Malcolm Butler vs. Dave Roberts

[DaveRoberts'Shoes]

Holy shit, I was at both these games.

I'm pretty fucking cool.

Definitely Butler, despite my chosen name here. When Roberts stole the base, we were all like, Well, that's cool, we're not dead YET...

When Butler made that pick I beat the shit out of everyone in arms reach of me, including my brother. Who I took to both games. Damn, he's a lucky SOB.

 

[Marbleheader]

So, you're not saying that you're the reason they won both of those games, but you really kind of are.

 

[DJnVa]

I don't know enough about how wpa is calculated to know if there is an answer to this question but I figure if anyone knows, it's someone on here.

I'm trying to compare Butler's play to every kid's at-bat fantasy moment of hitting a walk off grand slam in game 7 of the world series, down by 3 with the bases loaded, 2 outs and a full counT (though, technically, being down 0-2 would be tougher)

does anyone know what the wpa would be on that theoretical play? Does the score matter beyond the differential? Would it be bigger than the Butler pick?

Edit: guess that was easier to Google than I thought. It definitely would not have been more wpa than the Butler pick.

 
 
And you didn't share those number why??? 
 

 

[DaveRoberts'Shoes]

So, you're not saying that you're the reason they won both of those games, but you really kind of are.

#SayinNotSayin

Yeah, let's not kid ourselves, that was all me

 

[SMU_Sox]

#SayinNotSayin

Yeah, let's not kid ourselves, that was all me

Were you there in2008 and 2012?

 

[mauf]

Mike Jones tackled Derrick Mason (edit: nope, it was Dyson) at the 1-yard line as time expired in Super Bowl XXXV. That was probably the biggest defensive play in SB history before Butler. I didn't remember Jones's name -- I had to Google it.

I guess I'm saying it's hard to predict in real time who and what will be iconic a decade later. Hard-core Pats fans will always remember Butler (as I'm sure Rams fans remember Jones), but I wouldn't be surprised if your average football fan a decade from now remembers Carroll's play call and Wilson's throw (like I remembered Mason), but doesn't remember Butler's name.

Edit: Even the part I thought I knew was wrong.

 

[Jed Zeppelin]

You didn't remember the correct receiver or Super Bowl...

Beat me to it, but I think that might prove the point anyway.

 

[drbretto]

 
 
And you didn't share those number why??? 
 

 
 
I googled and found one example of an ultimate grand slam with the WPA. It was .611.
 
Which made sense, when I thought about it. The bases are loaded. Things are already going your way and the by the time the bat gets in your hands, the odds start evening up. Apparently to around 39%, but I don't know if the score affects the calculations or anything beyond the differential, but I can't imagine any difference would be significant.
 
But thinking about it, I honestly can't think of any measurable type of play offering that much of a swing. It would have to be some kind of a turnover in whatever sport. 
 
This play's real world WPA makes it even more impressive because there's no fucking way they are stopping Lynch for three downs. The game was over. That it was clearly not just a case of some rookie happening to be at the right place at the right time, but a practiced, calculated and (I'm just going with the narrative) possibly induced play that happened at time when we, as fans needed a fucking win more than we have in a long time, on the most watched thing ever in American television on the only sporting event to become a borderline national holiday and I'm sorry, but this is a no brainer. That may have been the biggest American sports play ever.
 
 
edit: I mean, if they weren't such lying cheaters who got lucky that Carroll made the worst call ever.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

I wouldn't think any of the major U.S. sports could have bigger potential single play wpas than football. Maybe a three pointer down by 2 or a multi-run home run to turn a loss into a win, but those are in the 60s. Butler's interception seems like it must easily be the biggest single championship wpa swing in major U.S. sport history. What I wonder is where it ranks all time in any NFL game, no matter what the stakes. At 84.2 percent, I would think the two most likely candidates to theoretically be higher would be a last minute kick off return or a hail Mary.

