Putting aside the guys 3400 hits, 3 silver bats and assorted gold gloves, Yaz '67 was to my eye the single greatest season I've seen any ballplayer have.Dan to Theo to Ben said:
I voted along the same split that seems to divide the issue mainly, Ted and Yaz as obvious inclusions, then struggled with Ortiz, Pedro, and Young. I ended up going with Ortiz and Young of those three, mainly because of Ortiz having the longevity in terms of high-performance years (He is on pace to have his 11th out of the last 12 years with 124 or better wRC+) along with his leadership and championships, and Young for his place in the history of game and staggering counting stats, plus representing the early era.
The real issue for me, and I think for a lot of people, though, was simply that Pedro was only ours for a short period of time relative to his career. Ortiz has to this point had 80.7% of his major leage PAs in a Red Sox uniform, and that number is only going to increase. All 11 of those great offensive years I mentioned above happened in Boston. In contrast, Pedro only pitched 49.5% of his major league innings with us. A majority of innings I could live with, but a plurality? I just couldn't do it.
It broke my heart, because I was late high school/college age for Pedro's time with us, so was old enough to appreciate him differently than my childhood Clemens-worship. But when I realized that he hadn't even played half of his baseball with the Red Sox, I just couldn't pull the trigger. It was excruciatingly close between the two of them, but I felt like Young had to represent the early years (even if he suffers from the same flaw I left Pedro off for).
edit: fixed a number, clarity
The real issue for me, and I think for a lot of people, though, was simply that Pedro was only ours for a short period of time relative to his career. Ortiz has to this point had 80.7% of his major leage PAs in a Red Sox uniform, and that number is only going to increase. All 11 of those great offensive years I mentioned above happened in Boston. In contrast, Pedro only pitched 49.5% of his major league innings with us. A majority of innings I could live with, but a plurality? I just couldn't do it.
It broke my heart, because I was late high school/college age for Pedro's time with us, so was old enough to appreciate him differently than my childhood Clemens-worship. But when I realized that he hadn't even played half of his baseball with the Red Sox, I just couldn't pull the trigger. It was excruciatingly close between the two of them, but I felt like Young had to represent the early years (even if he suffers from the same flaw I left Pedro off for).
edit: fixed a number, clarity
Pedro, Ortiz, WIlliams, and Yaz. And each one is a icon among icons for all of the reasons touted before this post. We should count ourselves lucky to have such a hard time with decision making process.
pokey_reese said:
Well, at least Pedro pitched a plurality of his innings with us. Young didn't even do that. And Pedro's Boston tenure clearly corresponded to the peak of his career. This is, at best, debatable for Young (though you can make a decent case for it).
EDIT: Ah, I see you noted this anomaly at the end of your post.
Yeah, I felt like Young was important to the Sox and the game at a time that I wanted to include, which made it feel like it was between Ortiz and Pedro for my list.Savin Hillbilly said:
For me it's got to be Ted, Yaz, Pedro and Papi.
I think that was easy. It's the second-team Mount Rushmore that would be harder, with Clemens and Boggs probably locks, with Evans, Rice, Fisk (I know lots more years with the White Sox but an icon here in his time), Tiant, Young, Doerr, Wakefield*, Pedroia, Pesky* and Varitek* under consideration.
* Longevity more than stats playing a big role.
I think that was easy. It's the second-team Mount Rushmore that would be harder, with Clemens and Boggs probably locks, with Evans, Rice, Fisk (I know lots more years with the White Sox but an icon here in his time), Tiant, Young, Doerr, Wakefield*, Pedroia, Pesky* and Varitek* under consideration.
* Longevity more than stats playing a big role.
LostinNJ said:
Ditto. I get the Pedroia love, but he only belongs once he finishes out his career - thought there would be more votes for a HOF Red Sox second baseman that played his whole career with the Sox....
We only got four votes, and the top four vote getters in that list are, to me, in a class by themselves. I love Doerr, but he barely got to 2000 hits (2042), with an OPS+ of 115, while losing just one year to WWII. The most surprising one to me is Manny with one vote.TheYaz67 said:
curly2 said:
Rushmore Hill? I think Ted and Yaz are locks for the Mt. Pedro, Young, Ortiz seem to be in a scrum for the final two spots (my personal opinion). Based on the Mt. vote, it seems Cy Young is a lock for Rushmore Hill. The remaining three spots? That's tough. Evans and Rice due to excellence and Sox careers (mostly). Boggs should be in the last spot, or Speaker (either could displace Rice), but I'd actually go out of the box give that fourth spot to Babe Ruth. He was a crucial part of 3 World Series teams, twice being the most valuable player (by WAR) on the squad. Ruth had 18 WAR as a hitter, 22 WAR as a pitcher. I don't know if you can combine them, but if you can that would put him in the Nomar/Rice range.
