Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

Bill Buckner yesterday - good idea?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
62 replies to this topic

Poll: Vote or die (322 member(s) have cast votes)

Ceremonial first pitch - good idea?

  1. Yes (274 votes [85.89%])

    Percentage of vote: 85.89%

  2. No (45 votes [14.11%])

    Percentage of vote: 14.11%

Have you "forgiven" Bill Buckner?

  1. Yes (203 votes [63.64%])

    Percentage of vote: 63.64%

  2. No (20 votes [6.27%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.27%

  3. There is nothing to forgive (96 votes [30.09%])

    Percentage of vote: 30.09%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#51 mabrowndog


  • Ask me about total zone...or paint


  • 29,372 posts

Posted 09 April 2008 - 10:23 PM

I have to say, I find Buckner a little embarassing to Red Sox fans. It's that combination of dumb jock combined with the reclusive Idaho thing he's got going on. It's just all so inappropriate for a critical character in the legendary drama that is the Red Sox. All that angst surrounding Game 6 of the WS surrounds one of the most uninteresting personalities of recent Sox history. And the legend of Bill Buckner is so much bigger than the reality of the man. Every moment of that interview, I felt like Buckner was implicitly saying "me? You have turned me into this big grand historical figure? You people need to get a life."

So because he's quiet, humble, uncomfortable in front of crowds, distrustful of the media, and dislikes being in the limelight -- he's a dumb jock?

That's rich.

#52 Pumpsie


  • The Kilimanjaro of bullshit


  • 10,446 posts

Posted 09 April 2008 - 10:43 PM

So because he's quiet, humble, uncomfortable in front of crowds, distrustful of the media, and dislikes being in the limelight -- he's a dumb jock?

That's rich.



I'm with you, dog. I don't know Bill Buckner but everyone except Bob Lobel seems to really like him as a person and as a teammate. He seemed like a plain, straightforward, simple, likable guy to me. He's not chatty or articulate, no, but since when is that a criteria for anything but a politician or a media personality? He would make a terrible baseball announcer for certain but I get the feeling that he would make a great neighbor and I'll even bet he's been a good parent.

#53 djshecky

  • 783 posts

Posted 09 April 2008 - 10:46 PM

I didn't have a problem with Buckner throwing the first pitch, and I never thought he needed to be forgiven in the first place, but I voted that it wasn't a good idea. Mostly because there were better choices out there, including the guy Buckner threw the first pitch to.

I'd feel differently if he hadn't already gotten ovations in '87 and '90. There was nothing unique or special about him coming back yesterday, so if that's the case, why bother?



Nothing to forgive Buckner for. Given how emotional he was during the ceremony, it appears Buckner needed this more than we (as fans) did in order to move on from 1986.


the difference between 2008 and the previous incarnations of the "buckner admonishment" is that they have won not once, but two times since.

Edited by djshecky, 09 April 2008 - 10:46 PM.


#54 wyatt55

  • 1,118 posts

Posted 10 April 2008 - 12:41 AM

John Henry and Co. may have wanted him to throw out the first pitch in 2004. Who knows? The fact is he declined to attend Opening Day 2005 - I believe not wanting to subject himself to the media harrassment for a loss that was unfairly labelled his fault and to the ridicule that was put on his shoulders for one play. Frat nailed it - After all, there was a game 7 you know.

I actually view this ceremony/stunt is the Red Sox taking back the spin of the event. If we can get ESPN to STFU about fallicies like "Bill Buckner killed the dreams of Red Sox fans with this one play in 1986." or at least take the sting out of them by giving him (and them) some closure, then this was a good idea.

In short, if knowledgeable fans recognize that we'll never get the media to understand "there's nothing to forgive.", the next best thing is "You're forgiven!" and let's f-ing move on fer crissakes.

#55 William Robertson

  • 3,305 posts

Posted 10 April 2008 - 08:21 AM

(snip) I bet he would easily trade all three ovations to have been left alone.


Now there's some truth, right there.

My thought to management: OK, but just don't be getting any ideas about McNamara.

#56 LoweTek

  • 615 posts

Posted 12 April 2008 - 06:00 AM

My thought to management: OK, but just don't be getting any ideas about McNamara.