The Music City Miracle was an 80.5 percent swing. That situation was team down 2 with :16 left and a kick off. Had it been a 4 or 5 point game with less time, it probably would be in the 90s. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200001080oti.htm

According to this list, most NFL hail Marys were at the end of the first half. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hail_Mary_passes_in_American_football Many of the second half ones only tied the game. Where a team is losing by less than 3, the wpa is less than one would think. Presumably, this is because of the possibility of a defensive foul and field goal. For example, in this game Cleveland was down by 2 with :02 left and scored from their own 44. The wpa there, surprisingly, was only 57.3. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/199910310nor.htm

It looks like the most recent hail Mary where a team was losing by 4 or 5 was in 1981, the Bills over the Pats, but pro football reference does not go back that far for wpa.

Teams come back from 84 percent chance of loss situatios all the time -- about 16 percent of the time I suppose. But rarely in one play.

Looks like Seahawks' 24-yard TD on fouth down with :08 in the Packers replacement refs game, down 5, was an 88.6 percent swing. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201209240sea.htm

 

[Euclis20]

I wouldn't think any of the major U.S. sports could have bigger potential single play wpas than football. Maybe a three pointer down by 2 or a multi-run home run to turn a loss into a win, but those are in the 60s. Butler's interception seems like it must easily be the biggest single championship wpa swing in major U.S. sport history. What I wonder is where it ranks all time in any NFL game, no matter what the stakes. At 84.2 percent, I would think the two most likely candidates to theoretically be higher would be a last minute kick off return or a hail Mary.

The Music City Miracle was an 80.5 percent swing. That situation was team down 2 with :16 left and a kick off. Had it been a 4 or 5 point game with less time, it probably would be in the 90s. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200001080oti.htm

According to this list, most NFL hail Marys were at the end of the first half. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hail_Mary_passes_in_American_football Many of the second half ones only tied the game. Where a team is losing by less than 3, the wpa is less than one would think. Presumably, this is because of the possibility of a defensive foul and field goal. For example, in this game Cleveland was down by 2 with :02 left and scored from their own 44. The wpa there, surprisingly, was only 57.3. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/199910310nor.htm

It looks like the most recent hail Mary where a team was losing by 4 or 5 was in 1981, the Bills over the Pats, but pro football reference does not go back that far for wpa.

Teams come back from 84 percent chance of loss situatios all the time -- about 16 percent of the time I suppose. But rarely in one play.

Looks like Seahawks' 24-yard TD on fouth down with :08 in the Packers replacement refs game, down 5, was an 88.6 percent swing. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201209240sea.htm

 
I'm somewhat skeptical of the accuracy of a win probability chart or calculator for basketball.  In baseball and football, plays have distinct beginnings and endings, basketball tends to be more flowing.  If I were to believe they are accurate, I'd submit this play:
 
http://youtu.be/DzlSsWnZxt0?t=20s
 
Start at 20 seconds.  With 4.7 seconds remaining, down by 2 and without possession, the Celtic's win percentage was about 2.8%.  Pierce steals the inbounds pass (thanks to a deflection by House), and gains control with about 3.5 seconds left.  The Celtic's win percentage swings up to 9.9%.  Allen gets his shot up at 1.9 seconds (in that instant, the C's win expectancy is 7.2%).  The game-winning 3 goes through the net as the buzzer sounds.  Somewhere in that sequence, the C's win expectancy swung between 90% and 97%.  
 
http://stats.inpredictable.com/nba/wpCalc.php

 

[Punchado]

What about Hobbs' AB against Pittsburgh in the bottom of the ninth down by two with two on?

 

[grimshaw]

Butler by a billion.
I'm not sure Dave Roberts is in the top 5 for me considering David Ortiz had two walk off hits in the same series.

 

[singaporesoxfan]

Thinking back to when I left Boston in 2001, I'm just so happy to be debating whether the steal that sparked the first of the Sox's three 21st century championships or the interception that sealed the 4th Patriot ring was superior.

