2004 Red Sox World Series Tainted??

JHS5120 · April 8, 2011 1:50PM

It was such a magical story to watch happen but you have to wonder, without Manny would there have been a "Reverse-the-Curse" playoff run. Also, I think it is pretty obvious that Ortiz was once on PED's judging by his sudden increase in power stats and sudden decline during the 2007-08 witch hunts.

I just wanted your opinions.

Goot · April 8, 2011 2:32PM

Only as tainted as the rest of baseball during that time period, in my opinion.

keets · April 8, 2011 7:17PM

they should just throw the entire era into the waste basket starting sometime in the late 90's.

perkdog · April 8, 2011 9:49PM

Gimme a break, why not ask if ALL the world Series wins of the 2000's are tainted? There is not one of those World Series winners that didnt have a PED user on it.

Brick · April 8, 2011 10:11PM

They won on a level playing field. I don't imagine their players did anything that players on the other teams were not doing. The real victims are the players of long ago whose numbers are no longer as impressive as they once were.

JHS5120 · April 9, 2011 2:12AM

<< Gimme a break, why not ask if ALL the world Series wins of the 2000's are tainted? There is not one of those World Series winners that didnt have a PED user on it. >>

Was the 2004 Red Sox World Series not more memorable than the other World Series' during that time span? I agree the entire era is tainted but I myself am looking at this one in particular for the area of discussion, will this series (and the others in the 1996-2008 time span) be looked on as a tainted era?

One argument would be, "everyone was doing it" which I can agree with but if that were a valid scapegoat Bonds, Manny and the others would not be under the pressure they are today, and Mark McGwire would be in the Hall of Fame. With that said we must conclude this argument is moot. I am looking at the stats for all the World Series winners during the steroid era and I cannot find a better example of two players who were the driving factors to a World Series win, so I must ask again; is their World Series tainted?

I personally think that it not only is tainted but more so than other World Series' of the era. Like the memorable home run chase that McGwire had, it is a part of baseball history, it was a triumphant moment in sports, but we found out it wasn't real, he cheated that glory and he cheated us. I think the same can be applied to the 2004 Red Sox baseball's "cursed" team finally was able to overcome it's oppressor (in the most dramatic fashion may I add) and win the World Series to forever "Reverse-the-Curse." In my opinion this is the most memorable World Series in the last twenty years which makes it just as important to baseball fans as the 1998 Home Run chase was important to us but now we know that this feat in human history could not have been accomplished without steroids, without cheating. In my mind it is forever tainted, along with the rest of the era, but this one just stuck out to me.

It is only an opinion.

hhmag70 · April 9, 2011 2:46AM

<< They won on a level playing field. I don't imagine their players did anything that players on the other teams were not doing. The real victims are the players of long ago whose numbers are no longer as impressive as they once were. >>

Well said.

Piggs · April 9, 2011 3:47AM

<< They won on a level playing field. I don't imagine their players did anything that players on the other teams were not doing. The real victims are the players of long ago whose numbers are no longer as impressive as they once were. >>

The real baseball fans know that the players of long ago are even more impressive now than ever before because of the steroid era. JMO

Garabaldi · April 9, 2011 4:09AM

Why is the 2004 WS any different than the the pas 10-15 WS wins. It is all crap and baseball has been disgraced, but what can you really do?

JHS5120 · April 9, 2011 4:23AM

Never mind, I'll go to a different forum to talk baseball. I thought it was a simple enough question.

Garabaldi · April 9, 2011 4:26AM

<< Never mind, I'll go to a different forum to talk baseball. I thought it was a simple enough question. >>

What answer were you looking for?

JHS5120 · April 9, 2011 4:54AM

I want people to stop avoiding the question, I want to hear a definitive "yes" or "no" and a reason behind it, grow a pair and take a side!

<< It is all crap and baseball has been disgraced, but what can you really do? >>

So you do think the 2004 Red Sox WS is tainted?

Since baseball as a whole was in a period of disgrace during this time will people look back at the last 15 or so World Series wins as a gray area?

hhmag70 · April 9, 2011 4:59AM

<< Never mind, I'll go to a different forum to talk baseball. I thought it was a simple enough question. >>

Because you do not like people having a different opinion?

How is this any different then say the Yankees winning with Clemens, Pettitte or Arod? Those players were just as important to the team winning the years they did.

The claim that it is the steroid era so the using players belong in the HOF is one I do not agree with because the stats they aquired and made them look so good when compared to history are not valid because steroids have not been used all through history like they had been in this era. So someone using should be expected to have better stats, don't know how to put a number on it but for example; if 500 HR clean is the ticket maybe a roid user needs a minimum of 700 HR to be considered an equal. I don't think there is an answer and that is why I do not think those players like McGwire, Clemens, Bonds will get inducted.

hhmag70 · April 9, 2011 5:01AM

<< I want people to stop avoiding the question, I want to hear a definitive "yes" or "no" and a reason behind it, grow a pair and take a side!

