Over the last few years, we have become used to impressive Red Sox postseason comebacks. But tonight's comeback from 7-0 down in the 7th inning against Tampa Bay was their best single-game comeback yet. Indeed, it was the second-biggest postseason comeback of all time (the Philadelphia Athletics came back from 8-0 down against the Cubs in the 1929 World Series).
Even if the Red Sox end up winning the series, it will not be as incredible a series comeback as their unprecedented overcoming of a 3-0 series deficit in the 2004 ALCS against the hated Yankees. A comeback from 3-1 down is not as impressive as one from 3-0, and the Rays are not the Yankees. But no single game comeback in that series or any other in the last 80 years was as amazing as this one.
Will the Red Sox be able to use their momentum to win two games and the AL pennant in Tampa Bay this weekend? Difficult to say. The two teams are fairly evenly matched right now, and there is a large amount of random chance variation influencing game outcomes in baseball. Much will depend on whether Game 6 starter Josh Beckett has recovered somewhat from the injury that has dogged him the last few weeks. Still, it was an amazing game, and will probably be an exciting weekend!
Related Posts (on one page):
- An Amazing Red Sox Comeback:
- In Praise of the Rays:
No, it's not. But I would note that the Red Sox came back from 3-1 in last year's ALCS -- I wonder if any team has done that twice in a row.
No. This year will be the first time, if the Sox win games 6 and 7.
Ah, but in 1985 Kansas City was down 2-0 and 3-1 to Toronto, but came back to win the ALCS. Which was amazing.
Then they did the same thing to the Cardinals in the World Series. This time spotting the first two games at home.
There's something about those Boston teams. I'm not a fan of any of them with the exception of the Celtics. I spent three years there while at law school from 1965 to 1968 (and saw Bobby Orr's first career NHL goal against my Montreal Canadiens, watched some great Celtic teams and listened from across the river to the cheers of the Fenway Park crowd during the 1967 World Series). But I grant that they seem to have an extra amount of that intangible fighting spirit. In the old days, I never, ever counted out the Celtics in a championship game.
Wednesday night the Bruins were visiting Montreal in the home opener of the Canadiens' centennial season and were down 3-0 at the end of the first period. Naturally they equalized in regulation play, held the Canadiens scoreless in overtime and eventually lost only in the penalty shootout.
Agreed. Boston fans are some of the most annoying in sports.
Of course when I hear "comeback" I think 1978, the year the Yankees came from 14 games back, punctuated by the Boston Massacre, to force a one game playoff at Fenway, forever recalled to Sox fans by the words, "Bucky f-ing Dent." (audio)
But that's just me.
If you're down 3-0 in the series, your mathematical chances of recovering to the point where you're only down 3-2 in the series are 25%. But if you're down 3-1 in the series and 7-0 in the 7th inning of Game 5, obviously your chances of winning the game and getting to 3-2 are far less than 25%. You pretty much need a miracle. So it would be far more impressive for Boston to come back and win this series than it was to come back from 3-0 down.
On the other hand, I seem to recall that Boston needed a late-inning rally in Game 4 against the Yankees just to stay in the series. So maybe that's the point we ought to measure from to be entirely fair.
Glad to be of service to provide a hate target for the nice VC commenters for as long as possible :-)
Two outs, no one on base Mets down 5 to 3. Mets win 6 to 5. (Buckner's error allowed the winning run. The passed ball before that allowed the tying run).
But since we're otherwise inclined to agree, could you please stop bringing up your two least admirable inclinations/positions of support? There's a reason I don't read 39bitches or playingwithsamshorn.
But since we're otherwise inclined to agree, could you please stop bringing up your two least admirable inclinations/positions of support? There's a reason I don't read 39bitches or playingwithsamshorn.
Gee, how could I refuse such a politely phrased request? On balance, however, I think I'll pass.
I don't think I deserve the opprobrium being heaped on my head by commenters above.
"Two outs, no one on base Mets down 5 to 3. Mets win 6 to 5. (Buckner's error allowed the winning run. The passed ball before that allowed the tying run)."
Talk about a buzz kill. Nice dagger twist with the parenthetical.