Talk:Curse of the Bambino/Archive 2

Current Yankee team

A new edit changed this sentence"

"The flip side of the curse was New York's success—after the sale, the once-lackluster Yankees became one of the most successful franchises in North American professional sports."

to this:

The flip side of the curse was New York's success—after the sale, the once-lackluster Yankees became one of the most successful franchises in North American professional sports, and remain so long after Ruth's retirement.

Since the "curse" expired in 2004 and the Bambino has been long in his grave does the current strength of the Yankee team matter at all to this article ? If it does, aren't we obligated to point out the records of some of the bad Yankee teams from the 60's & 70's ? No Guru 19:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's not get carried way here - no need to load this up with too many statistics or qualifiers. I think the addition, aside from being ungrammatical, is unnecessary. It's the general tenor of what happened (and didn't happen) over the 80-umpty years that matters, not the specifics.- DavidWBrooks 20:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Curse Transferred?

I'm wondering if it's possible that the curse was transferred somewhat, since the Yankees have now gotten close to winning the Series a few times, but haven't since the 20th Century. Curse of Alex Rodriguez maybe? Karmafist 23:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Or the Curse of the Curse of the Bambino? Maybe the Red Sox winning the world series somehow cursed the Yankees? 24.83.3.54 18:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

PHOTO COPYVIO

I have returned the photo, following the permission given above on the talk page. Permission needs to be placed on the photo itself. - DavidWBrooks 18:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the picture has been deleted already. No Guru 19:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

objectivity

I just a couple of my contributions reversed by some "subjective fan" not willing to concede that, since the world of baseball hasn't taken a vote, there is still allowed to be a difference of opinion as to whether or not 1 win in 86 years reverses what the trade fundamentally meant to the franchises and to baseball in general.

Before the trade, the Sox had won more championships than any other franchise, and the Yankees had not won at all. Since the trade, the Yankees have become the winningest pro franchise in North American sports while the Red Sox had not won at all until 2004.

The curse, in the minds of some, is not about winning "a championship" but about being "the best in the league." As a FRANCHISE (not a team and any single season exploit), the Yankees have not only won but also presented a high share of Hall of Fame players, plays and moments, building a body of lore unparalleled in sport. (when we think of the poem "Mighty Casey", what uniform do we envision him wearing? It won't be the Padres).

Anyway, this is one of the things that cause criticism of the wikipedia environment in general. Objective information is not safe when anybody with an opinion and a computer can just change what they don't like, truth be damned. The fact is, this is not a scientific reality, we're not talking about what elements belong on the periodic table. We're talking about some form of assessing what has happened in the history of two franchises and a sports league. It's open to discussion, and wikipedia ought to be a good place to air out the various viewpoints without censoring what is in disagreement with my opinion.

Note to DavidWBrooks - I read on your page that you are still not sure how reliable a source of information wikipedia is. Gee, maybe wikipedia would be more reliable if people like you didn't busy yourself changing things that don't agree with your narrow views. Clearly you're not a trained psychologist, so clearly you can't tell the difference between the product of research and "pop psychology". You're a journalist? Yeah, ummm, if you could just go ahead and stick to journalism, that'd be great, thanks. We'll just go ahead and make sure you get another copy of that memo.

Perhaps it was labelled 'pop-psychology speculation' because of sentences like: These and other less-well documented events lend some credence to the possibility that anxiety about "the curse" in the psychological subconscious of the players precipitated fear and errors that led, as a self-fulfilling prophecy, to the eventual conclusions ... With the exponential growth of foreign-born players in MLB, it's not unreasonable to hypothesize that many of the modern players simply did not have a fear of the lore ... While this is perfectly legitimate speculation, and topic for discussion, in other forums, wikipedia is not a place for original research. - DavidWBrooks 16:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll concede that if you are willing to concede that you are coming from a particularly biased point of view in removing comments reflecting viewpoints that are real even if they don't agree with you. As we are oft reminded, "Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy." I've spoken to people, listened to radio programs, etc. making very fair observation that the entire histories of these two franchises diametrically reversed, in part because of "the trade"; as such, "the curse" is interpreted by different people in different ways, and is worth documenting.

