ties at the top of a division happen from time to time, it's no big deal. I think what's really afoot here is the erroneous assumption that winning a title still means something in a qualitative sense. Once the wild card was introduced, its meaning dropped significantly. As with the other major sports, winning a division is simply an automatic playoff berth and a degree of home field edge, and maybe some kind of dime-store trophy. That's all. Wahkeenah 23:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The Red Sox are obviously an emotional issue for you, as your link makes clear: "The MLB rules are retarded", "Screw it, I am declaring the Sox the champs", etc. You're welcome to your opinion, of course, but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Also, you might want to stop making statements about "the team with the best record." The Sox did not, of course, have THE single best record, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. All you have to tell your Yankees friends (who are just having some fun with you, by the way; I'm sure THEY know the rules) is that MLB has tiebreaker rules for exactly this purpose. Your assertion that this is some sweeping new change that caught everyone by surprise is, of course, ridiculous; MLB implemented these rules when it went to its current playoff format in 1995(?), so it's not like people didn't know that this would be the exact mechanism for deciding the division winner. The fact that this is the first time it's ended up this way is interesting I suppose, but it is not "unfair" or "stupid" or anything else. As for trivia: personally I don't care either way whether the songs are mentioned, but it is a fact that they are played (well, actually, I don't know if they are, but no one has disputed it), and perhaps it is part of team lore and thus worthy of mention. But hey, that's why we have discussion pages like this, to hash this stuff out. Your assertion that the Sox are somehow entitled to claim a division title is disputable, is in fact disputed by others here, and you are therefore remiss if you fail to note the dispute (Wiki's rule, not mine).

Anyway, it's not about self-righteousness, it's about having a quality article. This is not my article, nor is it yours, so telling me to "stuff it" is childish. If you can't stand to see your copy edited, maybe you shouldn't be editing. I certainly wasn't the only person who thought it was a lousy edit. Pal's edit under "2005" is substantially better, and correctly frames the issue without making a bogus claim about a shared division title. Simishag 23:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I just checked the official Red Sox site [2], and so far it only says "Wild Card Winner 2005". Nothing about co-division titles. That could conceivably come later and, as someone above noted, that could be worth discussing in the article. The Cardinals didn't like being relegated to the wild card in 2005, but claiming to be co-champs don't make it so. The major leagues' governing body make the rules, not the individual teams, or the media, or the fans. Wahkeenah 23:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Article length

IMO the section on the 2005 season and the 2005 post-season is far too long. The 2004 section is probably too long as well but because of winning the World Series and beating the Yankees in such dramatic fashion warrant some attention I can mainly understand that section's length.

If the 2002- 2003 section warrants 3 paragraphs and the championship season warrants 10 and the 2005 section warrants another 12 paragraphs - how many will the next season have ? Eventually you will have an article that is long on details of recent events and shorter on encyclopedic information.

I'm tempted to just wade in and start paring but I'd like some feedback from other users. No Guru 21:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Give it some time for the the emotion factor to dissipate. As the joy of 2004 and the disappointment of 2005 fade into memory, you can take your hedge trimmers to this article. Wahkeenah 02:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Go right ahead and trim! I did it after last season (which had featured practically an inning-by-inning account of the '04 playoffs -- and it's growin again!) and I have plans to do more this offseason. - Pal 20:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe later in the winter, when the Hot Stove League is in full swing. Wahkeenah 20:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Retired Numbers

"Wade Boggs is the only player who meets the criteria for his number to be retired."

Boggs ended his career with Tampa Bay; thus, he does NOT meet the necessary criteria. How do we go about changing this statement to better reflect what the actual situation is? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FutureNJGov (talk • contribs) .

Good catch. I've made some changes. How's that? —Cleared as filed. 13:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I do not know where the retirement requirement came from. The Red Sox policy on retiring uniform numbers is based on the following criteria:

• Election to the National Baseball Hall of Fame
• At least 10 years played with the Red Sox

prior to fisk it was a requirement to have retired a Red Sox.--Kev62nesl 05:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

RedSox.com - Red Sox Retired Numbers

Wade Boggs will have a more difficult time having his number retired because he didn't retire with the Red Sox, among other reasons, but it isn't a requirement that he have done so. Assawyer 14:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• I took the tour at Fenway Park earlier this year and one of the guides said there were three requirements (10+ seasons w/ Sox, in BOH, and retire as Sox). It could be he assumed that since all but Fisk ended their careers in Boston, he assumed that was a requirement when it is really coincidence. -User:IceDrake523

After Fisk got elected into the HOF, we was hired by the Sox as a "special assistant" or consultant or something. This allowed the Sox to apply their rules for retiring numbers because he was now working for the Sox again and technically "ending his career" with them. Doc502 16:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Fisk was made a special assistant for one day by Duquette which allowed him to "retire" with the Sox. I added this to the article with a reference. IrishGuy ^talk 21:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Then what about Williams? (managed Senators/Rangers 1969-1972) Bwburke94 21:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• What do you mean what about Williams? He retired with the Red Sox, so met the criteria. Tithonfury 03:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)