1986 Red Sox or 2011 Rangers?

[Cujo]

I'm pretty sure if we give this a year or two to settle, the bigger choke will belong to Boston-Bucker.

Texas' problem was that they couldn't close the deal. In the end, St. Louis EARNED wins in Games 6 & 7.

The Red Sox booted Game 6 to the Mets on an error -- An ERROR. Really, that says it all.

Except that's not what cost Boston that game. It just sealed the deal.

While true, the error still to this this day.

Let's also factor in the 68 years of "The Curse" that totrured Red Sox Nation.

Texas fans, while having never won a title in fifty years, didn't start showing up for games until Year 49.

[Quillz]

The Marlins have two world championships and the fans still don't show up.

[OnWis97]

I mean this in the best way, but no one cares about the Rangers. The 86 Red Sox were the heat and soul of a tortured city dirty water Jim Rice Ted Williams Carlton Fisk Mike Greenwell Carl Yasztremski Bambino Curse RED SOX, whereas the Rangers are a team that, until recently, was best known for being the team Nolan Ryan and Rafael Palmerio played for.

That's one way to look at it. From a national perspective, it'll never be as well remember/lamented as 1986.

But from a Sox Fan / Ranger Fan perspective, I'd say this year is worse. Twice being one strike away...worse.

[Cujo]

The Marlins have two world championships and the fans still don't show up.

And they factor into this conversation HOW?

[Quillz]

I disagree. Game 6 of the 2011 World Series will be remembered and talked about for quite a long time. If we remember '86 Game 6 because of the error, well, '11 Game 6 arguably had even more blown plays and bad decisions.

[Quillz]

The Marlins have two world championships and the fans still don't show up.

And they factor into this conversation HOW?

It doesn't at all. I just thought it was interesting how actual on-field success does not necessarily guarantee financial success.

That is to say, I don't think Texas is historically a baseball market. I don't think their overall lack of success is the reason why "fans didn't show up until Year 49," as you implied. I think they would have suffered from low attendance even if they had won a championship by now.

Regardless, none of this has anything to do with the conversation at hand.

[JayJaxon]

Losing a Game 7 sucks no matter how you slice it. This is especially true when you had the previous game well in hand. The Rangers can look at the positive in this though, they have an excellent chance to come back to the World Series next year....the third time worked for the Braves. Maybe it will work for Texas too.

[Quillz]

Losing a Game 7 sucks no matter how you slice it. This is especially true when you had the previous game well in hand. The Rangers can look at the positive in this though, they have an excellent chance to come back to the World Series next year....the third time worked for the Braves. Maybe it will work for Texas too.

And I 100% agree with this. The Rangers have nothing to be ashamed of. They won two consecutive AL pennants, that alone is an amazing accomplishment. Then, they forced the Cardinals to win it in seven. Sure, they lost, but they provided an exciting series.

They keep their young core, improve the starting pitching, I'd say they still have a great shot at a third straight pennant. If they once again can play against Tampa Bay or any other team they seem to match up well against, then hey, maybe it will happen. I think they're bound to win eventually.

Not to mention that Nolan Ryan appears to be a good owner, along with the rest of the front office. Another key to long-term success.

[Cujo]

The Marlins have two world championships and the fans still don't show up.

And they factor into this conversation HOW?

It doesn't at all. I just thought it was interesting how actual on-field success does not necessarily guarantee financial success.

That is to say, I don't think Texas is historically a baseball market. I don't think their overall lack of success is the reason why "fans didn't show up until Year 49," as you implied. I think they would have suffered from low attendance even if they had won a championship by now.

Regardless, none of this has anything to do with the conversation at hand.

It's got nothing to do with money. I mentioned "Year 49" because about 10% of the state of Texas even know the Rangers even exist. Who down there will even remember the 2011 World Series after tomorrow?

On the other hand, not just all of New England, but the entire nation knew about the Red Sox's futility. Them blowing a chance to end "The Curse" is still a major part of baseball lore. Quite possibly the most imfamous play in sports history.

[Quillz]

The Marlins have two world championships and the fans still don't show up.

And they factor into this conversation HOW?

It doesn't at all. I just thought it was interesting how actual on-field success does not necessarily guarantee financial success.

That is to say, I don't think Texas is historically a baseball market. I don't think their overall lack of success is the reason why "fans didn't show up until Year 49," as you implied. I think they would have suffered from low attendance even if they had won a championship by now.

Regardless, none of this has anything to do with the conversation at hand.

It's got nothing to do with money. I mentioned "Year 49" because about 10% of the state of Texas even know the Rangers even exist. Who down there will even remember the 2011 World Series after tomorrow?

On the other hand, not just all of New England, but the entire nation knew about the Red Sox's futility. Them blowing a chance to end "The Curse" is still a major part of baseball lore. Quite possibly the most imfamous play in sports history.

I'm sure many people in Texas will remember the 2011 World Series. I will. Not sure where you're getting the assumption that only "10%" of the state even know the Rangers exist.