The answer is Williams, Yaz, Pedro and Ortiz and Yaz is the one that's most vulnerable. Think of what each of these guys meant to the franchise and make your decision that way. I would accept an argument for Pesky, and perhaps 10 years from now for Pedroia, but right now, for me it's these 4 without question.
If the criteria is what each player meant to the franchise then Yaz is perhaps the most secure.HangingW/ScottCooper said:
We drew *9 thousand* people per game before 1967!
HangingW/ScottCooper said:
There is simply no way that Yaz is more vulnerable than Pedro by that criterion.
Pedro meant more to me as a baseball fan than almost anybody else who has ever put on a uniform. When people ask me what I see in baseball and "isn't it boring?" and all that crap, the first thing that comes to mind is "they need to watch Pedro pitch." His best games were like watching Miles Davis improvise or Michelangelo do the Sistine Chapel. Or maybe both at once.
But when he came along, the Sox were already on the rebound from a very brief spell of awfulness at the tail end of nearly a decade of good-to-excellent-ness....which in turn came on the heels of a similar spell after a similar near-decade. And throughout that period people were interested in the Sox and attended their games and watched them on TV in droves. Pedro put the cherry on that sundae, and then some--but it was already a reasonably tasty sundae before he came along.
I wasn't rooting for Boston when Yaz came along. But even from a distance, it looked less like putting a cherry on a sundae and more like fishing a bag of cherries out of a dumpster, planting one of the pits, watering it and watching it grow into the most beautiful cherry tree you've ever seen.
I would go so far as to say that Yaz is the least vulnerable name on that list when it comes to importance to the franchise. Papi might give him a run for his money. (EDIT: Actually that's not fair to Williams, who came in at the end of a much longer period of awfulness than Yaz did, and had a similar, though perhaps less profound and lasting impact. Really you could pick either Yaz or Williams in terms of franchise importance, closely followed by Ortiz, with Pedro bringing up the rear even though he might have been the greatest player of the four.)
I voted for Ted, Yaz, Pedro and Papi, and it wasn't really all that difficult to choose. The next tier is led by Speaker and Young (Cy, not Matt). But I just finished reading Crazy
'08, a very fine account of the 1908 season, and it's just truly amazing how different the game now is than when Speaker and Young were playing. I know that it's baseball, and I understand the metrics that help us measure productivity and wins in radically different environments. But in the first two decades of the 20th century, major league baseball was played in ramshackle parks, and routinely overflow crowds stood on the field, changing possible homers and triples into ground rule doubles. They used baseballs as long as possible, and pitchers gouged and darkened and slipperied them up beyond recognition. All players of color were excluded. They played doubleheaders routinely, and seventeen inning games were completed in a couple of hours. It was a different game in many, many ways.
So many, in fact, that I can't really wrap my head around it. Ted retired when I was two, and Yaz I remember only from national telecasts, because I didn't move to New England until 1987. But I know that the game that they played. Speaker? Young? I can't even really imagine it.
One of baseball's many alluring qualities is that I truly believe that the greats of any age could play today. Speaker would be an incredible talent, today, and I am sure of that, in ways that I am not at all sure that Bronco Nagurski could play NFL football today. But baseball's history is now so long that It becomes really difficult even to imagine the game as they played it before 1920. Cy Young and Tris Speaker are just numbers now. Flat out amazing numbers, but just numbers and a few photos. I'll confess that the presidents on Mount Rushmore are mythological, they exist in more dimensions than one. Old ballplayers, like Speaker and Young, along with characters like Honey Fitz and 'Nuf Sed Mc'Greavy, they're not mythic, they're not really a part of the Red Sox as I know them.
Ted, and Yaz, and Pedro, and Papi.
'08, a very fine account of the 1908 season, and it's just truly amazing how different the game now is than when Speaker and Young were playing. I know that it's baseball, and I understand the metrics that help us measure productivity and wins in radically different environments. But in the first two decades of the 20th century, major league baseball was played in ramshackle parks, and routinely overflow crowds stood on the field, changing possible homers and triples into ground rule doubles. They used baseballs as long as possible, and pitchers gouged and darkened and slipperied them up beyond recognition. All players of color were excluded. They played doubleheaders routinely, and seventeen inning games were completed in a couple of hours. It was a different game in many, many ways.
