They BLEW it!!

[GeddyRulz]

QUOTE (laughedatbytime @ Dec 5 2010, 08:25 PM)

QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Dec 5 2010, 08:15 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jan 6 2008, 11:34 AM) Red Sox 1986 World Series Game 6. Nuff said... Exactly what I was thinking. Yes, they DEFINITELY "blew it." One strike away from winning their first World Series since 1918... they blow the game, and Game 7.   I don't care; I'm a Yankee fan. But what a "They blew it" moment!   But the Sox of 1919-2004 were FULL of blown moments, eh? Is that really worse than blowing a series where the losing team lost 4 in a row to blow a 3-0 lead?   Especially when the payroll of the losing team was so much higher than the winners' payroll...   Hard to say; it's a matter of individual opinion "which is worse." I will say this:   1. I watched Game Three of the 2004 ALCS with my brother, a fellow Yankee fan, and I admit to getting cocky after the Yankee win. "There's NO WAY we (NYY) can lose this series now! The Red Sox would have to win four straight, without a single Yankee win. The Sox couldn't POSSIBLY do that against the mighty Yankees!" (And yet they did.) The greater point I'm trying to make here, to paraphrase baseball author Cait Murphy, is that the baseball gods are fickle; humbleness will be rewarded in the end, whereas the overly boastful will be made to pay for their cockiness.   2. With the "they blew it" idea, should it be applied more to INDIVIDUAL GAMES or entire series, entire seasons, and entire francises? For a single game loss, I'd go with the Bill Buckner game in 1986. For a SERIES loss, maybe I too would pick the Yankees loss in the 2004 ALCS. For a SEASON loss, I'd go back to the Sox and their loss of the 1978 pennant: up by 14 games in late August, they still lost their division. For francise loss, it's a choice between the Sox (until 2004) or the Cubbies.   3. Almost forgot to throw this other point into the mix: You mention how the Yankees payroll is SO MUCH HIGHER than the Red Sox, but I think that's a common exaggeration. Fans, especially SOX fans, love to say how the Yankees "buy their championships," but the Sox fan needs to remember that THEIR payroll is second ONLY to the Yankees! In other words, it's true that the Yankees had the highest payroll in the Amercian League... but the Sox had the SECOND HIGHEST at the time, and there wasn't the huge gap between the two team payrolls which people assume.

[g under p]

QUOTE (asp324 @ Jul 9 2008, 08:56 PM)

QUOTE (ReRushed @ Jan 4 2008, 08:58 PM) The New York Yankees in the 2004 American League Championship Series.  How can you be 3 games up to none and lose the series?  I still feel sick in the stomach to this day.  Loved it, I like the avatar too.

[RushCanuck]

I don't think this has been posted yet. Phil Mickleson 2006 US Open blowing the 18th hole. Didn't he say something like 'I am such an idiot'? I remember Johnny Miller saying that Ben Hogan was turning over in his grave.

[barney_rebel]

top 10 plays coming up on TSN in a few minutes.

[laughedatbytime]

QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Dec 6 2010, 03:06 AM)

3. Almost forgot to throw this other point into the mix: You mention how the Yankees payroll is SO MUCH HIGHER than the Red Sox, but I think that's a common exaggeration. Fans, especially SOX fans, love to say how the Yankees "buy their championships," but the Sox fan needs to remember that THEIR payroll is second ONLY to the Yankees! In other words, it's true that the Yankees had the highest payroll in the Amercian League... but the Sox had the SECOND HIGHEST at the time, and there wasn't the huge gap between the two team payrolls which people assume.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1778397

 

Here's the 2004 payroll data. The Yankees payroll is over 40% higher than the Red Sox, and the gap between the Yankees and the Red Sox is greater than the gap between the Red Sox and the Braves, with the ninth highest payroll. That, to me, constitutes a huge gap. With the payroll difference that has existed in the last ten years, one WS championship over that time is woefully bad performance.