Frankly, anyone who watched the 2011 World Series (and I'm going on a limb here and assuming it wasn't entirely limited to Missouri and Texas) will know about Texas's own futility and their Game 6 collapse. Maybe Texas doesn't have the history the Red Sox have, but they are no stranger to futility, either.

[knnhrvy16]

The Marlins have two world championships and the fans still don't show up.

And they factor into this conversation HOW?

It doesn't at all. I just thought it was interesting how actual on-field success does not necessarily guarantee financial success.

That is to say, I don't think Texas is historically a baseball market. I don't think their overall lack of success is the reason why "fans didn't show up until Year 49," as you implied. I think they would have suffered from low attendance even if they had won a championship by now.

Regardless, none of this has anything to do with the conversation at hand.

It's got nothing to do with money. I mentioned "Year 49" because about 10% of the state of Texas even know the Rangers even exist. Who down there will even remember the 2011 World Series after tomorrow?

Say what? Judging by my many trips to Texas and by discussions with my Texan family members, I'd say that claim is false. Sure, football is probably king in Texas, but the Rangers aren't chopped liver down there, either. From what I've observed, they're supported well.

[AndrewPF]

The Rangers collapse was more drastic and drawn out and painful, I'd think. The 86 Red Sox "collapse" is only remembered because that one error by Buckner was so egregious that it became cemented in every baseball fan's mind for the rest of eternity.

[bosrs1]

The goat for the Rangers definitely isn't a player... sure, there were errors and the bullpen sucked, but 95% of the Rangers losing game 6 was Ron Washington's 'turrible' managing.

I was going to make an inappropriate joke about coke, but I was laughing too hard at the Rangers to type it out.

[oddball]

I wouldn't call the what happened to the Rangers a collapse. I'd give all the credit to the Cardinals for being a very tough team and a team that believed it would win. I know people want to jump on the choke job and the utter collapse bandwagon, but to be a choke job or a collapse you have to control of a game or series, and this series was going to be the last man standing. It was a tough fought series between two really good teams. If you think that the Rangers choked in game 6, then you obviously never paid attention to the fact that they never had control of the game. Everytime they scored, St. Louis came back. I've been on the field in those games and have coached in those games, and until the last out is made you don't feel confident. Game 6 was what this World Series was about, just two teams fighting it out tooth and nail and the Cardinals fought a little harder. It was far from a collapse. Give St. Louis credit.

As far as comparing it to the Red Sox in '86, I can see the comparison. If you want to talk about a team that collapsed, then look at the '86 Angels who were down to the last strike with a 5-2 lead and they lost in extras and then went back to Boston only needing to win one of those games. The Angels didn't even bother to show up getting beat 10-4 in Game 6, and 8-1 in Game 7. That is one of the worst collapses ever.

[Saintsfan]

I'd say the Red Sox collapse was more painful if only because it was a complete mess. The Rangers lost on a few timely hits, the Sox gave it to the Mets in '86.

[wdm1219inpenna]

My answer is "both" to this question.

For me, the Rangers defeat was more painful, only because I would have liked for them to have won their 1st ever World Series. As it is, Texas is now a collective 0-3 in World Series competition. I think however it's a really incredible story the way the Cardinals kept fighting back. Seems so ironic, here in the Delaware Valley, they are calling for SNOW!!! Ironic because the Cardinals ousted the hometown favorite Phillies, much to my utter DELIGHT!!!!. Ironic because the World Series MVP went to Mr. Freese "Freeze".

The Red Sox collapse in '86 was less painful to me A. because at the time I was a Yankees fan and I detested the Red Sox, and B. I was rooting for the Mets to beat Boston.

Historically, it's tough to say. At the moment, the '86 collapse was far more monumental. Red Sox hadn't won since 1918, it was 68 years, for the Rangers, just 51 years, or 40 if you discount the fact that the franchise was the Washington Senators Part Deux from 1961-71. Seems ironic, Ted Williams was the Rangers first manager...Ironic too the Rangers used to be in D.C. and their head man is named Washington.

The Rangers loss is painful too because I really like Nolan Ryan and would have loved to have seen him get a trophy as an owner. He was part of the '69 Mets but he seemed so insignificant with that team somehow, and he never got to play in another World Series. Most of all, I wanted the Rangers to win for Josh Hamilton's sake, as well as the sake of that little boy who witnessed the very tragic death of his father at the game. I have a feeling that had the Rangers won, they would have asked that young boy and his mother to participate as honorary grand marshals in their victory parade.

While many can't stand LaRussa, one must tip one's cap to the man. 3rd all time winningest manager. He's taken 6 teams to the World Series, and has won 3 and lost 3.