So many, in fact, that I can't really wrap my head around it. Ted retired when I was two, and Yaz I remember only from national telecasts, because I didn't move to New England until 1987. But I know that the game that they played. Speaker? Young? I can't even really imagine it.
One of baseball's many alluring qualities is that I truly believe that the greats of any age could play today. Speaker would be an incredible talent, today, and I am sure of that, in ways that I am not at all sure that Bronco Nagurski could play NFL football today. But baseball's history is now so long that It becomes really difficult even to imagine the game as they played it before 1920. Cy Young and Tris Speaker are just numbers now. Flat out amazing numbers, but just numbers and a few photos. I'll confess that the presidents on Mount Rushmore are mythological, they exist in more dimensions than one. Old ballplayers, like Speaker and Young, along with characters like Honey Fitz and 'Nuf Sed Mc'Greavy, they're not mythic, they're not really a part of the Red Sox as I know them.
Ted, and Yaz, and Pedro, and Papi.
Ted Williams, then Mel Parnell, Dick Radatz and Jackie Jensen as write in's. Because, that's why.
Wow, this is a tough question. I'm sort of surprised that the responses are even consistent (e.g. Ted Williams over Lefty Grove or Jimmie Foxx, Cy Young over Tris Speaker or Smokey Joe Wood, Yaz over Fisk or Evans or Tiant).
IMHO, Mount Rushmore represents the historical greatness of the United States; each president reflects a critical time in U.S. history where the U.S. made a positive impact on itself or the world. Analogically, the Red Sox Mount Rushmore should represent the historical greatness of the Red Sox; each player reflects a critical time in Red Sox history where the Red Sox defined its place in the league. Therefore, I tried to select a single person from four pivotal eras in Red Sox history:
Tris Speaker - Speaker was one of several players that established the Boston Red Sox as a dominant team in the American league, and the American league as a worthy competitor of the National league. One could go with others here like Cy Young or Smokey Joe. I guess I selected Speaker because he felt a bit more homegrown than his priors or peers.
Ted Williams - Probably the most memorable from the early years of the Yawkey Era, which brought the team out of a depression. Even casual fans are more likely to be familiar with him than Grove or Foxx, probably because his career spanned 22 years or something. Joe Cronin reflects both the good and bad about the 1950s-60s red sox, so he seemed less ideal to me.
Carl Yastrzemski - Another player who was partially responsible for the Red Sox return to success in the late 60s through the early 80s. The difference between Carl and the other players who were also responsible (e.g. Evans, Fisk, Tiant,etc.) is that Yaz was there for all of it, from 1961 until 1984. Evans comes pretty close though...
Pedro Martinez - Reflects the modern-day Red Sox, both in the transition from Yawkey to Henry, and in the post 2004-success. He is also responsible for some of the best pitching I will probably ever see in my lifetime. Even today he is still having a positive impact on the team; I wonder how our young pitchers would fare if Pedro was elsewhere. I think you can make a similar argument for Ortiz; but I like the fact that Pedro was with the team under both ownerships. Also, while Ortiz is great, Pedro's 1999-2000 were arguably the greatest 2-year span for a pitcher in the majors, ever.
IMHO, Mount Rushmore represents the historical greatness of the United States; each president reflects a critical time in U.S. history where the U.S. made a positive impact on itself or the world. Analogically, the Red Sox Mount Rushmore should represent the historical greatness of the Red Sox; each player reflects a critical time in Red Sox history where the Red Sox defined its place in the league. Therefore, I tried to select a single person from four pivotal eras in Red Sox history:
Tris Speaker - Speaker was one of several players that established the Boston Red Sox as a dominant team in the American league, and the American league as a worthy competitor of the National league. One could go with others here like Cy Young or Smokey Joe. I guess I selected Speaker because he felt a bit more homegrown than his priors or peers.
Ted Williams - Probably the most memorable from the early years of the Yawkey Era, which brought the team out of a depression. Even casual fans are more likely to be familiar with him than Grove or Foxx, probably because his career spanned 22 years or something. Joe Cronin reflects both the good and bad about the 1950s-60s red sox, so he seemed less ideal to me.
Carl Yastrzemski - Another player who was partially responsible for the Red Sox return to success in the late 60s through the early 80s. The difference between Carl and the other players who were also responsible (e.g. Evans, Fisk, Tiant,etc.) is that Yaz was there for all of it, from 1961 until 1984. Evans comes pretty close though...