 

[TheoShmeo]

Before Roberts' steal, I daresay that most of us were wondering about which pitch he would go on, whether he would be safe and what Mueller would do with the opportunity.  Or something along those lines.  And we were feeling a little bit hopeful given the Millar walk, an unexpected yet obviously extremely positive development given who was on the mound.
 
Before Butler's pick, I daresay that most of us were numb and already processing another fluky and devastating ending to a Super Bowl.  There was some hope but holy crap.
 
So in addition to the fact that Butler's was a virtual walk off while Roberts' needed a whole bunch of other plays in that game, much less 3 and then 4 more wins in order to get punched into history, the fact that we knew the first was about to be attempted (and would likely be successful) while the second was the most pleasant surprise imaginable makes the Butler choice a slam dunk for me.
 
Obviously, that doesn't diminish Roberts' play in any way.  And it's true that the fact that everyone knew it was coming can be viewed as a factor in its favor and amps up the level of difficulty.  Still, I'll take the walk off shocker in a very happy comparison.

 

[canvass ali]

I think the fact that we place the Roberts steal in the pantheon of greatest plays bears witness to the overall import of '04 and the final outcome.  Winning that championship was such a triumph, many of the key moments took on iconic status and are amplified by association, as part of the high point of our lives as sports fans.
 
The Butler interception had different elements surrounding it.  The Patriots weren't looking at a historic drought like the Sox were in '04; the opposite really, the Pats had morphed from underdogs to perennial conquering oppressors, at least in the narrative that grew up outside of New England.  But that very narrative had taken on such toxicity that it lapsed into craziness.  There was an active effort to strip the coach, the quarterback, the owner and the entire organization of their legitimacy and reduce 15 years of skill, dominance, hard work and sheer brilliance to elaborate deception that deserved nothing more than a shameful asterisk.  It felt like the whole sporting world was hungry to witness the Pats' comeuppance and a chance to sneer. 
 
It was a moment we dreaded and it looked like the moment had arrived.  We were going to feel like crap for weeks, and then would have months of vague, nagging 'what-if' half-thoughts in the middle of traffic jams and work days...and then years of having to hear about it from the satisfied mob. 
 
And then Butler picked it off and the entire narrative turned in one explosive moment.  Legacy secured, critics silenced. 
 
The Roberts steal was an "I'm not dead yet" moment but the Butler interception was a resounding FUCK YOU.  And man, I am so damn happy we didn't have to go down that other road.  It's the first thing I think about every morning, much like the winter of '04 when I'd become vaguely aware of something in the back of my mind that made me happy and when I focused on it, it was that 'ahhhh' moment...we WON.

 

[Soxy]

Given the gravity of the situation, one can reasonably argue that Butler's pick is the greatest play in NFL history.  I don't think a similar argument can be made for Roberts' steal.

 

[SumnerH]

Given the gravity of the situation, one can reasonably argue that Butler's pick is the greatest play in NFL history.  I don't think a similar argument can be made for Roberts' steal.

 
The gravity of Robert's situation is approximately a million times bigger than the gravity of Butler's.  Even in a vacuum, Butler was involved in bringing the 4th title in recent memory to a fan base that wasn't starved for a title, while Roberts was involved in bringing the first title in 86 years to a fanbase that hadn't won one in that time period.  That would be huge in any town, even a football town.
 
The relative place in the Boston pantheon of the Red Sox vs. the Patriots just exacerbates that difference, but it goes way beyond that--the Red Sox weren't just a local story, they were a national one.  Had the Pats lost, it kind of would've sucked but people would've been over it pretty quickly.  The Pats winning is about as big a story as the Seahawks winning would've been--yeah, the Super Bowl winner matters, but the Pats weren't much more than that.  
 