 

Team Payroll Average

N.Y. Yankees $182,835,513 $6,304,673

Boston 125,208,542 4,173,618

Anaheim 101,084,667 3,743,877

New York Mets 100,629,303 3,870,358

Philadelphia 93,219,167 3,452,562

Chicago Cubs 91,101,667 3,141,437

Los Angeles 89,694,342 3,449,782

Atlanta 88,507,788 3,160,992

San Francisco 82,019,167 2,645,780

Seattle 81,543,833 2,912,280

St. Louis 75,633,517 3,025,341

Houston 74,666,303 2,986,652

Arizona 70,204,984 2,420,862

Ch. White Sox 65,212,500 2,508,173

Colorado 64,590,403 2,306,800

Oakland 59,825,167 2,215,747

Texas 54,825,973 1,890,551

San Diego 54,639,503 2,185,580

Minnesota 53,585,000 2,060,962

Baltimore 51,212,653 1,829,023

Toronto 50,017,000 1,923,731

Kansas City 47,609,000 1,586,967

Detroit 46,353,554 1,655,484

Montreal 43,197,500 1,439,917

Cincinnati 43,067,858 1,538,138

Florida 42,118,042 1,559,927

Cleveland 34,569,300 1,152,310

Pittsburgh 32,227,929 1,193,627

Tampa Bay 29,506,667 1,092,840

Milwaukee 27,518,500 1,100,740

 

[GeddyRulz]

You're talking about a huge disparity between the team with the highest payroll and the team with the second highest payroll. Looking at your numbers, we have the Yankees with $183 million (I'll round up) and the Sox with $125 million (I'll round down). At these high amounts, is there really much of a difference?

 

The argument the Sox fans make is that the Yankees spend lots and lots of money and "buy their championships." I'd say look at their own payroll... it wasn't much less than the Yankees.

 

QUOTE

The Yankees payroll is over 40% higher than the Red Sox...

 

Try the math again. Using the figures you provided, the Yankees payroll is NOT "over 40% higher than the Red Sox." It's not even 32% higher. In other words, the Red Sox spent MORE THAN 2/3rds what the Yankees spent. Not a big disparity.

 

QUOTE

With the payroll difference that has existed in the last ten years, one WS championship over that time is woefully bad performance.

 

You're falling into the same fallacy that you accuse Steinbrenner of: the idea that "the more you spend, the more you should win."

Edited December 10, 2010 by GeddyRulz

[ReRushed]

QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Dec 10 2010, 10:14 AM)

You're talking about a huge disparity between the team with the highest payroll and the team with the second highest payroll. Looking at your numbers, we have the Yankees with $183 million (I'll round up) and the Sox with $125 million (I'll round down). At these high amounts, is there really much of a difference? The argument the Sox fans make is that the Yankees spend lots and lots of money and "buy their championships." I'd say look at their own payroll... it wasn't much less than the Yankees. QUOTE With the payroll difference that has existed in the last ten years, one WS championship over that time is woefully bad performance.   You're falling into the same fallacy that you accuse Steinbrenner of: the idea that "the more you spend, the more you should win." The Yankees can and do overpay for their players. They will do it again trying to sign Cliff Lee. Look at Jeter's contract, he's overpaid. A-Rod, overpaid. Posada, overpaid. Burnett, overpaid. Sabathia, overpaid.   Anyway, the Red Sox do it to, albeit on a smaller scale. Carl Crawford is now the highest paid outfielder in MLB. Overpaid. And wait until the Gonzalez extension is signed. Oh, boy...   The guy down the block makes more money than me and has a bigger house and a better car. Big deal. I don't care, I can still throw a hell of a party...