Sorry for the late bump. I have been tied up for more than a week. WR nails it here. It seems to me not holding McNamara primarily responsible for the outcome of Game 6 is just intellectual dishonesty. Yes, many individual players had small failures throughout the game and series but objectively, a large part of the manager's responsibility is to mitigate both the probability and impact of those failures. McNamara played favorites and made managing decisions based on personalities, his own comfort and warped sense of reward, punishment and personal vendetta; not baseball acumen nor what was best for the team or situation. The 14 LOB in the game well summarizes the team's collective fault. That stat does not change the fact that going into the 10th there was a two run lead. CS was entering his third inning of work. He had allowed the tying run in the 8th. After the first two out hit of the inning (arguably after the 2nd out warning track shot to Henderson) Schiraldi did everything but beg out of the game with his body language and the expression on his face. He fought well with what he had but was gassed. McNamara did not respond until two more hitters reached, a run scored, an untenable situation requiring absolute, no room for error play resulted and it was too late. A glance back to the previous games and ahead to Game 7 leads anyone to conclude that McNamara's approach (especially with bullpen management) above all player performance related matters contributed most to the Mets' prevailing.

More directly on topic, as to Buckner (and Gedman and Stanley for that matter), there is some measure of misattribution made in comments here in the thread. IMO, it is without debate impossible to collectively reference "Red Sox Fans" or "Red Sox Nation" and attribute a common sentiment or opinion on almost anything and certainly not on this topic. On numerous, numerous occasions I have been witness to ugly, angry, disrespectful and downright derisive sentiments expressed directly toward or intentionally within earshot of the involved players themselves. There is an underside of persons who claim, no less rightfully than anyone else, to be "Red Sox Fans" or members of the gimmick "Red Sox Nation" who, assuming they feel what they actually express, bitterly and vocally blame these players for the outcome of Game 6. Hopefully they all fade away and become irrelevant with the passing of time and the recent success of the team. But they are out there and I've always felt mildly embarrassed to be in any way affilliated or associated with them. How many times have you been introduced as a "Red Sox Fan" (more frequently pre-'04) and found yourself responding to a silly reference to Buckner, Stanley, Gedman or Game 6? Denis Leary's narration of the HBO piece on the subject sums it up pretty well. There were a lot of people who felt the hate and behaved accordingly.

Good for Buckner if he found solace in his participation. He deserved the opportunity for it and apparently he wanted it. The underside's treatment of him and his family in the ensuing years was beyond uncivil, beyond unforgivable yet BB seems at peace with it now. As far as I am concerned he is welcome, always was and always will be. He was put in the wrong place at the wrong time that October night and he was so through no fault of his own. Truly, there is nothing to forgive.

#57 samuelLsamson

  • 962 posts

Posted 12 April 2008 - 09:31 AM

I added another choice to the second question.


Then you'll need to change my vote for me to option 3.

#58 bigyazbread

  • 453 posts

Posted 13 April 2008 - 05:19 PM

I'm sorry for being late to the party as well.

I agree that Buckner is blameless for 1986...errors happen AND he shouldn't have been out there AND there was a Game 7 waiting in the wings.

What has always stuck in my craw with Buckner is that he cashed in on the error. Go to eBay and search for Buckner Mookie Wilson and you will find autographed pictures of the aftermath of the error and autographed 1986 WS baseballs.

Posted Image

Posted Image

So that is the reason that I will not forgive Buckner. Maybe I'm petty, maybe he really needed the cash, who knows? The idea that Buckner cashed in on a failed championship will continue to bother me.

#59 Yo La Tengo

  • 76 posts

Posted 13 April 2008 - 08:30 PM

The time for this, for symbolic purposes, was after the 2004 championship. I too remember the buzz that Buckner declined to participate after 2004, and, for me, it should have ended at that. He wasn't entirely to blame, but he was partly to blame, and the energy behind that blame evaporated after 2004.

#60 syoo8

  • 313 posts

Posted 13 April 2008 - 11:33 PM

Buckner is not blameless for '86. It is just that Schiraldi, McNamara, and Gedman are also culpable.

