October 28, 200421 yr First off, the game was TIED. They still would have had to win in extra innings.. The whole Boston team had already blown the lead. Secondly, Buckner WOULDN'T have even beat Mookie to the bag. I hope this WS puts it to rest. The guy has been through enough.. Like Schilling said, now these players can be remembered for the great players they were... Buckner had over 2,700 hits in his career, BTW.
October 28, 200421 yr my little bro just told me this and i cant beleive i didnt notice... 86 years ago the sox won the w.s. buckner played in blew it in 86
October 28, 200421 yr my little bro just told me this and i cant beleive i didnt notice... 86 years ago the sox won the w.s. buckner played in blew it in 86 603194[/snapback] your welocme!
October 29, 200421 yr It still means the Sox have only won 2 world series in 86 years. The win last night erased none of that.
October 29, 200421 yr It still means the Sox have only won 2 world series in 86 years. The win last night erased none of that. 603357[/snapback] Well, the Red Sox have won a World Series this century.....the Yankees haven't
October 29, 200421 yr It still means the Sox have only won 2 world series in 86 years.? The win last night erased none of that. 603357[/snapback] Well, the Red Sox have won a World Series this century.....the Yankees haven't 603517[/snapback] True.
October 29, 200421 yr The Yankees have won one this century, however they haven't won one this millennium. :mischief
October 29, 200421 yr First off, the game was TIED. They still would have had to win in extra innings.. The whole Boston team had already blown the lead. Secondly, Buckner WOULDN'T have even beat Mookie to the bag. I hope this WS puts it to rest. The guy has been through enough.. Like Schilling said, now these players can be remembered for the great players they were... Buckner had over 2,700 hits in his career, BTW. 603094[/snapback] No. No. No. Take this from a Mets fan. You are correct that the game was tied. The Buckner error was the last event in a string a bad ones for the BoSox. The 1st one was Mike Greenwell batting for Roger Clemens in the top of the 8th with Boston leading 3-2. Why this was allowed to happen I will never know. Clemens did have a blister or somethign but he said he was ready to go. He was like 24-6 that year and Boston boasted one of the worst bullpens to ever make it to the WS. Reliever Schiraldi promplty blew it in the 8th to tie the score at 3, and was then lucky to get through the 9th unscathed. Red Sox ALCS hero Dave Henderson homered to start the bottom of the 10th, (A man forgotten in Sox history for some reason), and Boston added a run on 2, 2 out hits to make it 5-3. In the Bottom of the 10th, Boston retired the 1st 2 Mets. This is the disaster right here. You can't blow a 2 run lead with 2 outs and no-one on. That's utterly ridiculous. Buckner's error allowed the winning run to score after the game was tied and was the finnally miscue in a hurrendous inning. Catcher Rich Gedman let a fastball slighlty inside tick off his glove for a WP, that allowed the TYING run to score. Bostonians for some reason forget this play and leave all the blame soley on poor Buckner's shoulders. As to what you said about Mookie beating Buckner to the bag, that's stupid. Buckner would have definately beat Mookie to the bag. Guys don't beat out ground balls right down the 1st baseman's line with the guy fielding it right next to the bag. I know the photo somehow makes it look like that's the case, but don't trust it, theres no way in hell that could have happened. If Buckner didn't commit the error, yes Boston still would have had to win in it the 11th. The Mets had already used their top 2 relievers and Boston had no top relievers, woulda been a toss up.
October 29, 200421 yr First off, the game was TIED. They still would have had to win in extra innings..? The whole Boston team had already blown the lead. Secondly, Buckner WOULDN'T have even beat Mookie to the bag. I hope this WS puts it to rest. The guy has been through enough.. Like Schilling said, now these players can be remembered for the great players they were... Buckner had over 2,700 hits in his career, BTW. 603094[/snapback] No. No. No. Take this from a Mets fan. You are correct that the game was tied. The Buckner error was the last event in a string a bad ones for the BoSox. The 1st one was Mike Greenwell batting for Roger Clemens in the top of the 8th with Boston leading 3-2. Why this was allowed to happen I will never know. Clemens did have a blister or somethign but he said he was ready to go. He was like 24-6 that year and Boston boasted one of the worst bullpens to ever make it to the WS. Reliever Schiraldi promplty blew it in the 8th to tie the score at 3, and was then lucky to get through the 9th unscathed. Red Sox ALCS hero Dave Henderson homered to start the bottom of the 10th, (A man forgotten in Sox history for some reason), and Boston added a run on 2, 2 out hits to make it 5-3. In the Bottom of the 10th, Boston retired the 1st 2 Mets. This is the disaster right here. You can't blow a 2 run lead with 2 outs and no-one on. That's utterly ridiculous. Buckner's error allowed the winning run to score after the game was tied and was the finnally miscue in a hurrendous inning. Catcher Rich Gedman let a fastball slighlty inside tick off his glove for a WP, that allowed the TYING run to score. Bostonians for some reason forget this play and leave all the blame soley on poor Buckner's shoulders. As to what you said about Mookie beating Buckner to the bag, that's stupid. Buckner would have definately beat Mookie to the bag. Guys don't beat out ground balls right down the 1st baseman's line with the guy fielding it right next to the bag. I know the photo somehow makes it look like that's the case, but don't trust it, theres no way in hell that could have happened. If Buckner didn't commit the error, yes Boston still would have had to win in it the 11th. The Mets had already used their top 2 relievers and Boston had no top relievers, woulda been a toss up. 603557[/snapback] and, it was only Game 6
October 29, 200421 yr Didnt the yankees win it in 2000. So they have won this century 603804[/snapback] Technically that was last century. There was no year 0.
October 29, 200421 yr the yankees will win it next year.... 603726[/snapback] yeah some marlin fan u are huh? already coming out with those freakin yanks.
October 29, 200421 yr 604013[/snapback] ..............................riiiiight.............................
October 29, 200421 yr the yankees will win it next year.... 603726[/snapback] yeah some marlin fan u are huh? already coming out with those freakin yanks. 604005[/snapback] The Yankees will lose it again to the Marlins next year! Yea.... Some Marlin fan you are :mad :
October 29, 200421 yr The Yankees have won one this century, however they haven't won one this millennium. :mischief 603548[/snapback] Centuries, Millenniums, and Decades all start on the one years :thumbup
October 29, 200421 yr Catcher Rich Gedman let a fastball slighlty inside tick off his glove for a WP, that allowed the TYING run to score. Bostonians for some reason forget this play and leave all the blame soley on poor Buckner's shoulders.603557[/snapback] Gedman and Alex S. Gonzalez are the luckiest baseball players. They are allowed to get away with murder while two people are blamed for the total collapse of two entire teams.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.