[GeddyRulz]

QUOTE (ReRushed @ Dec 10 2010, 10:32 AM)

QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Dec 10 2010, 10:14 AM) You're talking about a huge disparity between the team with the highest payroll and the team with the second highest payroll.  Looking at your numbers, we have the Yankees with $183 million (I'll round up) and the Sox with $125 million (I'll round down).  At these high amounts, is there really much of a difference? The argument the Sox fans make is that the Yankees spend lots and lots of money and "buy their championships."  I'd say look at their own payroll... it wasn't much less than the Yankees. QUOTE With the payroll difference that has existed in the last ten years, one WS championship over that time is woefully bad performance.   You're falling into the same fallacy that you accuse Steinbrenner of: the idea that "the more you spend, the more you should win." The Yankees can and do overpay for their players. They will do it again trying to sign Cliff Lee. Look at Jeter's contract, he's overpaid. A-Rod, overpaid. Posada, overpaid. Burnett, overpaid. Sabathia, overpaid.   Anyway, the Red Sox do it to, albeit on a smaller scale. Carl Crawford is now the highest paid outfielder in MLB. Overpaid. And wait until the Gonzalez extension is signed. Oh, boy...   The guy down the block makes more money than me and has a bigger house and a better car. Big deal. I don't care, I can still throw a hell of a party... True, true, true.   I can't deny the Yankees have lots of money and spend it. But so do the Sox, just not as much.   And I like what you said about the guy down the block versus you. If your neighbor had $183 million and you "only" had $125 million, would you be jealous?

[laughedatbytime]

QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Dec 10 2010, 10:14 AM)

You're talking about a huge disparity between the team with the highest payroll and the team with the second highest payroll. Looking at your numbers, we have the Yankees with $183 million (I'll round up) and the Sox with $125 million (I'll round down). At these high amounts, is there really much of a difference? The argument the Sox fans make is that the Yankees spend lots and lots of money and "buy their championships." I'd say look at their own payroll... it wasn't much less than the Yankees. QUOTE The Yankees payroll is over 40% higher than the Red Sox...   Try the math again. Using the figures you provided, the Yankees payroll is NOT "over 40% higher than the Red Sox." It's not even 32% higher. In other words, the Red Sox spent MORE THAN 2/3rds what the Yankees spent. Not a big disparity.   QUOTE With the payroll difference that has existed in the last ten years, one WS championship over that time is woefully bad performance.   You're falling into the same fallacy that you accuse Steinbrenner of: the idea that "the more you spend, the more you should win." OK, first of all, $183 million is 46.4% (rounded) more than $125 million, so the statement that the Yankees spent more than 40% more than the Bosox is absolutely correct. I believe you took $125/$183 and subtracted one which produces the 31.6% is the amount less the Bosox spent than the Yankees.   Listen, no one is denying that the Yankees (and the Bosox) have the right under the current rules to spend as much as they want. What I am saying is that the disparity in spending is killing the competitive balance in the game, and with it, my interest. Compare that to the NFL where everyone spends similar amounts and the competitive balance of the league means that every team has a shot. The Royals, Pirates, Rays, etc., have absolutely no way to be competitive in the long term under the current financial system and the Yankees (and probably the Red Sox) have to be grossly incompetent not to be competitive.   Put another way, would you enter a fantasy baseball league where someone had $183 million in revenue to spend on players, the next person had $125 million and everyone else had no more than $100 million, with many players, which could include you, having considerably less? If the commissioner charged an equal fee, and you had $75 million to spend, would you buy in? If the person who had $183 million won and was bragging about it, wouldn't he/she look stupid? If he/she didn't win, wouldn't he/she look pretty incompetent. I sure wouldn't get in such a league, it's not a level playing field.   It's not a fallacy, the more you spend, the more you should win. I don't blame Steinbrenner, he's doing what it takes to win and does it within the rules. Some others don't and they should take some of the blame for this. But the revenue sources will never be the same, and the Yankees will always have a huge (and to some degree self-perpetuating advantage). Why would you pay your players 46% more than the second highest spender if there's no advantage to doing it? Largesse?   No, I wouldn't complain if I had $125 million and my neighbor has $183 million, but neither would I expect to outbid him on something he had his heart set on getting.

