~~2013 MLB WORLD SERIES~~ Cardinals VS Red Sox

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

World Series Champion?

  • Boston Red Sox

  • St. Louis Cardinals


Results are only viewable after voting.

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
terrible decision to throw to third and craptastic attempt at a throw.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,407
8,595
126
"first world series loss for the red sox since 1986"


well that's like saying the houston texans have never lost a superbowl. shutup buck.
 

BUTCH1

Lifer
Jul 15, 2000
20,433
1,770
126
terrible decision to throw to third and craptastic attempt at a throw.

Probably a bad move to pull Lacky so quick, he still had pinpoint control and was only at 94 pitch count. Breslow walked his first batter then was behind in the other 2 he faced, now the series goes to St. Louis and we lose Ortiz (unless he plays first base for Napoli which I doubt will happen).
 

Smartazz

Diamond Member
Dec 29, 2005
6,128
0
76
"first world series loss for the red sox since 1986"


well that's like saying the houston texans have never lost a superbowl. shutup buck.

Not quite. The Red Sox have won 9 straight World Series games which is pretty impressive.
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,699
60
91
"first world series loss for the red sox since 1986"


well that's like saying the houston texans have never lost a superbowl. shutup buck.

I think it's different.

Last time Boston was in the WS. They Swept. Before that? Swept again.

Then this WS, they win the first game. That's a really impressive streak to be honest.
 

Zeze

Lifer
Mar 4, 2011
11,395
1,189
126
I think it's different.

Last time Boston was in the WS. They Swept. Before that? Swept again.

Then this WS, they win the first game. That's a really impressive streak to be honest.

Am I retarded? We swept both of them? I remember some tension in the game.. maybe 4-3 or even 4-2.

Both of them were 4-0 all along? wtf.
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,699
60
91
Am I retarded? We swept both of them? I remember some tension in the game.. maybe 4-3 or even 4-2.

Both of them were 4-0 all along? wtf.

Yes, Sox swept the Cards last time, and another stat is that in those 4 games, the Cards never held the lead. Last night's game was the first time in the past 6 WS games that the Cards held a lead, much less won the game.
 

iRONic

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2006
8,523
3,807
136
"It's a game of inches." -- "It's a game of mistakes."

What are 'Baseball cliches', Alex?

=======================================

Game 1, Cardinals errors sunk them. Game 2, Boston puts on the error jersey and loses.

Go into Busch Stadium and play clean baseball, Sox!

Ortiz plays first base. Guaranteed. Nava plays left field. Guaranteed. Drew should sit. A pipe dream...?
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,407
8,595
126
Yes, Sox swept the Cards last time, and another stat is that in those 4 games, the Cards never held the lead. Last night's game was the first time in the past 6 WS games that the Cards held a lead, much less won the game.

in 2004 the sox swept the cards.

but the cards have won 2 world series since then (and the sox 1) so your statement is grossly misleading.
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
When I heard this discussed earlier, the "official" report is that ortiz would start 2 of the 3 games.

As far as ratings, it was mentioned that last year was the lowest WS over the last 3 decades. Also this year is the first time the average baseball fans age is over 50 while NFL & NBA are both in the low 40's.
 

iRONic

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2006
8,523
3,807
136
Yes, Sox swept the Cards last time, and another stat is that in those 4 games against the Boston Red Sox, the Cards never held the lead. Last night's game was the first time in the past 6 WS games against the Boston Red Sox that the Cards held a lead, much less won the game.

in 2004 the sox swept the cards.

but the cards have won 2 world series since then (and the sox 1) so your statement is grossly misleading.
Better?
 

HopJokey

Platinum Member
May 6, 2005
2,110
0
0
When I heard this discussed earlier, the "official" report is that ortiz would start 2 of the 3 games.

As far as ratings, it was mentioned that last year was the lowest WS over the last 3 decades. Also this year is the first time the average baseball fans age is over 50 while NFL & NBA are both in the low 40's.

I was reading over at Grantland that yes these are huge issues (national following and youth interest), but baseball has never been in a better state. This is due to a huge increase in regional following (i.e. your team). See the crazy TV deals that the Dodgers got (or the Yankees/Red Sox/Giants recently got). Attendance is at a all time high and revenue is growing at a good pace.

Nevertheless MLB needs to figure out how to fix the national ratings and youth problem. One start would be to make the games faster, they take forever especially in the playoffs.
 

Smartazz

Diamond Member
Dec 29, 2005
6,128
0
76
I was reading over at Grantland that yes these are huge issues (national following and youth interest), but baseball has never been in a better state. This is due to a huge increase in regional following (i.e. your team). See the crazy TV deals that the Dodgers got (or the Yankees/Red Sox/Giants recently got). Attendance is at a all time high and revenue is growing at a good pace.

Nevertheless MLB needs to figure out how to fix the national ratings and youth problem. One start would be to make the games faster, they take forever especially in the playoffs.

What's more important though? National ratings or local ratings combined with better ticket sales? Baseball averaged more than 30k tickets sold per game for 2,430 games and local ratings were insanely good this year. Averaging 30k per game for that many games is really impressive. I have to imagine there's more money in ticket sales combined with the merchandise and the like than the national broadcast games. It's obvious that there's so much money in the MLB now if you look at the ridiculous salaries being paid out.
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,699
60
91
in 2004 the sox swept the cards.

but the cards have won 2 world series since then (and the sox 1) so your statement is grossly misleading.

Yes, you are right. I didn't included that it was in regards to their series against the Red Sox, not in general.
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
And attendance boost may be in part to a large part of their fan base being able to attend more games as they are in retired land, which will seems good would actually indicate a problem.

Seems ratings for the first game were also lower than that gripping MNF match between giants and vikings.
 

HopJokey

Platinum Member
May 6, 2005
2,110
0
0
What's more important though? National ratings or local ratings combined with better ticket sales? Baseball averaged more than 30k tickets sold per game for 2,430 games and local ratings were insanely good this year. Averaging 30k per game for that many games is really impressive. I have to imagine there's more money in ticket sales combined with the merchandise and the like than the national broadcast games. It's obvious that there's so much money in the MLB now if you look at the ridiculous salaries being paid out.

The $$$ is all that matters and thus at this point the local stuff/ticket sales is more important. The national ratings (and globalization stuff) however is more for the long term health of the game.
 

Smartazz

Diamond Member
Dec 29, 2005
6,128
0
76
The $$$ is all that matters and thus at this point the local stuff/ticket sales is more important. The national ratings (and globalization stuff) however is more for the long term health of the game.

I hope the next commissioner recognizes this problem. Replay is a step in the right direction though.
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
The air times for these postseason games re one of the first things they need to change. But short term $$$$$ has such a grasp on that sport it isn't funny.