The 2004 Sox title changed how almost everyone in the region watched sports, and was a weight off people's back of the like that I cannot imagine from any other title in any other sport--even non Red Sox fans saw it as a massive MLB-changing event.  The Red Sox winning was the biggest baseball story not just of the decade but arguably of the 30+ previous years.  Seriously.  I have friends who aren't Boston or baseball fans who either quit or started watching the sport on the basis of the 2004 Sox win.  Some of my DC friends still call it "the end of baseball".   The Pats in 2015 are just another title.

 

[Euclis20]

 
The gravity of Robert's situation is approximately a million times bigger than the gravity of Butler's.  Even in a vacuum, Butler was involved in bringing the 4th title in recent memory to a fan base that wasn't starved for a title, while Roberts was involved in bringing the first title in 86 years to a fanbase that hadn't won one in that time period.  That would be huge in any town, even a football town.
 
The relative place in the Boston pantheon of the Red Sox vs. the Patriots just exacerbates that difference, but it goes way beyond that--the Red Sox weren't just a local story, they were a national one.  Had the Pats lost, it kind of would've sucked but people would've been over it pretty quickly.  The Pats winning is about as big a story as the Seahawks winning would've been--yeah, the Super Bowl winner matters, but the Pats weren't much more than that.  
 
The 2004 Sox title changed how almost everyone in the region watched sports, and was a weight off people's back of the like that I cannot imagine from any other title in any other sport--even non Red Sox fans saw it as a massive MLB-changing event.  The Red Sox winning was the biggest baseball story not just of the decade but arguably of the 30+ previous years.  Seriously.  I have friends who aren't Boston or baseball fans who either quit or started watching the sport on the basis of the 2004 Sox win.  Some of my DC friends still call it "the end of baseball".   The Pats in 2015 are just another title.

 
If Roberts had an equal impact on the Sox 2004 title as Butler had on the Pats 2014 title, I'd agree with you.  Butler turned near certain defeat into certain victory, in the final seconds.  Roberts turned near certain defeat into...near certain defeat, and the Red Sox still needed 8 victories and 10 days.  I don't think you'll get many arguments on this board if you're saying 2004 meant more than 2014, but that isn't what's being asked.  By any measurement, Butler's interception had a far greater impact on the Patriots 2014 Super Bowl title than Roberts' steal had on the 2004 Sox title.  That doesn't automatically answer the question, but is every single play that contributed to the Red Sox 2004 title more important than every single play that contributed to the Patriots 2014 title?  If the answer to that question is yes (I say no, but I'd understand why some say yes), then sure, Roberts' play was more important.

 

[TheoShmeo]

 
The gravity of Robert's situation is approximately a million times bigger than the gravity of Butler's.  Even in a vacuum, Butler was involved in bringing the 4th title in recent memory to a fan base that wasn't starved for a title, while Roberts was involved in bringing the first title in 86 years to a fanbase that hadn't won one in that time period.  That would be huge in any town, even a football town.
 
The relative place in the Boston pantheon of the Red Sox vs. the Patriots just exacerbates that difference, but it goes way beyond that--the Red Sox weren't just a local story, they were a national one.  Had the Pats lost, it kind of would've sucked but people would've been over it pretty quickly.  The Pats winning is about as big a story as the Seahawks winning would've been--yeah, the Super Bowl winner matters, but the Pats weren't much more than that.  
 
The 2004 Sox title changed how almost everyone in the region watched sports, and was a weight off people's back of the like that I cannot imagine from any other title in any other sport--even non Red Sox fans saw it as a massive MLB-changing event.  The Red Sox winning was the biggest baseball story not just of the decade but arguably of the 30+ previous years.  Seriously.  I have friends who aren't Boston or baseball fans who either quit or started watching the sport on the basis of the 2004 Sox win.  Some of my DC friends still call it "the end of baseball".   The Pats in 2015 are just another title.

Ten years since the last Pats title. 
 