Well, I guess I am biased against speculation in wikipedia articles. As I said, it's perfectly legitimate speculation and topic for discussion - but not here. There are a bazillion Red Sox Web forums and blogs where it would be most welcome. - DavidWBrooks 18:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the dialog, at least this aspect of the wiki community is wortwhile. Listen, we're talking about two different things here. I concede your concern about speculation. My main issue, however, is whether or not "the curse" has been effectively reversed with one World Series win. Again, at the time of the trade, the Sox were baseball's class. The trade heralded the beginning of a new era in baseball history, with a changing of the guard going not just to "some other team", but to Yankees who were not only a team who'd NEVER won a WS, but THE team that got the Babe. Since the trade, the Yankees would go on to over 80s years of regular success, lore, and more championships than any other franchise in any other North American sport. And, as I've mentioned, this over-arching context is much more than merely "winning a championship", which basically only puts the Sox on par with the likes of the Diamondbacks and Marlins and Angels of late. As an "encyclopedia of the people for the people by the people", this viewpoint has merit; and even if it doesn't, it should still be included as a "counterpoint" for information's sake (kind of like the refuting argument in your high school essay. It should not be censored or otherwise rejected simply because it may, by implication, "keep the Sox down" or "rain on the parade" so to speak. To suggest the curse may yet be is no less speculation than to argue that, if there ever was a history that can be considered cursed, that it ended with a World Series win. I wish you would speak directly to this idea, and measure your removal the comment from the article in this context, and reconsider allowing it to remain in the article for objectivity's sake. Further, given that basebabll is "American's pasttime", some obligation to protect freedom of speech should be incumbent on us all. For all the things that people are free to spew that are damaging to a group of people, a discussion about baseball history should be a lot less censored, especially when teh comments being censored INCREASE the objectivity of the article, and thereby raise the level of its authenticity and reliability from merely the level of the devotee and fan; this is not a fan page, it's a wikipedia, and many people with views not necessarily like yours have a right to contribute to the article. I'm not looking to cut out or remove anything you wrote, I just resent your removing what I contributed, even though I was attempting to add some more objectivity and alternate views to the discussion. If you can't understand this, I don't know how to explain it any other way, and thus should only give it up and return to my original critcism of your participation; if you are not confident with the merit of wiki articles, it may be due to the actions of people such as yourself, who censor objectivity due to your personal bias.

Since the curse didn't exist as an objective thing, I don't know how to argue whether it "really" disappeared after the Series win. Nobody talks about it any more - try selling a "reverse the curse" banner outside Fenway these days - so it's gone. If people start talking about it again, then it's not gone.

As for being annoyed that your writing was erased, that's part of life in wikipedia - god knows I've had lots of stuff tossed from articles by other editors. Nothing personal. I'll grant that my "edit summary" about your contribution was rude and childish, and I do apologize for that. - DavidWBrooks 16:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll accept/offer a truce on this dialog at this point. We've duked it out, and both explained our views sufficiently to let others decide either way (PS. I should have been signing in so as not to "hide" my identity, but I'm at work :-) ).

Penny curse

I remember hearing something about a fan finding a penny taped under a seat from the year Ruth was traded? If somebody can write about it, isn't it worth noting here? --151.201.58.5 02:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Renteria

DavidWBrooks reverted my sentence that tells that the Renteria, the one who got the last out of the series ended up going to the Red Sox the next year. I think that fact is quite ironic and interesting. I don't agree with his removing it. Tzadik 07:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"Paranormal"?

A banner has just been placed saying this is part of the paranormal wikiproject. I don't want to make a big thing of it, but that seems a very odd connection to me. Are four-leaf clovers part of the "paranormal" mindset? The Tooth Fairy? That's the sort of thing this is - presented almost never as being real but being a joke, unlike UFOs or EPS or other paranormal goofiness. I think that banner takes the "curse" too seriously. - DavidWBrooks 19:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this article falls under the scope of that project.I am tempted to boldly remove it and will do so in a couple of days if nobody comes around to justify it. -- No Guru 19:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should absolutely be removed. The "curse" is a part of local folklore, no one is claiming it as an actual curse in the paranormal sense. Robogymnast 22:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The Curse Ends

I think it should be The Curse Ends because the Yankees arent cursed. The curse wasnt reversed it was just broken! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.86.122.109 (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

I believe the above comment is in reference to my undoing changes to the "Curve Reversed" section head, which was altered to "The Curse Ends" or something similar. The "reversed" phrase is so widely known and used that it would be a shame not to habve it; and since the curse never actia;;u existed, it never ended so there's no point in being literal. Besides, who says it was reversed to affectthe Yanks - maybe it was reversed to harm the ghost of Babe Ruth! - DavidWBrooks 22:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Probability Computation

