Recent comments in /f/sports

Roberto-Del-Camino t1_jax0ikj wrote

You nailed it. All of that changed in 2004 when the Six won the World Series. Even though the Pats had just won 2 Super Bowls and we’re on their way to a third, the cloud didn’t really lift until the Red Sox reversed the curse.

2

ermghoti t1_jawoqrw wrote

Yeah, that's what I was getting at. Also, so many of those near misses were seen as attributable to misfortune (ill timed injuries, unexpected deaths, Patriots being robbed in the 1976 Divisional round, etc), or grotesque incompetence (e.g. Parcells seemingly no-showing in 1996, Grady Little). The sports city viewed itself as long-suffering.

2

Roberto-Del-Camino t1_jaw7yxd wrote

If you moved here in 1990 then the Pats fans didn’t expect anything. That was possibly the nadir of the franchise. The Celtics fans were coming off the Bird years and were used to excellence. The Bruins were good. But they had lost to Gretzky’s Oilers in the Cup Finals 2 out of the previous 3 years.

But, yes, despite winning the East 3 out of the previous 5 years, Red Sox fans had the “what’ll go wrong this year” mindset. That ended in 2004 for most of us and 2007 for all but the most pessimistic fan.

2

daulm t1_jaw4rke wrote

This is from the wiki for Points in Ice hockey:

> A rule that was instituted in the 1999–2000 NHL season states that when a team loses in overtime, they shall earn one point for making it to overtime.

It is also how I remember the scoring before the league removed ties and implemented shootouts. This happened in the 05-06 season.

1

ermghoti t1_javpdg0 wrote

None of that's wrong, but it lacks context. People insert emotion into patterns. When it's believed your baseball team is cursed, and your basketball team appears to have been snuffed out by the hand of an angry god, near championship runs are viewed as proof that that they can never prevail, not that they are the cusp of ultimate success. I'm speaking as a transplant from around 1990, having family in the area all my life. The sports fans were always waiting to see how the failure was going to happen.

2

rjnd2828 t1_javmfhd wrote

Last year. He had won Wimbledon in 2021, and he won again in 2022. However they didn't award ranking points in 2022 because they didn't allow Russian players to enter. So he lost the 2021 points (they expired) and didn't get any new points even though he won in 2022.

Djokovic falls to seventh in world after ... - Yahoo Sport UK https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/djokovic-falls-seventh-world-wimbledon-091232083.html

2

Roberto-Del-Camino t1_jav8z63 wrote

Just because they didn’t win championships during those drought years doesn’t mean they weren’t good teams. The Red Sox had winning seasons in 44 of their last 55 seasons. Their problem was being in the same division as the Yankees or running into all-time great teams when they made the World Series. But they have had a legitimate shot at the World Series almost every year for half a century.

The Bruins have made Stanley Cup runs every few years since 1970. They just couldn’t get over the hump.

The Celtics have been great since the 1950’s. Losing Len Bias and Reggie Lewis took them 10 years to get over.

And even the Patriots competed for championships once a decade from the 1960’s to 2000 before dominating the NFL for 20 years. The late 70’s Pats we’re excellent but they got sabotaged by their coach leaving without notice. The 85 Pats lost a Super Bowl to the greatest team in NFL history. The 96 Pats lost to peak Brett Favre while their coach was setting up his next job.

New England fans have been lucky. I think the real reason is because they’re passionate but will call out ownership when things aren’t good.

3

Roberto-Del-Camino t1_jav7ipn wrote

The Bruins have had the cheapest owner in the league for years. So when the NHL adopted a salary cap, they were kind of used to playing under an artificial salary cap and you could argue had an advantage over the rest of the league because of that.

1

hi-Im-gosu t1_jauwnuk wrote

Top 10 isn’t shit in tennis, people only care about number 1 just like every other sport.

your pathetic attempt at word play doesn’t change that fact. Weeks at number 1 is the most important metric when determining dominance because it means you were consistently the best player in the world for the longest time.

nobody cares if you were top 10, why couldn’t you get number 1?

if you care about longevity, total titles is a better stat to represent that but even then it pales in comparison to weeks at number 1 because not all tennis tournaments are equal, some are far easier than others.

it seems you don’t understand the true objective goal of professional tennis which is why you can’t comprehend my argument

the sole goal of professional tennis is to earn as many ATP points as possible, the number 1 player does this making them the best.

1