Pedro Martinez - Reflects the modern-day Red Sox, both in the transition from Yawkey to Henry, and in the post 2004-success. He is also responsible for some of the best pitching I will probably ever see in my lifetime. Even today he is still having a positive impact on the team; I wonder how our young pitchers would fare if Pedro was elsewhere. I think you can make a similar argument for Ortiz; but I like the fact that Pedro was with the team under both ownerships. Also, while Ortiz is great, Pedro's 1999-2000 were arguably the greatest 2-year span for a pitcher in the majors, ever.
Ted, Yaz and Papi were immediate clicks for me. I hovered over Pesky for a little bit before clicking on Pedro and I still feel that was the right choice after reading this thread, but it was close for me to put "Mr. Red Sox" Pesky up there.
!967 was a watershed year for the Red Sox, something like 1958 and the Colts - Giants game was for Pro Football and 1979 - 1980 was for the NBA when Bird and Magic arrived. The Red Sox took off in attendance that year, more than doubling from 1966, and never looking back. They have been one of the top 3 or 4 iconic baseball teams since then (Yankees, Red Sox, Cardinals, Dodgers?). Maybe they were that also during the best Williams years, but they had sunk to some pretty bad lows after he retired. Yaz was all over 1967 baseball like Koufax was all over, well, 3 or 4 different years, and Miguel Cabrera was in his triple crown year. I would hate to say Pedro is "vulnerable", but I had Williams and Yaz without thinking, Ortiz next and Pedro fourth. Yaz's overall career is great also; he's #23 all time in position player BWAR.HangingW/ScottCooper said:
Speaking of Koufax and Miggy, Mount Rushmores for the Dodgers and the Tigers would be very, very interesting.
Rushmore= Washington, Jefferson. Lincoln and Roosevelt.
I get the "Different Eras" argument....but when compared to the real Rushmore...They had 2 contemporary guys (Wash, Jeff) from the "Golden age".
Seems fair enough to have 2 contemporaries from the current "Golden Age" so Ortiz and Pedro make sense to me.
Yaz and TW are no brainers as they were 45 years of continuous HOF players.
Cy, Fisk and Pesky are relegated to Stone Mountain.
I get the "Different Eras" argument....but when compared to the real Rushmore...They had 2 contemporary guys (Wash, Jeff) from the "Golden age".
Seems fair enough to have 2 contemporaries from the current "Golden Age" so Ortiz and Pedro make sense to me.
Yaz and TW are no brainers as they were 45 years of continuous HOF players.
Cy, Fisk and Pesky are relegated to Stone Mountain.
pokey_reese said:
He spent the overwhelming majority of his career in Boston vs. any other single team and during his peak. Aside from situations like Ortiz or Pedroia, that's as close as you get to being identified with a specific team in the free-agent era.
Flunky said:
One succinct way of expressing this is to look at his rWAR with different teams:
Red Sox: 53.8
Expos: 20.1
Mets: 8.1
Dodgers: 3.3
Phillies: 0.7
He pitched more games and more innings with us than anyone else, and they were also his best games and innings. This whole tack is just a red herring. There is no room for reasonable doubt about what team Pedro Martinez should be identified with.
Flunky said:
Yeah, I think people overthink it.
Say "Pedro Martinez" to any sports fan outside of Quebec and they think of him with the Sox.
Sometimes it's that simple.
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
DrewDawg said:
Savin Hillbilly said:
DrewDawg said:
First off, I'd have Ortiz behind Boggs, but I might have him behind Speaker and Evans as well, for different reasons. A hundred years after the Red Sox' first golden age, what names do we associate with the team? Is anyone pre-eminent, or symbolic, of that age? You'd have to go with Speaker (or perhaps Hooper, but he was never the star). Ortiz has been here in an era that has also had iconic, beloved players in Manny, Pedro, Nomar, Pedroia, even Schilling or Wakefield. But a hundred years from now, is his name going to be the first one Red Sox fans hear about in learning their team history from this era? I don't think it's speaking ill of the guy to say that he's not an inner-circle HOFer like Clemens or Boggs, or not pre-eminent among other Sox stars of this era.