[ILSnwdog]

QUOTE (laughedatbytime @ Dec 10 2010, 04:48 PM)

QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Dec 10 2010, 10:14 AM) You're talking about a huge disparity between the team with the highest payroll and the team with the second highest payroll.  Looking at your numbers, we have the Yankees with $183 million (I'll round up) and the Sox with $125 million (I'll round down).  At these high amounts, is there really much of a difference? The argument the Sox fans make is that the Yankees spend lots and lots of money and "buy their championships."  I'd say look at their own payroll... it wasn't much less than the Yankees. QUOTE The Yankees payroll is over 40% higher than the Red Sox...   Try the math again. Using the figures you provided, the Yankees payroll is NOT "over 40% higher than the Red Sox." It's not even 32% higher. In other words, the Red Sox spent MORE THAN 2/3rds what the Yankees spent. Not a big disparity.   QUOTE With the payroll difference that has existed in the last ten years, one WS championship over that time is woefully bad performance.   You're falling into the same fallacy that you accuse Steinbrenner of: the idea that "the more you spend, the more you should win." OK, first of all, $183 million is 46.4% (rounded) more than $125 million, so the statement that the Yankees spent more than 40% more than the Bosox is absolutely correct. I believe you took $125/$183 and subtracted one which produces the 31.6% is the amount less the Bosox spent than the Yankees.   Listen, no one is denying that the Yankees (and the Bosox) have the right under the current rules to spend as much as they want. What I am saying is that the disparity in spending is killing the competitive balance in the game, and with it, my interest. Compare that to the NFL where everyone spends similar amounts and the competitive balance of the league means that every team has a shot. The Royals, Pirates, Rays, etc., have absolutely no way to be competitive in the long term under the current financial system and the Yankees (and probably the Red Sox) have to be grossly incompetent not to be competitive.   Put another way, would you enter a fantasy baseball league where someone had $183 million in revenue to spend on players, the next person had $125 million and everyone else had no more than $100 million, with many players, which could include you, having considerably less? If the commissioner charged an equal fee, and you had $75 million to spend, would you buy in? If the person who had $183 million won and was bragging about it, wouldn't he/she look stupid? If he/she didn't win, wouldn't he/she look pretty incompetent. I sure wouldn't get in such a league, it's not a level playing field.   It's not a fallacy, the more you spend, the more you should win. I don't blame Steinbrenner, he's doing what it takes to win and does it within the rules. Some others don't and they should take some of the blame for this. But the revenue sources will never be the same, and the Yankees will always have a huge (and to some degree self-perpetuating advantage). Why would you pay your players 46% more than the second highest spender if there's no advantage to doing it? Largesse?   No, I wouldn't complain if I had $125 million and my neighbor has $183 million, but neither would I expect to outbid him on something he had his heart set on getting. It's not really fair to compare baseball with the NFL because the NFL has the unique situation where the league negotiates the TV contract for all teams then equally distributes the TV money with all teams. Plus, with only 8 home games it is much easier to sell out tickets to each game, even in Green Bay.   In baseball, the Yankees are going to have a much more lucrative TV contract than any other team in baseball because they are in the largest market...and unless there is a salary cap, they are always going to have more revenue to draw from when playing their players.

[laughedatbytime]

QUOTE (ILSnwdog @ Dec 10 2010, 05:14 PM)

It's not really fair to compare baseball with the NFL because the NFL has the unique situation where the league negotiates the TV contract for all teams then equally distributes the TV money with all teams. Plus, with only 8 home games it is much easier to sell out tickets to each game, even in Green Bay. In baseball, the Yankees are going to have a much more lucrative TV contract than any other team in baseball because they are in the largest market...and unless there is a salary cap, they are always going to have more revenue to draw from when playing their players.