<< It is all crap and baseball has been disgraced, but what can you really do? >>

So you do think the 2004 Red Sox WS is tainted?

Since baseball as a whole was in a period of disgrace during this time will people look back at the last 15 or so World Series wins as a gray area? >>

The answer people are giving is no, my reason is as I spelled out. The teams were on even terms against each other for the most part. Individual players stacking up against history is what is considered tainted.

Piggs · April 9, 2011 5:06AM

<< Never mind, I'll go to a different forum to talk baseball. I thought it was a simple enough question. >>

You threw in the word "tainted" and that cost you any talk other than steroids.

JHS5120 · April 9, 2011 5:08AM

<< Because you do not like people having a different opinion?

How is this any different then say the Yankees winning with Clemens, Pettitte or Arod? Those players were just as important to the team winning the years they did.

The claim that it is the steroid era so the using players belong in the HOF is one I do not agree with because the stats they aquired and made them look so good when compared to history are not valid because steroids have not been used all through history like they had been in this era. So someone using should be expected to have better stats, don't know how to put a number on it but for example; if 500 HR clean is the ticket maybe a roid user needs a minimum of 700 HR to be considered an equal. I don't think there is an answer and that is why I do not think those players like McGwire, Clemens, Bonds will get inducted. >>

I am encouraging you guys to have an opinion as long as it answers the question!

I completely agree, the Yankees have a tainted history as well, with the likes of Alex Rodriguez, Roger Clemens, Andy Petitte, Gary Sheffield and JASON GIAMBI!! Of course they have a history of steroid use, as does any team. I was just wondering, will people look back at the 1995-2008 World Series' the same way they look back at the stats of the players involved? I only used 2004 in the title because it is the best example in my opinion and because of the recent news with Manny... if you have a better example of a tainted World Series then by all means I would love to discuss it.

JHS5120 · April 9, 2011 5:14AM

<< The answer people are giving is no, my reason is as I spelled out. The teams were on even terms against each other for the most part. Individual players stacking up against history is what is considered tainted. >>

So because everyone is cheating, it's not cheating? I think that's interesting but I have to disagree, I understand what you are saying, winning the World Series is an amazing feat (perhaps more so in a more competitive era) but the fact that they won the World Series with the use of steroids puts a damper on the win. Just like hitting 755 homeruns is an outstanding accomplishment with or without steroids but because steroids are used people tend to look at it differently. (I'm not trying to single out the Red Sox but simply using them as an example)

JHS5120 · April 9, 2011 5:15AM

<< 

<< Never mind, I'll go to a different forum to talk baseball. I thought it was a simple enough question. >>

You threw in the word "tainted" and that cost you any talk other than steroids. >>

Good, because the conversation is on steroids.

hhmag70 · April 9, 2011 5:22AM

<< I only used 2004 in the title because it is the best example in my opinion and because of the recent news with Manny... if you have a better example of a tainted World Series then by all means I would love to discuss it. >>

In order to discuss a better example, it would entail me going along with the idea that the 04 championship is tainted, which I do not consider it to be. If all teams have users it makes the playing field the same for that year. It was cheaters against cheaters so there was no advantage to any one team.

If you want to compare the 04 Red Sox team stats to a team's stats that played in the 30's, 40's, etc. and say they have an unfair advantage and the stats they produced agaist history are tainted then yes I concur. But as a winning team that had roid users against losing teams that had roid users it means nothing to me.

JHS5120 · April 9, 2011 5:32AM

<< In order to discuss a better example, it would entail me going along with the idea that the 04 championship is tainted, which I do not consider it to be. If all teams have users it makes the playing field the same for that year. It was cheaters against cheaters so there was no advantage to any one team.

If you want to compare the 04 Red Sox team stats to a team's stats that played in the 30's, 40's, etc. and say they have an unfair advantage and the stats they produced agaist history are tainted then yes I concur. But as a winning team that had roid users against losing teams that had roid users it means nothing to me. >>

So since the competition is doing it then it is a level playing field? I like that, but again, I have to disagree. If this were the case then we must forever accept Barry Bonds' 762 home runs as legit because we must assume the pitchers were all using steroids as well and he had no advantage. We also must now forever forgive Roger Clemens since he was facing steroid enhanced players so he also had no advantage. Cheaters are cheaters in my book and I think history will look back at this era with question marks over the winners who had to cheat to win.

hhmag70 · April 9, 2011 5:54AM

<< 

<< In order to discuss a better example, it would entail me going along with the idea that the 04 championship is tainted, which I do not consider it to be. If all teams have users it makes the playing field the same for that year. It was cheaters against cheaters so there was no advantage to any one team.