But in defense of Cronin: he's the only person on the list who could plausibly earn his spot on the mountain by off-the-field contributions. It's like how Jefferson coasted on rep for decades and had a shambles of a presidency (Louisiana Purchase aside), and still got his spot up there over the likes of Madison or FDR. Cronin had a central role in building the second golden age for the Sox (the 40s/50s teams) and directly influencing the entire league as AL President for 15 years (the offices of which he moved to Boston). On the field, he was also Boston primarily, just as Pedro was. More PAs here, more years played (11 to 7), better OPS+ for Boston too. He had a HOF career here, if not the inner-circle that would justify his spot for on-field activity alone. And then he lived in Boston for 50 years and was buried in Barnstable. He belongs to the Red Sox franchise, which is why his number is retired here and not in Minnesota.
Considering how Babe Ruth was part of 3 Red Sox WS wins ('15, '16, '18) and how his career helped define more than one franchise, it's hard to rationalize why Speaker and Young should get votes over him. Yet it's clear that he should be on the MFY Mt. Rushmore rather than the Sox one.
That's why my votes go to 9, 8, 45, and 34.
That's why my votes go to 9, 8, 45, and 34.
MentalDisabldLst said:
I've given this more thought than I probably should, but I think I embrace E5 Yaz's thinking on this. Williams and Yaz as the no brainers. Clemens because like it or not he best exemplifies that period of the Red Sox.
And I think you are underselling Papi in claiming it's just because he was here for the championships. This period is an epochal shift in Red Sox history and not only was Papi here for all three, but he really embraced the city and being a member of the Red Sox in a way that exemplifies the spirit of the period.
He doesn't just represent winning, he represents:
and
and
He hugged every guest on the field, even. Every. Single. One.
Which, of course, leads us to this:
I mean, consider this:
https://twitter.com/FCC/status/325714412143013888
I think you are asking the right questions in your post. But yeah, I think the answer will, in fact, be David Ortiz, David Ortiz, David Ortiz!!
That's a great post, Rev. Thanks for that.
If there were more spaces on my particular Mt. Rushmore I would have a tough time deciding whether to put Speaker or Manny up first. They had similar levels of fabulousness for similar lengths of service and equal championships. I know Speaker represents another era and maybe that's a reasonable tie-breaker.
If there were more spaces on my particular Mt. Rushmore I would have a tough time deciding whether to put Speaker or Manny up first. They had similar levels of fabulousness for similar lengths of service and equal championships. I know Speaker represents another era and maybe that's a reasonable tie-breaker.
snowmanny said:
Thanks, and no problem. I literally got irritated the other day over remembering that Ortiz didn't win SI's Sportsman of the Year last year--I wrote about it here if you're not a media forum reader--and it was totally out of the blue.
Ortiz exemplifies why we care about sports. He's like Ray Bourque with a mouth on him. (Apologies for the non-baseball comparison.)
hellborn said:
That's where I'm at as well. Less time than it takes to pull your hand off a hot stove.
HangingW/ScottCooper said:
Not to pile on, but what the fuck?
Yaz' B-Ref page:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/y/yastrca01.shtml
He was top 20 in MVP voting 12 times. His 7-peak was ridiculous. He was flat-out the best player in Baseball over that stretch, leading the league in OPS 4 out of 6 years while leading the league in outfield assists most of them. He was 5th in OPS as late as 1974. Seven guys in baseball history have more hits. One guy in baseball history has played more games. No one has played more for the Boston Red Sox. He was the first player in AL history with 3,000 hits and 400 HR, in a career that saw his peak in a scoring-depressed environment.
He put together a season that quite literally changed the future of the Boston Red Sox. He was an absolute icon. He was on the cover of Life magazine, had bread named after him, and had every kid in New England taking some of the goofiest swings trying to copy whatever his stance was that week. Also, you may have noticed there's a fucking statue of him at Fenway Park. A Statue.
How in the fuck could he be "vulnerable" in comparison to anyone not named Ted Williams? Fucking Yaz? Good grief.
I want to make sweet, sweet love to that post.
I'll go so far as to say anyone not voting for Yaz has absolutely no business posting on a Red Sox message board.
I'll go so far as to say anyone not voting for Yaz has absolutely no business posting on a Red Sox message board.
First of all, I think choosing both Ortiz and Pedro are a reasonable choice, however, they are hardly contemporaries with respect to their time in Boston. In fact, they only overlapped for two years with the red sox. Pedro was acquired at the end of the Yawkey era, while Ortiz was acquired at the beginning of Henry's ownership.bakahump said:
Jefferson was chosen because of the Louisiana purchase, which was a formative moment in defining the United States' territorial boundaries and the concept of manifest destiny. George Washington was chosen because of his critical roles in establishing the United States through (a) the revolutionary war, and (b) the peaceful transfer of power via elections, which helped to ensure that the United States would remain stable. Though they were of similar age, the effects that they had were in adjacent eras that were important in early American history. By extension, an equivalent pair of red sox players would be Cy Young and Tris Speaker; not Ortiz and Pedro.