The competitive balance resulting from the NFL's revenue sharing arrangement is responsible in large part for why the NFL is by far the most popular league and, if anything, increasing in popularity, while MLB's popularity has slipped badly, in part because of the lack of competitive balance. I'm not sure why anyone would be a Pirate or Royal fan and invest their time in those franchises when it is impossible for those teams to compete in anything other than the extreme short term due to the fundamental economic structure of the sport.

[GeddyRulz]

Edited December 11, 2010 by GeddyRulz

[ReRushed]

[GeddysMullet]

QUOTE (Barney's Alter @ Jan 4 2008, 10:28 PM)

There was a mlb game in the late 70's or early 80's where they guy hit an infield blooper, and broke his bat. The shards from the broken bat got in the way of the person fielding the ball. That play ended up costing the game winning run. Anyone know which game this was?

I know that something like this happened in a Dodgers game in '90 or '91. Mike Sharperson hit a broken-bat blooper to third and the flying bat barrel knocked the ball down before the third baseman could field it. I think I still have that game on an old VHS tape somewhere, but good luck to me if I ever tried to find it.

[laughedatbytime]

For those who think that spending money doesn't correlate with winning, I present the 2010 Heisman Trophy winner Cam Newton.

 

The highest paid player in college football was just voted the most outstanding player.

[barney_rebel]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789//vp/40924066#40924066

[alphseeker]

uuuhhhhh New Orleans Saints - losing to the lowly Seahawks -

[Middle Kingdom]

The 2004 Yankees will be the all time winners of this thread.

They were built to win, and had the greatest closer of all time on the mound in the 9th inning with the lead. No way this series should not have been a sweep.

 

The 1942 Red Wings would be next for blowing a 3-0 series lead like the Yankees, in the Stanley Cup finals.

 

The 2010 Bruins would then be third for achieving the same feat in last year's second round of the NHL playoffs.

 

 

I'd agree with GerryRulz, that the seasonal choke award goes to the 78 Red Sox.

 

Buckner's bonehead error was huge, and lost game 6,

but no one seems to remember that had he made the play, it was still a tie game, and the Sox could have easily lost in another inning on a non-booted play.

 

That and the Sox were up 3-0 with Hurst in control through 5 innings in game 7.

[ReflectedLight]

the 06 olympics when jacobellis lost the gold because she was showing off.

she had the gold in the bag.

[laughedatbytime]

QUOTE (Middle Kingdom @ Jan 29 2011, 07:51 AM)

The 2004 Yankees will be the all time winners of this thread. They were built to win, and had the greatest closer of all time on the mound in the 9th inning with the lead. No way this series should not have been a sweep. The 1942 Red Wings would be next for blowing a 3-0 series lead like the Yankees, in the Stanley Cup finals. The 2010 Bruins would then be third for achieving the same feat in last year's second round of the NHL playoffs. I'd agree with GerryRulz, that the seasonal choke award goes to the 78 Red Sox. Buckner's bonehead error was huge, and lost game 6, but no one seems to remember that had he made the play, it was still a tie game, and the Sox could have easily lost in another inning on a non-booted play. That and the Sox were up 3-0 with Hurst in control through 5 innings in game 7.

For in season chokes:

 

I'm not sure that the 64 Phils or the 51 Dodgers weren't bigger choke artists than the 78 Bosox.

 

The 64 Phils had a 6.5 game lead with 12 to play and lost 10 in a row

 

The 51 Dodgers were 13.5 up on Aug 11 and lost the pennant in a playoff

 

The 78 Bosox were up on the Yanks by 14.5 in July (though the Yanks weren't in second at the time), and had lost the lead in early to mid September. They then won 11 of their last 13 to force a playoff. The Boston Massacre (Sept 7-10) may have been the most disastrous regular season series ever, with the Yanks winning all four games against Boston in Fenway, 15-3, 13-2, 7-0, and 7-4.

 

You could make an argument for any of these.

