The Red Sox are, apparently, historically bizarre

[WilliamPitt]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/fallclassic/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=1908250

"This," laughed Kevin Millar, "is the Red Sox. I don't know why, but nothing comes easy for us. Maybe that's not a good thing. But it's just good enough to beat you."

Well, it was Saturday night, anyhow. In the end, Mark Bellhorn's eighth-inning home run off the right-field foul pole was enough to finally put this classic away. But while this may have been standard Red Sox behavior, it sure wasn't standard October behavior -- at least not for anyone else.

Consider what went on out there:

The winning team committed four errors -- two by Manny Ramirez, one by Millar and one by reliever Bronson Arroyo.

So how often does a team that makes four errors in a World Series game still find a way to win? Well, it hadn't happened in 52 years, if that gives you any idea. The Yankees last did it -- in Game 7 of the 1952 World Series. That's 294 World Series games ago.

The Red Sox kicked off this World Series with a four-run first inning and roared out to a 7-2 lead in the third inning. Four innings later, they were tied at 7-7.

So how often does a team blow a five-run lead and still win a World Series game? Only two other teams in history ever pulled that off -- the 1942 Cardinals (blew a 6-1 lead in Game 4 but won, 9-6) and the 2002 Angels (blew a 5-0 lead to the Giants in Game 2 but won, 11-10).

But neither of those two teams made that five-run lead disappear and then let another lead (in this case, 9-7, in the eighth) evaporate. So what these ever-innovative Red Sox accomplished Saturday was as unique as it gets.

One week after giving up 19 runs to the Yankees in their rock-bottom October moment, the Sox allowed nine to a Cardinals team that led the National League in runs scored -- and, of course, still won by two.

So how often does a team give up nine runs or more in a World Series game and still come out a winner? These Red Sox were only the fifth team ever to do that, joining the 1960 Pirates, 1993 Blue Jays, 1997 Marlins and 2002 Angels.

What you'll notice, though, is that no team ever mushed together all those miracles on the same day before. That, however, is a tribute to a team that shrugs off all calamities -- major or minor, April or October.

...more...

[Zorra]

1. Sox in Six.

[Droopy]

2. I said the Sox were getting lucky earlier

and somebody jumped all over my case. Yeah the Sox are good to overcome all of those mistakes, but let me tell you, they cannot keep giving up four errors a game and expect to win. The fact that they've done so so far is not only a testament to being a good offensive team, but it also means that they've been lucky.

[Seabiscuit]

3. They committed 4 more errors in Game 2 and still won. Again.

Who cares how they win, as long as they become Series champs?

[joeybee12]

4. Last time a team committed 8 errors in first two games? The 1912 Red Sox!

And they ended up winning it all!

It's Destiny, baby!

[rockydem]

5. are you one to talk?

[unblock]

6. somebody over at espn had some fun with ad hoc sql queries

actually that sounds like a fun job....

[autorank]

7. These guys are great!

They just get up there and knock the crap out of the ball, like it's their God given right. They get either great or adequate pitching and they make all sorts of errors. I've always thought good fielding was a sign of a petty obsessions and undo perfectionism. They're great to watch and about to make history.

[WilliamPitt]

8. .

[FunBobbyMucha]

9. There is still plenty of time to fuck this up.

I expect a game 7, in which the Sox will screw up in some minor, tragic way, in the last three innings, by blowing a slight lead with an error. Perhaps a bird will be involved.

Sorry, fans, I'm a realist. This is Boston we're talking about. You got in the series, celebrate that fact. No way Boston can win.

(Halt that flame! I'm trying not to jinx us...)

[Ellen Forradalom]

10. Red Sox fans are hysterically bizarre

I live with one.

[WilliamPitt]

11. .