EricFeczko said:
I think his role as principal author of the Declaration of Independence might have played a wee bit part in the choice too. And that was contemporary with (if not prior to) Washington's chief contributions. So, there's that.
Plus, he drives Yankees fans nuts. It's frosting on the cake, but it's delicious frosting.Reverend said:
The Allented Mr Ripley said:
Here's the 55 offenders as of now:
21st Century Sox
Arroyo Con Frijoles
Beomoose
Bierman9
BigA27
BigMike
blueline
BosRedSox5
brownbob
Buckner's Boots
cardiacs
cmac24
Dan to Theo to Ben
DaveRoberts'Shoes
Deweys Stache
DrewDawg
Drocca
ebenson49
Euclis20
ExtremelyEasyEd
fineyoungarm
Grunherz54
jcaz
jekay
Jimbodandy
justbored
Lars The Wanderer
LeastSculptedJew
loafnut
lurker42
MainerInExile
Maximus
mt8thsw9th
MTSox
Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt
nayrbrey
NeedleNose
Nemo
OilCanShotTupac
oumbi
PaulinMyrBch
pearldive
quintus
Rasputin
Reggie's Racquet
RGREELEY33
Rice4HOF
robertst
Rooster Crows
Sam Ray Not
Schnerres
SMU_Sox
StuckOnYouk
Tharkin
zitrodivad
DRS and Ras are particularly disappointing.
Maybe all those people didn't like the fact that he poured his beer over ice before he drank it. Maybe his smoking? One year, in his stance at the plate, he had his hands up as far as he could reach and looked pretty dumb. I give up.Bergs said:
Had I not initially read this thread in the SoshApp, I would have already voted in the poll. I would also have been on that list, because I was thinking in terms of top echelon players in their eras of baseball who spent a significant portion of their career with the Red Sox. I think I would have voted Speaker-Williams-Pedro-Ortiz, because I identify Yaz more with his middling accumulator years than with what he did earlier in his career. I would have thought that 1967 alone would be enough to trump my desire to include someone from the first successful period in Red Sox history.
After reading the thread, I understand that I would have been doing an injustice to Yaz's first decade by chalking it up as just being 1967 and some more accumulation. I would now vote Williams-Yaz-Pedro-Ortiz, and get over the fact that now major star player really spans enough of the first round if Red Sox titled to need to be included.
Jose absolutely nailed the Jefferson Davis comparison with Clemens. I'd also include Cronin on the naughty list, due to his complicity in the mono cholor rosters of the late 1940s and early 1950s Red Sox. Off field contributions, my ass.
After reading the thread, I understand that I would have been doing an injustice to Yaz's first decade by chalking it up as just being 1967 and some more accumulation. I would now vote Williams-Yaz-Pedro-Ortiz, and get over the fact that now major star player really spans enough of the first round if Red Sox titled to need to be included.
Jose absolutely nailed the Jefferson Davis comparison with Clemens. I'd also include Cronin on the naughty list, due to his complicity in the mono cholor rosters of the late 1940s and early 1950s Red Sox. Off field contributions, my ass.
That is excellent, BC. Do some more.brandonchristensen said:Inspired by the Patriots "Then and Now" images...
As chosen by the board...
Not thrilled with this one, but the amount of time required to really do it right was more than I could spare 
Lincoln is like the Yaz of the Mount Rushmore of Sox, why would Lincoln not be chosen?Reverend said:
Lincoln was one of the founding forces of the Republican party
Lincoln maintained a stable union through the civil war
Lincoln helped redefine a new interpretation of "liberty" by fusing both negative and positive interpretations.
Lincoln dramatically expanded the role of the federal government in the U.S.
Lincoln reflects one of the most transformative eras in U.S. history, and he's arguably one of the top 5 presidents to boot. Also, Borglum was sort of obsessed with him:
http://books.google.com/books?id=zegeQtMn9JsC&pg=PA200&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
I remember reading that Nixon once told an aide, "I take advice unquestioningly from two people: George Washington, who founded this republic, and Lincoln, who saved it. All others had better prove their case."
Yaz is the Lincoln of Mt Soxmore. Sustained and renewed the franchise and propelled them into an era of peace and prosperity.
Yaz is the Lincoln of Mt Soxmore. Sustained and renewed the franchise and propelled them into an era of peace and prosperity.