Edited January 29, 2011 by laughedatbytime

[barney_rebel]

How about the Washington Crapitals last season (top team in the NHL) vs the last seed in the playoffs (the Habs).

 

30+ points separated the two when the Habs barely made the 8th seed. Habs ended up taking out the Crapitals in the first round.

[laughedatbytime]

QUOTE (barney_rebel @ Jan 29 2011, 09:25 AM)

How about the Washington Crapitals last season (top team in the NHL) vs the last seed in the playoffs (the Habs). 30+ points separated the two when the Habs barely made the 8th seed. Habs ended up taking out the Crapitals in the first round.

Or almost anytime the San Jose Sharks get a #1 seed.

[ReflectedLight]

QUOTE (barney_rebel @ Jan 29 2011, 09:25 AM)

How about the Washington Crapitals last season (top team in the NHL) vs the last seed in the playoffs (the Habs). 30+ points separated the two when the Habs barely made the 8th seed. Habs ended up taking out the Crapitals in the first round.

which is why the regular season is a warmup for the playoffs. just get your foot in the door and than turn it up a notch when you're in. if you're a lock for a playoff spot rest some of your players once in a while and they will be stronger in the playoffs. regular season stats don't mean anything. the real season starts in the playoffs.

[lerxt1990]

QUOTE (laughedatbytime @ Jan 29 2011, 09:05 AM)

QUOTE (Middle Kingdom @ Jan 29 2011, 07:51 AM) The 2004 Yankees will be the all time winners of this thread. They were built to win, and had the greatest closer of all time on the mound in the 9th inning with the lead. No way this series should not have been a sweep. The 1942 Red Wings would be next for blowing a 3-0 series lead like the Yankees, in the Stanley Cup finals. The 2010 Bruins would then be third for achieving the same feat in last year's second round of the NHL playoffs. I'd agree with GerryRulz, that the seasonal choke award goes to the 78 Red Sox. Buckner's bonehead error was huge, and lost game 6, but no one seems to remember that had he made the play, it was still a tie game, and the Sox could have easily lost in another inning on a non-booted play. That and the Sox were up 3-0 with Hurst in control through 5 innings in game 7. For in season chokes:   I'm not sure that the 64 Phils or the 51 Dodgers weren't bigger choke artists than the 78 Bosox.   The 64 Phils had a 6.5 game lead with 12 to play and lost 10 in a row   The 51 Dodgers were 13.5 up on Aug 11 and lost the pennant in a playoff   The 78 Bosox were up on the Yanks by 14.5 in July (though the Yanks weren't in second at the time), and had lost the lead in early to mid September. They then won 11 of their last 13 to force a playoff. The Boston Massacre (Sept 7-10) may have been the most disastrous regular season series ever, with the Yanks winning all four games against Boston in Fenway, 15-3, 13-2, 7-0, and 7-4.   You could make an argument for any of these. I think the Mets collapse in '07 actually beats out the '64 Phillies. And this writer says it actually is worse than the '04 Yanks.   =============================   Why the 2007 Mets' Collapse is the Worst in MLB History The Mets Are the Biggest Chokers of Them All   By Zac Wassink   This is the third piece in a series of articles I will be writing for an Associated Content "magazine" of sorts regarding the collapse of the 2007 New York Mets. Being a fan of the Mets, these pieces will most likely not have the same tone or nature of my other articles. They will be from the point of view of the fan and not the analyst. Hopefully these articles will give some insight on the greatest collapse in the history of Major League