I'm not sure who came up with the curse probability formula on this page, but in the description he states that one would assume a World Series was played every year between 1918 and 2004. This is incorrect, as no World Series was played in 1994 as a result of the labor strike. Whoever devised that computation should probably fix it, though truth be told I'm not sure why it's even on the page at all. Prezuiwf 03:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused by the existence of the probability portion as well. A binomial distribution assuming each World Series is an independent event seems ridiculous. Clearly, if baseball is a game of skill, a team's net skill is dependent on the players who often stay with a team for more than 1 year. If players were randomly assigned to teams, then maybe this would be relevant. But really, does anyone believe that the success of a team in a particular year is uncorrelated with how they did the year before? Khyth 19:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you're taking it a little too seriously. - DavidWBrooks 20:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

86 year curse?

I'm wondering if tha fact that the curse was broken in 2004 after 86 years means the Red Sox will not win another World Series until 86 years after 2004? 24.83.3.54 22:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to wait and see. -- No Guru 23:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No Guru??? That is the coolest username ever! 24.83.3.54 23:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Was the curse really reversed/undone?

Given that the only way to get to the world series in Ruth's time was to win your league and then the world series, has the curse really been reversed/undone? As I recall, the Rex Sox got in on the wild card when they won the World Series. So, from Ruth's perspective when he made the satement, the curse hasn't necessarily been reversed, as the Red Sox have yet to win the American League (or the Eastern Division) and then win the World Series in the same season.

Good question. 24.83.3.54 18:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverse Curve

How bout a photo of the the vandalized sign on storrow drive? I think that would add a nice touch if anyone has one.Wwelles14 07:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There used to be one here. I guess it was removed as part of the insta-deletion of photos without copyright information on their pages - an annoying but probably necessary of wikipedia these days. Whoever had it would need to upload it again and type in the proper permissions. - DavidWBrooks 19:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Are photos on college/university websites generally fair use? there is a good picture on the MIT website. Wwelles14 05:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Disappointment

I had contributed a list of trades made by the Red Sox to the Yankees during Harry Frazee's ownership (1918-1923), culled from The Baseball Encyclopedia by Macmillan. I find now that the list--which followed "You can't blame Harry Frazee!" and was partly meant to be a rebuttal to it--has been removed. I consider this unfair, as if the deck were being stacked in favor of Frazee... Dougie monty 03:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This is an article about the "curse" and its lore, not the legitimacy of various baseball-ownership moves only marginally related to the curse. I'm sure there are a bazillion Red Sox web sites where that can be debated. (Frankly, I think the whole "can't blame" section should go, but I think I'm in the minority there) - DavidWBrooks 12:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree too inasmuch as the bulk of actual baseball history would seem to contradict the "can't blame" concept. I refer to The American League Story by Lee Allen (1961) and The Great Baseball Mystery (about the "Black Sox" scandal, by Victor Luhrs. Without going into either work I can say that they set a solid foundation that supersedes the "Curse of the Bambino" but may even be the source of it. Dougie monty 19:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

And the Henry Frazee section has been removed - excellent. - DavidWBrooks 01:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"Drill him in the a&s."

Don't know if others would consider it a cursed result, but maybe something should be mentioned how Pedro made the famous quote, got injured and didn't win another game that season, and how the Sox were doing well before injuries caused the season to implode. Nygoodliving 15:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No, in my humble opinion. It doesn't rise to the level of other "curse" events. - DavidWBrooks 20:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

1986 World Series, Game 6

Can somebody (with the knowledge) fixe up the sub-section. It only mentions the Mets getting 1-run (Knight) in the bottom of the 10th; which would suggest Red Sox lead being cut to 5-4; whatabout the other 2-runs? GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Invention of curse by Shaughnessy? Any evidence to contrary?

Can anyone cite ANY explicit mentions of the Red Sox curse prior to the '86 Series? I don't see any such citation in the article. Is it possible that Shaughnessy not only "publicized" the notion, but actually invented it?

It is my impression that the concept of a Red Sox curse was invented largely "after the fact," that is, after there was a long title drought that seemed to need explaining... (whereas the Cubs curse was apparently actually "placed" by Bill Sianis in 1945). Spark240 (talk) 12:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)