If you want to compare the 04 Red Sox team stats to a team's stats that played in the 30's, 40's, etc. and say they have an unfair advantage and the stats they produced agaist history are tainted then yes I concur. But as a winning team that had roid users against losing teams that had roid users it means nothing to me. >>

So since the competition is doing it then it is a level playing field? I like that, but again, I have to disagree. If this were the case then we must forever accept Barry Bonds' 762 home runs as legit because we must assume the pitchers were all using steroids as well and he had no advantage. We also must now forever forgive Roger Clemens since he was facing steroid enhanced players so he also had no advantage. Cheaters are cheaters in my book and I think history will look back at this era with question marks over the winners who had to cheat to win. >>

I agree with you when comparing Bonds to McGwire but not when comparing Bonds to Aaron, don't know how else to explain the difference across different eras.

JHS5120 · April 9, 2011 6:16AM

<< I agree with you when comparing Bonds to McGwire but not when comparing Bonds to Aaron, don't know how else to explain the difference across different eras. >>

I guess that's what we're arguing. The 2004 Red Sox were the best team in 2004, no questions about that, and because they were the best team in a steroid era they rightfully deserve the World Series even though players may or may not have used PED's. What I am saying though is, will history remember these athletes for there accomplishments or for how they reached these accomplishments? In other words, when people look back at Manny's accomplishments and see 12x All-Star, 9x Silver Slugger and 2x World Series Champion (with a WS MVP) will they question the WS titles along with the AS and Silver Sluggers? Or, if (hypothetically) Terry Francona is in the talks for a HoF spot as a Manger will people look back at the 2004 season and question his managerial skills or the unlawful help players may have received? I just want your opinion on whether or not all of the World Series' in the steroid era will be looked back with a bit of hesitation. IMO they should, and will because even though every team may have had users playing for them it is clear that some teams benefited more than others.

GDM67 · April 9, 2011 8:07AM

<< The claim that it is the steroid era so the using players belong in the HOF is one I do not agree with because the stats they aquired and made them look so good when compared to history are not valid because steroids have not been used all through history like they had been in this era. >>

Agreed. That's the bottom line for me and why I don't want any of these people in the HOF.

As for the '04 Sox, their title isn't any really more tainted than any of the era and I don't want to see any retroactive adjustment of the records, at least officially.

Still...a big part of that team's appeal was the image of them as plucky underdogs taking the Yankees down. Now that we know that Ortiz and Manny were likely cheating to achieve their results, it sullies that and puts them on the same level as the Yankees who were featuring ARod and Sheffield.

jdip9 · April 9, 2011 10:27AM

JHS, I'm not sure of your agenda, but you are on an island if you think that the Sox WS win is the only "tainted" title of the ERA. They were the best of the cheaters that year, plain and simple.

Let's try to stay current with our topics...nobody cares about steroids anymore.

JHS5120 · April 9, 2011 10:31AM

<< JHS, I'm not sure of your agenda, but you are on an island if you think that the Sox WS win is the only "tainted" title of the ERA. They were the best of the cheaters that year, plain and simple.

Let's try to stay current with our topics...nobody cares about steroids anymore. >>

I'm sorry, I guess you didn't read any of the other posts. I agreed with you on every one of your points, except no one cares about steroids anymore, you may no longer care about the integrity of the game, but I do.

Garabaldi · April 9, 2011 12:14PM

<< 

<< JHS, I'm not sure of your agenda, but you are on an island if you think that the Sox WS win is the only "tainted" title of the ERA. They were the best of the cheaters that year, plain and simple.

Let's try to stay current with our topics...nobody cares about steroids anymore. >>

I'm sorry, I guess you didn't read any of the other posts. I agreed with you on every one of your points, except no one cares about steroids anymore, you may no longer care about the integrity of the game, but I do. >>

The game of baseball will never be the same after the steroid era. Who really knows who was on the juice and who wasn't. What kind of answers are you looking for? Most of the best players were caught or suspected of taking roids. It is not fair to just pick one WS and say that it is the worst one because of the history behind it. Look at the following year and how long it took the White Sox to finally win one. Just because you feel that the 2004 Red Sox WS win was "tainted" is wrong.

JHS5120 · April 9, 2011 12:56PM

<< Still...a big part of that team's appeal was the image of them as plucky underdogs taking the Yankees down. Now that we know that Ortiz and Manny were likely cheating to achieve their results, it sullies that and puts them on the same level as the Yankees who were featuring ARod and Sheffield. >>

EXACTLY!!!! I would argue that the most memorable moment in baseball in the last ten years is the 2004 Red Sox World Series run. Underdogs taking down the "Evil Empire" to reverse-the-curse, any Red Sox fan will agree that this was the most magical playoff run in the recent history of sports!