Baseball as well as allow us, the fans of the New York Mets, some much needed peace heading into the 2008 season. Statistically speaking, nothing like the collapse of the 2007 New York Mets had ever happened before. No team in history had ever coughed up a seven game lead with only three weeks left in the season. Is it the biggest collapse in the history of professional sports? It's definitely up there. The 2007 New York Mets are without a doubt guilty of the biggest choke/collapse/cough-up/whatever you want to call it in the history of Major League Baseball. Many Mets fans are pointing to the Yankees of 2004 as the biggest choke-job in Major League Baseball history. That team, as is well known, took a 3-0 lead in the ALCS against the Boston Red Sox before losing four straight, the first team to ever lose a series after taking the first three games in the history of the Major Leagues. Nice try, Mets fans. It's time for fans to realize that the collapse of the 2007 is even worse than what the Yankees "accomplished" in 2004. Here are the reasons why that is true.   First reason why the 2007 Mets' collapse is the worst in MLB History: The Mets lost to bad teams at home   Regardless of the fact that the Yankees had a 3-0 in the ALCS, they were still playing a very good team. Schilling, Martinez, Lowe, Ramirez, Ortiz, and Damon are just the big names that were playing for the Red Sox in 2004. The 2007 Mets finished just one game behind the Phillies in the NL East. That means that all the Mets had to do was win two more games during their home stand at the end of the season in order to win the NL East. Instead, the Mets lost to the Nationals (73-89), the Cardinals (78-84) and the Marlins (71-91) in six out of the last seven games of the season. I want to reiterate that all of those games were played at Shea. At least in 2004 the Yankees only dropped the final two games of the series at home.   Second reason why the 2007 Mets' collapse is the worst in MLB History: They had two distinct chances to bury the Phillies   At the end of August the Mets played a four-game series at Philadelphia. At that point New York still had the division well in hand. A split of the series would have done huge damage to the psyche of the Phillies, not to mention all but end the chance that Philly would come back and take the NL East. Instead, the Mets got swept on the road in a series that included Billy Wagner blowing the final game after the Mets made a comeback of their own by scoring five runs in the top of the eighth. In the middle of September the two teams faced off again, this time at Shea. The Mets had just finished taking two out of three from the Atlanta Braves, thus completely burying the Braves in the NL East. Instead of doing the same to the Phillies the Mets were swept again, blowing leads in the first two games of the series. How big are those two games now? Those two games are the difference between the Mets playing baseball in October and sitting on the couch watching those ridiculous Dane Cook "Actober" commercials.   Those two reasons say it all. The 2007 New York Mets were in a position that any team would love to be in. They had a sizeable lead heading into the last month of the year and they had the schedule in their favor. The Mets had a chance to bury the second place team at home and blew it. Then, when all they had to do was win three out of seven games to make the playoffs the Mets were playing terrible teams at home. There is no reason that the Mets should not be playing in the playoffs this season. That is why the 2007 Mets are guilty of the biggest choke in the history of Major League Baseball.