But... I don't blame Buckner at all for autographing a few balls and a few pictures with Mookie Wilson's signature.

I can't imagine how I would feel if my entire career-- all 22 years of it-- was reduced to one play. He probably thought, screw it, if people are going to define me by the ground ball I may as well make money off it.

#61 ctsoxfan5

  • 740 posts

Posted 14 April 2008 - 08:30 AM

I'll try not to quote too much of this- but this is the only place I've seen the 1987/1990 ovations mentioned in the media, and it also seems to capture a lot of what has been said in this thread:

Does anyone remember 1987? Or 1990? Buckner was in a Red Sox uniform, a member of the team, and he received thunderous ovations both years.

The notion that Red Sox fans were harboring 22 years of hatred for Buckner is a myth. Knowledgeable Red Sox fans will tell you the 1986 World Series collapse featured a long line of goats: John McNamara, Calvin Schiraldi, Rich Gedman, Bob Stanley, and, yes, Buckner. But while his error became emblematic of the inning, it was hardly the most important play.

Buckner himself admitted he was mostly bitter toward the media for portraying him as the symbol for Red Sox futility. Of course that didn't stop him from appearing at memorabilia shows with Mookie Wilson, but we'll give him a pass for profiting from his misery.

While there were encounters with obnoxious fans, Buckner was always treated well at Fenway Park.

So why the surprise Tuesday? Buckner was forgiven a long time ago by Red Sox fans.

Just another myth buried.


http://www.courant.c...0,2034004.story

(also, at the top, dismisses the "Curse" of Ruth, etc.)

#62 xjack


  • Futbol Crazed


  • 5,118 posts

Posted 14 April 2008 - 10:38 AM

I'll try not to quote too much of this- but this is the only place I've seen the 1987/1990 ovations mentioned in the media, and it also seems to capture a lot of what has been said in this thread:

See: http://www.boston.co...ive_him/?page=1

Edes' sources are excellent. ;)

#63 yep

  • 944 posts

Posted 14 April 2008 - 04:25 PM

Good idea, nothing to forgive.

Yeah, it was a little schmaltzy to have Buckner, and the "moment" was a little goofy and forced, but it was better than having, say, Neil Diamond and the Jordan's Furniture All-Stars toss the ball.

Somebody has to throw the first pitch (or at least, someone customarily does). Buckner is Red Sox-related, he is well-known, he is of local and historic significance, inviting him to throw the pitch had a "feel good" element and offered an acknowledgement of the unique history of the ballclub. Overall, he was a pretty good pick for someone to throw out the first pitch on Opening Day.

Now, we could of course find fault with anyone at all throwing out the first pitch. Jimmy Fallon, Deval Patrick, some "schoolteacher of the year," Ted Kennedy, Miss Massachusetts, the Dropkick Murphys, a disabled child, Tom Brady, the Walpole little league team, some old guy with 80 years of season tickets, whoever.

There is no perfect person to throw out the ceremonial first pitch because the ceremonial first pitch is stupid and hokey in and of itself. It is simultaneously too important for anyone trivial and too trivial for anyone important. It is too frivolous for seriousness and too serious for frivolity. It is a necessary shortcoming of pomp and ceremony related to sports that it ultimately lacks the dignity of more important things.

So yeah, if someone had to throw it, I think Buckner was a pretty good choice. The "moment" was, on a Berlin-wall-coming-down-scale, pretty underwhelming, but it was better than most orchestrated sports "moments."

And Buckner was a pretty good player (and an outstanding defender overall). Just because the media had this conception that his entire MLB career consisted of a single play doesn't mean that everyone in Boston hated him. It is inescapable that we will all be best remembered by strangers for the stuff we did on the biggest stage, and I can't say I blame "the media" for linking him with the play any more than it will be their fault for associating Dave Roberts with "the steal," but it has bugged me how in recent years national media figures have started to project their own view of Buckner onto the Red Sox fanbase, suggesting that Buckner is the most hated man in Red Sox Nation or whatever.

From the stands, I didn't see it as "forgiveness" so much as a kind of affirmation.