I have a question regarding the Boston Red Sox?
So, they go 86 years without a championship. You would think that somewhere in that long period of time, that they would have fallen back @sswards into a championship like many teams have done.
They finally win in 2004, again in 2007 and yet again in 2013. How do you explain going so long without a championship then win 3 in 10 years? This is mathematically amazing. Please, offer something more than "The Curse". As far as I know, Babe Ruth himself had no hard feelings to the Red Sox for selling him to the Yankee's. As I understand it, The Babe loved being a NY Yankee. What are your thoughts?
- el ÁguilaLv 77 years agoFavorite Answer
I don't find it mathematically interesting. The Phillies are over 130 years old and have just seven pennants; considering that four of them occurred consecutively (2007/2008) or in a four-year period (1980/1983), that leaves HUGE chunks of time in the Phillies' history with no pennants, much less World Series titles. In their first 97 seasons, they had "two" pennants.
So, for one thing, the Red Sox were terrible between 1919 and 1937, with one winning season and never finishing higher than fourth.
In 1941, they finished second, but way behind an excellent Yankees team.
They finished second again in 1942, but again weren't especially close to first behind the Yankees.
They won the pennant in 1946 but lost the World Series in seven games; nothing odd about that at all.
In 1948, they tied the Indians, and lost a one-game playoff. Considering the Indians then won the World Series, the Indians clearly "were" good.
They finished second again in 1949. Not really odd; the Phillies finished 2nd three years in a row from 2004-2006.
Then until 1967, they were generally a lousy team; part of this was because Tom Yawkey refused to integrate his team, thereby letting all the best non-white talent get scooped up by the other teams.
They lost another 7-game series; again, certainly not odd on it's own.
Same with 1975 and 1986. Between 1967 and 1986 or so, the Red Sox were generally consistently "good" without being "great." DEFINITELY not that odd considering the Braves won 14 consecutive division titles; if a team can finish 1st 14 times in a row, a team can certainly be good for two decades without finishing first very often.
The reason they've been able to win three World Series in just the last decade is because they are now spending money, have good scouting and are on the cutting edge of fancy baseball maths.
Now, why is the Red Sox losing four World Series between 1918 and 2004 not odd? Because:
The Brooklyn Dodgers lost "seven" World Series between 1903 and 1955, when they finally won. "Seven." THEN, they won "four" World Series between 1955 and and 1965. They basically did what you find odd about the Red Sox, only they turned it up to 11.
The Boston/Milwaukee/Atlanta Braves have 9 World Series-era pennants, but a mere three titles- one for each city. Now THAT'S mathmatically interesting.
The Detroit Tigers lost three World Series "in three consecutive years" (1907, 1908, 1909), then lost a fourth in 1934 before they finally won in 1935.
- StatlerLv 77 years ago
Mathematics is not in the formula when one understands that players, managers and owners of franchises change over time. Like every other sports team, the Red Sox player personnel changes to some extent yearly and to a greater extent about every 5 years. In other words, it's not the same people who couldn't win for 85 years. It was a franchise based in Boston.
Instead of thinking of it as breaking a "curse" (Cubs included), or falling into one back @sswards, look at it as a franchise finding the right combination of personnel who consistently play to their abilities and take advantage of whatever luck presents. Included is the opposition who for whatever reasons has yet to find a winning combination - most current are the Rangers and Tigers.
- nas88car300Lv 77 years ago
Ownership that cares
Just think the Cubs haven't won the World Series since 1908 and haven't been to the World Series since 1945
you would think the same
- Happy BoyLv 47 years ago
They had bad games and bad luck and bad pitching, and bad fielding, and etc.... That is just the nature of the sport. The Red Sox had grown through bad years to be a better and more efficient team.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 7 years ago
New ownership and front office management that had functional brain stems, professional commitment to building winning teams, financial wherewithal, and some luck.
- 7 years ago
Ownership with good management change everyting
- 7 years ago
All i know is the only reason boston won this year was because of Big Papi he was dialed in.
-a sad cardinals fan
- 7 years ago
A simple answer: 9/11