In between we got the devastating end to the 2006 AFC Championship Game, SpyGate, SB 42 (and the Helmet Catch and Samuel's missed interception, among other indignities) ending the chance for a perfect season, a difficult loss to those same Giants in SB 46 (which was punctuated by yet another unbelievable catch), the prospect that the Pats would not win another SB with Belichick and Brady at the helm, and the bullshit DeflateGate debacle.  We also got the fun of listening to people uttering the now dead "you know they haven't won another SB since SpyGate...just saying...."
 
This was not just another title.
 
That's not to say that its importance equals or exceeds 2004 Red Sox for most Sox/Pats fans.  It doesn't.  But it most definitely was not just another title.
 
And what Euclis20 said.
 
PS: Upon further reflection, I don't think there is any such thing as "just another title."  Let's briefly review the last eight Boston titles before this year's Pats:
 
1. Pats 2001.  This was the first Patriots Super Bowl, the whole season was a Cinderella story and the Rams game itself was incredible.  Coming in the wake of 9/11, with the Bledsoe-Brady drama and ending on a game winner all made this special and puts it high up on most Boston sports fans lists.
 
2. Pats 2003.  After missing the playoffs in 2002, this game cemented the Pats as anything but a one time fluky winner.  And the game itself was another thriller with practically another walk off Adam kick.
 
3. Sox 2004.  Nothing to talk about.
 
4. Pats 2004.  A rare back-to-back made this incredibly satisfying and special.
 
5. Sox 2007. Like the Pats in 2003, this win cemented the Sox as not just a one-and-done kind of champion.  This one gets a little overlooked but for many Sox fans this title was viewed an affirmation.
 
6. Celts 2008.  What a season.  The KG-Allen-Pierce thing was so unexpected and the selfless way in which they all clicked, culminating in an epic series against the LeBron Cavs and a drubbing of the Lakers for the title in Game 6, and the first Celts title since the Bird era, made this rather unique.
 
7. Bruins 2011.  With a drought ranging back to 1973, this was again anything but ordinary, and the final series against the easy-to-hate Canucks made it forever memorable, even ignoring the long drought.
 
8. Sox 2013.  Between the Marathon bombing and the closeness of and characters on that year's team, and the Papi granny in game 2 of the ALCS, that title will always resonate with many Boston fans.
 
Can any of these be called "just another title"?  Not easily.  If forced to designate one or two, I guess I would gravitate to Pats 2004 and Sox 2007.  But either would be a begrudging choice.
 
Maybe Celtics fans of the sixties could call one or more of those titles "just another title."  That's beyond my data base.  Maybe Yankees fans could do that.
 
That doesn't mean that your point about 2004 is not understood.  It does stand alone for me and I think even most Boston sports fans. 
 
Anyway, please excuse the long divergence.  The phrase just got me thinking....

 

[Soxy]

 
The gravity of Robert's situation is approximately a million times bigger than the gravity of Butler's.  Even in a vacuum, Butler was involved in bringing the 4th title in recent memory to a fan base that wasn't starved for a title, while Roberts was involved in bringing the first title in 86 years to a fanbase that hadn't won one in that time period.  That would be huge in any town, even a football town.
 
The relative place in the Boston pantheon of the Red Sox vs. the Patriots just exacerbates that difference, but it goes way beyond that--the Red Sox weren't just a local story, they were a national one.  Had the Pats lost, it kind of would've sucked but people would've been over it pretty quickly.  The Pats winning is about as big a story as the Seahawks winning would've been--yeah, the Super Bowl winner matters, but the Pats weren't much more than that.  
 
The 2004 Sox title changed how almost everyone in the region watched sports, and was a weight off people's back of the like that I cannot imagine from any other title in any other sport--even non Red Sox fans saw it as a massive MLB-changing event.  The Red Sox winning was the biggest baseball story not just of the decade but arguably of the 30+ previous years.  Seriously.  I have friends who aren't Boston or baseball fans who either quit or started watching the sport on the basis of the 2004 Sox win.  Some of my DC friends still call it "the end of baseball".   The Pats in 2015 are just another title.

