PDA

View Full Version : What was the most lopsided World Series you've ever seen?


PKalltheway
11-07-2007, 07:24 PM
With Boston's massacre over Colorado this year in the World Series, was this year's World Series the most lopsided one you've ever seen? Or was there one that was significantly worse?

I left off the 1999 and 2005 sweeps since both series featured fairly close games. If you feel that one of those two, or something else qualifies in your mind, feel free to vote "other" and say why.

ode to veeck
11-07-2007, 07:40 PM
Please fix the poll to include the 2005 White Sox sweep of the NL team that didn't have a chance ...

ilsox7
11-07-2007, 07:45 PM
Please fix the poll to include the 2005 White Sox sweep of the NL team that didn't have a chance ...

AS OP said, that was about as close as a sweep can get. The Astros were in every game.

Johnny Mostil
11-07-2007, 09:08 PM
Of those listed, I voted for '89. '76 is perhaps in second for me.

1990 was the most stunning I've ever seen. I guess I couldn't vote for it as the most lopsided because I honestly didn't believe the Reds would win, much less sweep, until they took that 8th-inning lead in Game 4 . . .

areilly
11-07-2007, 09:22 PM
Please fix the poll to include the 2005 White Sox sweep of the NL team that didn't have a chance ...

You can't be serious:

Game 1: Sox 5, Astros 3
Game 2: Decided by a Scott Podsednik walk-off. Scotty Pods!
Game 3: Longest World Series game of all-time.
Game 4: 1-0.


How can you say that Series was easy? How are any of those games even lopsided?

EastCoastSoxFan
11-08-2007, 12:33 PM
Definitely 2004.

To describe that World Series as "anti-climactic" would be like describing Antarctica as "cold", although it had as much to do with St. Louis's stunning ineptitude as the Red Sox' superior play.

St. Louis did not hold a lead at any point in any of the four games, and other than a few sterling defensive plays, barely even made their presence known on the field.

I don't have stats in front of me, but I'm sure their team offensive statistics were among the worst for any World Series representative in the last twenty or thirty years...

SBSoxFan
11-08-2007, 12:47 PM
With Boston's massacre over Colorado this year in the World Series, was this year's World Series the most lopsided one you've ever seen? Or was there one that was significantly worse?

I left off the 1999 and 2005 sweeps since both series featured fairly close games. If you feel that one of those two, or something else qualifies in your mind, feel free to vote "other" and say why.

Colorado was in 2, if not 3, of the games. So, not sure I agree that it was a "massacre."

PKalltheway
11-08-2007, 01:04 PM
Colorado was in 2, if not 3, of the games. So, not sure I agree that it was a "massacre."
Game 1 the Rockies lost 13-1, and Game 3 they lost 10-5. The other two games were close, but the World Series definitely had an anti-climatic feeling once the Red Sox extended their lead in Game 3. It just seemed that whenever the Rockies tried to get back in it, the Red Sox always had an answer (unfortunately).

Johnny Mostil
11-08-2007, 01:16 PM
Definitely 2004.

To describe that World Series as "anti-climactic" would be like describing Antarctica as "cold", although it had as much to do with St. Louis's stunning ineptitude as the Red Sox' superior play.

St. Louis did not hold a lead at any point in any of the four games, and other than a few sterling defensive plays, barely even made their presence known on the field.

I don't have stats in front of me, but I'm sure their team offensive statistics were among the worst for any World Series representative in the last twenty or thirty years...

Much of the same can be said about the '89 Series. The Giants also didn't have a lead at any point, and the best they did with a tie was taking it into the bottom of the 4th of the second game. At least the first game of the '04 Series was a slugfest in some doubt until the late innings (tied 9-9 heading into the bottom of the 8th). But for the Series I suppose the Cards' bats in '04 were slightly worse, .190 BA, .261 OBP, and .302 SLG, compared to Giants .209/.252/.343.

SBSoxFan
11-08-2007, 01:18 PM
Game 1 the Rockies lost 13-1, and Game 3 they lost 10-5. The other two games were close, but the World Series definitely had an anti-climatic feeling once the Red Sox extended their lead in Game 3. It just seemed that whenever the Rockies tried to get back in it, the Red Sox always had an answer (unfortunately).

I agree with everything you said; the clincher was the Rockies not being able to complete a comeback in game 3. In other words, 2, if not 3, of the games were close. :D:

The Dude
11-08-2007, 04:33 PM
Please fix the poll to include the 2005 White Sox sweep of the NL team that didn't have a chance ...
:rolleyes:
Any of those games could have gone to the Astros. You have got to be joking.

Soxfanspcu11
11-08-2007, 09:17 PM
St. Louis did not hold a lead at any point in any of the four games

:o:

I knew that Boston really gave it to St.Louis in 2004, but I had NO idea that it was that bad!