Does it not put a damper on this feat that the two men instrumental to this accomplishment are in the steroid talks? and those two men were the ALCS and WS MVP respectively?

Again, I hate to single out the Red Sox on this one but who here cares that the White Sox won the 2005 world series? Are you saying that Paul Konerko and Jermaine Dye are a better example of two players being the driving force for a team over Manny and Papi? These aren't nearly as extraordinary of wins as the Red Sox playoff run. I am not saying they didn't deserve to win and I am not trying to attack the Red Sox in any way, I have nothing against them. I just thought i'd share my opinions and engage in a civilized conversation.

keets · April 9, 2011 12:59PM

They won on a level playing field. I don't imagine their players did anything that players on the other teams were not doing. The real victims are the players of long ago whose numbers are no longer as impressive as they once were.

that has to be the biggest load of crap-filled convoluted logic i've heard lately. you must live by telling yourself it's OK as long as i don't get caught since everyone else is doing it. since when did low moral equivalency become a good standard to live by??

Garabaldi · April 9, 2011 1:07PM

You can't single out just one team when there were so many players doing roids. If Manny and Ortiz were the only players caught then I would agree, but this is just a stupid argument. Roids were accepted and ignored between the players and owners that so many were doing them. It is to simple to just say only one WS was "tainted".

JHS5120 · April 9, 2011 1:31PM

<< You can't single out just one team when there were so many players doing roids. If Manny and Ortiz were the only players caught then I would agree, but this is just a stupid argument. Roids were accepted and ignored between the players and owners that so many were doing them. It is to simple to just say only one WS was "tainted". >>

As I said about four times in this thread, all of the World Series' during the steroid era are tainted. I was simply asking if anyone thought this one in particular stood out and I clearly now have my answer.

yes.

My argument is plainly stated in my previous posts, I now know that I cannot have a baseball conversation on this forum that might bad mouth the Red Sox, sorry.

Connecticoin · April 9, 2011 9:32PM

Well, to put a somewhat humorous spin on this, Bill Simmons tweeted the following:

"Manny Ramirez just stormed into my house and tried to destroy my 2004 World Series DVD again."

Estil · April 10, 2011 12:41AM

Well, I seem to recall a humble carpenter back around 2000 years ago who said it best:

"Let he that is without sin cast the first stone"

ctsoxfan · April 10, 2011 1:29AM

Let's not forget for a minute that the Yankees beat the Red Sox in the 2003 ALCS Game 7 largely because of the 2 home runs by Jason Giambi - who was probably running back to the dugout between innings to shoot up. Of course, he had plenty of Yankee teammates that season to share his stash with, namely Clemens and Pettitte.

Bottom line, the entire era is tainted, but the playing field was level - there were cheaters everywhere.

WinPitcher · April 10, 2011 3:52AM

lol

WinPitcher · April 10, 2011 3:57AM

<< The real victims are the players of long ago whose numbers are no longer as impressive >>

No, the real victims are the guys who never made it to the show who were clean and saw players
of lesser natural ability climb over them.

Steve

RipublicaninMass · April 10, 2011 4:12AM

<< Well, I seem to recall a humble carpenter back around 2000 years ago who said it best:

"Let he that is without sin cast the first stone" >>

Then a stone came flying, and the carpenter yelled... "DAD!!!!!!"

Brick · April 10, 2011 5:44AM

<< 

<< The real victims are the players of long ago whose numbers are no longer as impressive >>

No, the real victims are the guys who never made it to the show who were clean and saw players
of lesser natural ability climb over them.

Steve >>

Great point. Just a question. How many journeyman mediocre players have been implicated. I do remember a documetory on a cable channel about someone who used and got a job in the Big Leagues and later had a guilty conscience.

Garabaldi · April 10, 2011 10:02AM

<< 

<< You can't single out just one team when there were so many players doing roids. If Manny and Ortiz were the only players caught then I would agree, but this is just a stupid argument. Roids were accepted and ignored between the players and owners that so many were doing them. It is to simple to just say only one WS was "tainted". >>

As I said about four times in this thread, all of the World Series' during the steroid era are tainted. I was simply asking if anyone thought this one in particular stood out and I clearly now have my answer.

yes.

My argument is plainly stated in my previous posts, I now know that I cannot have a baseball conversation on this forum that might bad mouth the Red Sox, sorry. >>

You picked out one WS because you felt it was the most tainted. You get answers, but not to suiting and you cry the whole time. We will call you Mr. Baseball from now on and anytime we need a baseball questioned answered we will PM you.

2004 Red Sox World Series Tainted??

Comments