But this isn't a discussion about which title was more important. It's a discussion on which play was more important to their respective teams winning a title. The clear answer to that is Butler, unless, like Euclis20 said, one chooses to believe that anything and everything that contributed to the Sox winning the World Series in 2004 is more important than anything and everything that contributed to the Patriots winning Super Bowl 49. Which one could argue, I guess. But that person probably doesn't care as much about the Patriots as they do the Red Sox, which would render the whole thing moot.

I don't see how stealing a base in the 9th inning of a one run game, where you're down 3-0 in the series, can be considered anywhere near as important as a game saving interception on the goalline in the waning seconds of the Super Bowl. That's what I meant by the phrase "gravity of the situation."

A ton of things still needed to happen for Roberts' steal to mean anything. Butler's interception literally won them the game. I made the analogy in a different thread, but what Butler did was basically turn a triple play to end game 7 of the World Series, after loading the bases with nobody out and a one run lead. That's probably exaggerating a bit. But not by much.

Edit: And if you think people would have been "over it pretty quickly" had the Patriots lost, then we clearly view things much differently. I think nothing could be further from the truth; Pats fans would have been devastated. Especially given the way they would have lost had Butler not saved the game.

 

[Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt]

Pats 2004, even grudgingly, can't (IMO) be judged as just another title.  It's the one that established the Patriots as a dynasty.

 

[TheoShmeo]

The more I think about it, I don't think anything can be regarded as "just another title." 
 
At the very least, I don't view any Boston title in my lifetime (being defined for this purpose as post-1969, when I became aware and invested of the four Boston teams) that way.
 
I only focused on Pats 2004 and Sox 2007 from the perspective of truly being forced to choose one or two in this era.  But your point about 04 cementing the Dynasty is well taken. 
 
"Back-to-back, three out of four, there's a whole lotta loving going on down there...."  

 

[Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt]

I would say the 2003 Pats title - if you had to pick one - could be the grudging "just another title" sweepstakes winner, except that winning THAT one contributes to the 2004 title cementing the dynasty.  Part of me wishes someone could've told the 1980s me that we'd be having these conversations in 30 or so years, childhood would've been easier.  (But I'm sort of glad to have found out this way.  It's sweeter.)

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

 
Roberts turned near certain defeat into...near certain defeat, and the Red Sox still needed 8 victories and 10 days. 

 
This is a nice way to put it, to me.  If you view games 5, 6 and 7 as 50/50 propositions, Roberts' steal increased the Red Sox' chance of winning the series from 4.625% to 5.875%.  If you view the world series as a 50/50 proposition, the steal increased the chances of Red Sox winning the championship from 2.3125% to 2.9375%.  I guess I don't understand why Roberts' steal is more important than, say, Cabrera's single earlier in the game to make it a 2-1 game, or Papi's home run in the 8th inning of game 5, or Mueller's hit the next at bat, or Millar's walk, etc.  
 
People say things like, "but that's when I knew we weren't going to take it any more," or "that changed everything and showed we were going to fight."  This strikes me as the kind of borderline magical thinking that this board usually eschews.  It's not like the Red Sox turned into a juggernaut all of the sudden after that steal.  The "turning point" narrative only makes sens in hindsight, if you forget things like that the Red Sox had a man on third in that very inning with one out and couldn't win the game right there or the fact that they had to come from behind again the next night.  Butler's steal didn't make the Red Sox hit or pitch better, or the Yankees hit or pitch worse.  It didn't cause Tony Clark's hit down the line 30 minutes later to take a bizarre, lucky right hand turn.  Maybe by game 7, the Yankees succumbed to the pressure, but that was hardly the case at that particular point in the series.
 
Games 4 through 7 of the 2004 ALCS were an amazing series of a dozen, or a dozen and a half unbelievable moments.  And I agree with sumner that the gravity of that situation, given the Red Sox history and the opponent and the prior year, and everything that came before was incredible.  If one were to ask which were more amazing -- the combination of those dozen or so moments or the Butler interception -- that's a different question.  But conflating that amazing series of moments that played out over four days into the single moment of Roberts' steal to put it up against Butler seems artificial.