So, your saying that St.Louis NEVER had the lead right?? That is just insane! I mean, WOW!!!!!

Now, knowing that stat that you just brought up, I would have to agree with you that 2004 was the most lopsided ever! If only for that stat alone! That is seriously unbelievable!

And as a slight hijack, am I the only one who finds the word, "Lopsided" to be a strange word? I mean, I know what it means obviously, but it's just a strange word. Particuarly if you break it down. LOP SIDED. I know what "sided" means, but what the hell is a "Lop":?: I dunno, just one of those innocent things that I find strange.:rolleyes:

EastCoastSoxFan
11-09-2007, 09:16 PM
Yeah, and as another poster mentioned, the same was true of the thoroughly underwhelming 1989 San Francisco Giants.
Other than Will Clark and Kevin Mitchell they had a pretty unimpressive lineup (was Matt Williams on that team?), and if Rick Reuschel is your #1 starter, I don't like your chances against the late-80's Oakland A's.

But as much as I enjoyed our sweep in '05, that series was about as far from lopsided as you can get.
The 4 games were decided by a total of 6 runs, the Astros staged game-tying comebacks in the late innings of games 2 & 3, and the largest lead for either team in the entire series was 4 runs, which the Astros held, I believe, for one inning until we hung 5 on Roy Oswalt in the 5th inning of game 3.

Viva Medias B's
11-09-2007, 09:44 PM
I voted for the '89 A's, but do you think they would have swept the Giants had that World Series not been interrupted by the Bay Area Earthquake before Game 3? Dave Stewart started Games 1 and 3 while Bob Welch started Games 2 and 4.

Johnny Mostil
11-09-2007, 09:57 PM
I voted for the '89 A's, but do you think they would have swept the Giants had that World Series not been interrupted by the Bay Area Earthquake before Game 3? Dave Stewart started Games 1 and 3 while Bob Welch started Games 2 and 4.

Hard to say. I do think the Giants might have been able to at least get a lead in one of the games.

As near as I can tell, the four World Series in which the losing team never even had a lead were in 1963, 1966, 1989, and 2004.

JB98
11-09-2007, 11:28 PM
I voted for 1989, but I think some good arguments have been made in this thread for 2004.

PKalltheway
11-10-2007, 03:20 AM
Hard to say. I do think the Giants might have been able to at least get a lead in one of the games.

As near as I can tell, the four World Series in which the losing team never even had a lead were in 1963, 1966, 1989, and 2004.
Wow, the '63 Yankees never had a lead in any of their 4 games? That's an impressive feat by the Dodgers' pitching staff! That goes to show you that no matter how mighty of a lineup you may have, good pitching always beats good hitting.:cool:

Johnny Mostil
11-10-2007, 07:35 AM
Wow, the '63 Yankees never had a lead in any of their 4 games? That's an impressive feat by the Dodgers' pitching staff! That goes to show you that no matter how mighty of a lineup you may have, good pitching always beats good hitting.:cool:

Some more details . . .

Game 1: Dodgers score 4 in top of 2nd, win 5-2

Game 2: Dodgers score 2 in top of 1st, win 2-1

Game 3: Dodgers score 1 in bottom of 1st, win 1-0

Game 4: Dodgers score 1 in bottom of 5th, Yanks tie it in top of 7th, but Dodgers score 1 in bottom of 7th and win 2-1.

Not a blowout, but, as you say, impressive. For the Series, Yanks' BA/OBP/SLG was .171/.207/.240. Yanks' pitching wasn't bad, with a 2.91 ERA for the Series, compared to 3.07 in regular season. Dodger pitching ERA was 2.85 for the season and 1.00 for the Series.

Incidentally, in '66 Series, in which the Dodgers never had a lead, the Orioles' ERA was 0.50. Dodgers BA/OBP/SLG was .142/.226/.192. A different era, I guess . . .

johnr1note
11-10-2007, 03:47 PM
As far as a World Series I actually watched (and I know I'm revealing my age) I would have to say the most lopsided World Series I have ever seen was 1966. First of all, the Dodgers, who were defending Champs and had Koufax, Drysdale, Osteen, and a team built to run and score, were the clear favorites over the Orioles, who had a young upstart team, with a very young Jim Palmer and Dave McNally, and the core of the team that was so great in the 70s. The Dodgers scored a run or two in like the 2nd or 3rd inning of game 1 (after the O's took the lead in the top of the first), and never scored another run for the rest of the Series! Baltimore's pitching just totally shut them down. No slugfests (last two games were won 1-0) but the O's staff was just so dominant -- well, the Dodgers never had a chance.