[ReflectedLight]

QUOTE (lerxt1990 @ Jan 29 2011, 09:37 AM)

QUOTE (laughedatbytime @ Jan 29 2011, 09:05 AM) QUOTE (Middle Kingdom @ Jan 29 2011, 07:51 AM) The 2004 Yankees will be the all time winners of this thread. They were built to win, and had the greatest closer of all time on the mound in the 9th inning with the lead. No way this series should not have been a sweep. The 1942 Red Wings would be next for blowing a 3-0 series lead like the Yankees, in the Stanley Cup finals. The 2010 Bruins would then be third for achieving the same feat in last year's second round of the NHL playoffs. I'd agree with GerryRulz, that the seasonal choke award goes to the 78 Red Sox. Buckner's bonehead error was huge, and lost game 6, but no one seems to remember that had he made the play, it was still a tie game, and the Sox could have easily lost in another inning on a non-booted play. That and the Sox were up 3-0 with Hurst in control through 5 innings in game 7. For in season chokes:   I'm not sure that the 64 Phils or the 51 Dodgers weren't bigger choke artists than the 78 Bosox.   The 64 Phils had a 6.5 game lead with 12 to play and lost 10 in a row   The 51 Dodgers were 13.5 up on Aug 11 and lost the pennant in a playoff   The 78 Bosox were up on the Yanks by 14.5 in July (though the Yanks weren't in second at the time), and had lost the lead in early to mid September. They then won 11 of their last 13 to force a playoff. The Boston Massacre (Sept 7-10) may have been the most disastrous regular season series ever, with the Yanks winning all four games against Boston in Fenway, 15-3, 13-2, 7-0, and 7-4.   You could make an argument for any of these. I think the Mets collapse in '07 actually beats out the '64 Phillies. And this writer says it actually is worse than the '04 Yanks.   =============================   Why the 2007 Mets' Collapse is the Worst in MLB History The Mets Are the Biggest Chokers of Them All   By Zac Wassink   This is the third piece in a series of articles I will be writing for an Associated Content "magazine" of sorts regarding the collapse of the 2007 New York Mets. Being a fan of the Mets, these pieces will most likely not have the same tone or nature of my other articles. They will be from the point of view of the fan and not the analyst. Hopefully these articles will give some insight on the greatest collapse in the history of Major League Baseball as well as allow us, the fans of the New York Mets, some much needed peace heading into the 2008 season. Statistically speaking, nothing like the collapse of the 2007 New York Mets had ever happened before. No team in history had ever coughed up a seven game lead with only three weeks left in the season. Is it the biggest collapse in the history of professional sports? It's definitely up there. The 2007 New York Mets are without a doubt guilty of the biggest choke/collapse/cough-up/whatever you want to call it in the history of Major League Baseball. Many Mets fans are pointing to the Yankees of 2004 as the biggest choke-job in Major League Baseball history. That team, as is well known, took a 3-0 lead in the ALCS against the Boston Red Sox before losing four straight, the first team to ever lose a series after taking the first three games in the history of the Major Leagues. Nice try, Mets fans. It's time for fans to realize that the collapse of the 2007 is even worse than what the Yankees "accomplished" in 2004. Here are the reasons why that is true.   First reason why the 2007 Mets' collapse is the worst in MLB History: The Mets lost to bad teams at home   Regardless of the fact that the Yankees had a 3-0 in the ALCS, they were still playing a very good team. Schilling, Martinez, Lowe, Ramirez, Ortiz, and Damon are just the big names that were playing for the Red Sox in 2004. The 2007 Mets finished just one game behind the Phillies in the NL East. That means that all the Mets had to do was win two more games during their home stand at the end of the season in order to win the NL East. Instead, the Mets lost to the Nationals (73-89), the Cardinals (78-84) and the Marlins (71-91) in six out of the last seven games of the season. I want to reiterate that all of those games were played at Shea. At least in 2004 the Yankees only dropped the final two games of the series at home.   Second reason why the 2007 Mets' collapse is the worst in MLB History: They had two distinct chances to bury the Phillies   At the end of August the Mets played a four-game series at Philadelphia. At that point New York still had the division well in hand. A split of the series would have done huge damage to the psyche of the Phillies, not to mention all but end the chance that Philly would come back and take the NL East. Instead, the Mets got swept on the road in a series that included Billy Wagner blowing the final game after the Mets made a comeback of their own by scoring five runs in the top of the eighth. In the middle of September the two teams faced off again, this time at Shea. The Mets had just finished taking two out of three from the Atlanta Braves, thus completely burying the Braves in the NL East. Instead of doing the same to the Phillies the Mets were swept again, blowing leads in the first two games of the series. How big are those two games now? Those two games are the difference between the Mets playing baseball in October and sitting on the couch watching those ridiculous Dane Cook "Actober" commercials.   Those two reasons say it all. The 2007 New York Mets were in a position that any team would love to be in. They had a sizeable lead heading into the last month of the year and they had the schedule in their favor. The Mets had a chance to bury the second place team at home and blew it. Then, when all they had to do was win three out of seven games to make the playoffs the Mets were playing terrible teams at home. There is no reason that the Mets should not be playing in the playoffs this season. That is why the 2007 Mets are guilty of the biggest choke in the history of Major League Baseball. at least they have a nice new stadium.