The thing that troubles me most about the Cards win is here we go, yet ANOTHER wild card team won the World Series. It seems a disproportionate number of wild card teams have made it to, and have won, the World Series. I still like my idea, implementing other ideas that have been suggested by the powers that be with MLB. 2 wild card teams play a 1 game play-in playoff game. My idea includes to expand the L.D.S. to 7 games. The 3 seed always plays the 2 seed in the best 4 out of 7. The wildcard seed (4 or 5) always plays the #1 seed, even if they are from the same division. However in the 4/5 vs 1 seed, the 1 seed only has to win 3 games, the wildcard team has to win 5. Also, in that series, the top seed hosts games 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7, and the wild card team only gets to host games 3 and 4. This guarantees at least 1 home game for the wild card team, and it also guarantees that even if the wild card team goes up 4 games to 0, they still would have to win the Division Series on the road.

What pains me most is I work 6am to 2pm and am usually asleep by 7:30 or 8pm each night. Last night I fought to stay awake. I made it to the 5th inning. As soon St. Louis' 4th run was scored, courtesy of a based loaded walk, I muttered "This game and series is over", and I fell asleep.

I think historically, the Red Sox '86 collapse was more painful too because it was Boston vs. New York. While St. Louis has a long and storied history, the Texas Rangers are kind of like....meh.... When I told one lady at work that the Texas Rangers were in the World Series, she said "I've never even heard of them."

I wanted the Rangers to win because my cousin is a Cubs fan. Let me explain.

The Angels 42 year drought ended in 2002.

The Giants 56 year drought ended in 2010.

The White Sox 88 year drought ended in 2005.

The Red Sox 86 year drought ended in 2004.

My theory is, once all the other teams who have had very long droughts win the World Series, then and ONLY then will the Cubs finally win one. I define a drought as over 30 years ago, since there are 30 teams currently, so newer teams like the Rays & Rockies who never won a World Series won't be included in this list.

Indians haven't won since 1948. (63 seasons and counting)

Rangers haven't won ever, established 1961. (51 seasons and counting)

Pirates haven't won since 1979

Nationals haven't ever won, established 1969 (43 seasons and counting)

Ditto the Padres and Brewers.

Mariners haven't ever won or even made it there, established 1977 (35 seasons and counting)

Astros have never won it, established 1962 (50 seasons and counting)

So once all 8 of these teams wins a World Series, then and ONLY then shall the Cubs finally win it! World without end, Amen.

[The_Admiral]

That was the worst post I've ever read.

[Lights Out]

I mean this in the best way, but no one cares about the Rangers.

Thank you, Arbiter of Caring.

Anyway, the '86 Red Sox were worse. Leaving Buckner in with bad ankles instead of replacing him with Dave Stapleton (like they usually did when they had a late lead) has to go down as one of, if not the, worst managerial decisions of all time.

[BrySmalls]

1986 Boston Red Sox. This may have been the best team the Sox would have put on the field until the late 1990s and for most of the 2000s.

[The_Admiral]

Seems so ironic, here in the Delaware Valley, they are calling for SNOW!!! Ironic because the Cardinals ousted the hometown favorite Phillies, much to my utter DELIGHT!!!!. Ironic because the World Series MVP went to Mr. Freese "Freeze".

Seems ironic, Ted Williams was the Rangers first manager...Ironic too the Rangers used to be in D.C. and their head man is named Washington.

NONE OF THIS IS WHAT IRONY IS.

The Rangers loss is painful too because I really like Nolan Ryan and would have loved to have seen him get a trophy as an owner. He was part of the '69 Mets but he seemed so insignificant with that team somehow

Against the Braves in the NLCS, Ryan completed a Mets sweep by throwing seven innings of relief in Game 3

While many can't stand LaRussa, one must tip one's cap to the man. 3rd all time winningest manager. He's taken 6 teams to the World Series, and has won 3 and lost 3.

This is a .500 record

The thing that troubles me most about the Cards win is here we go, yet ANOTHER wild card team won the World Series. It seems a disproportionate number of wild card teams have made it to, and have won, the World Series.

29% of the pennants since 1995 were won by wild card teams. Given that wild cards account for 25% of the playoff field, this isn't really far from statistical expectation.

I wanted the Rangers to win because my cousin is a Cubs fan. Let me explain.

The Angels 42 year drought ended in 2002.

The Giants 56 year drought ended in 2010.

The White Sox 88 year drought ended in 2005.

The Red Sox 86 year drought ended in 2004.

My theory is, once all the other teams who have had very long droughts win the World Series, then and ONLY then will the Cubs finally win one. I define a drought as over 30 years ago, since there are 30 teams currently, so newer teams like the Rays & Rockies who never won a World Series won't be included in this list.

Indians haven't won since 1948. (63 seasons and counting)

Rangers haven't won ever, established 1961. (51 seasons and counting)

Pirates haven't won since 1979

Nationals haven't ever won, established 1969 (43 seasons and counting)

Ditto the Padres and Brewers.

Mariners haven't ever won or even made it there, established 1977 (35 seasons and counting)

Astros have never won it, established 1962 (50 seasons and counting)

So once all 8 of these teams wins a World Series, then and ONLY then shall the Cubs finally win it! World without end, Amen.

This is a collection of factual statements which somehow add up to utterly stupefying nonsense.