 

[Leather]

With a gun to my head, 2013 Red Sox is "just another title."  Sure, it was unexpected and amazing in its own right, but it was almost an embarrassment of riches.
 
2007 Sox and 2003 Patriots established that both teams were built to last, and weren't just fluky flash-in-the-pans.  Tom Brady was a nice story in 2002, but he and Belichick became local legends with their 2003 title (and all-time greats with their 2004 title, which cemented the 2000s Patriots as the team of the decade and one of the best ever).
 
2014 Pats was a tremendous relief to fans that some missed opportunities on the biggest stage wouldn't haunt them forever, and a massive rebuke to the legions of folks who began to dismiss TB/BB's achievements over the past 7-10 years.
 
2008 Celtics was the first in a long time, ditto for 2011 Bruins.  
 
2013 Red Sox?  I'm not complaining in the slightest, but if I had to have one championship scrubbed, "Eternal Sunshine" style, that's the one.

 

[The Talented Allen Ripley]

But this isn't a discussion about which title was more important. It's a discussion on which play was more important to their respective teams winning a title.

 
As the thread starter, that was not my intent. It was simply a gut reaction question in the immediate wake of the Super Bowl, kind of like a Ginger/Mary Ann debate, one that has no right or wrong answer. One way to decide is to determine which play was more important to a title win, yes (and it's why I chose Butler), but I recognize it's a subjective argument, which makes for a great debate. The 2004 Sox title means so much for so many reasons. That Butler isn't winning unanimously speaks loudly to that, although this is a Sox board.
 

2013 Red Sox?  I'm not complaining in the slightest, but if I had to have one championship scrubbed, "Eternal Sunshine" style, that's the one.

 
I'd keep 2013 just because they won it at Fenway. I'd ditch 2007 instead.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

What about Hobbs' AB against Pittsburgh in the bottom of the ninth down by two with two on?

 
Looks like for the book, it's about a -10 percent wpa.  For the movie about a plus 90.

 

[GameEight]

Malcolm Butler anagram:  Melt? Or bum call? (question marks inserted for inflection)

Mor calm bullet?
 
This is a good way to waste a workday:
 
Ball curl to Mme (eh...almost)
Me blur. Call Tom!
U c Tom? Me balllr....(a stretch, I admit)
Melt Caroll Bum (could explain PC's post-pick reaction?)

 

[Leather]

LOL Mr. Meat Club.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

Mr Bull, to camel.

 

[Import78]

Mr Bull, to camel.

 
So close, I'm sorry but the judges were looking for "Mr. Bull, caml toe"

 

[canvass ali]

 
So close, I'm sorry but the judges were looking for "Mr. Bull, caml toe"

I was hoping Y'golonac, the Defiler would emerge but didn't have the letters for it.  My best shot: C Tom, MB Rule All

 

[Kull]

Definitely Butler, despite my chosen name here.

 
So this begs the question. When some Lurker decides to register on the board as "Malcolm Butler's Gloves", is that name reserved for an orthopedic surgeon, or perhaps is it more fitting for a "masseuse"? (Given the happy ending)

 

[Reverend]

 
So this begs the question. When some Lurker decides to register on the board as "Malcolm Butler's Gloves", is that name reserved for an orthopedic surgeon, or perhaps is it more fitting for a "masseuse"? (Given the happy ending)

 
You mean a hand guy?

 

[GeorgeCostanza]

 

[DaveRoberts'Shoes]

You mean a hand guy?

Hand guys sit down to operate, they aren't even real surgeons

 

[Devizier]

Hand guys sit down to operate, they aren't even real surgeons

 
After getting my broken hand repaired (3+ hours) those guys can lie in a lazy-boy for all I care. 

 

[Leather]

It would be funny if this poll turned out differently than the last one.  Then we'd need a third.