Talk:2004 Boston Red Sox season

Asterisk

Shouldn't there be a mention that one of their players may have been taking performance enhancing drugs during the season? The Red Peacock (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No evidence that he was taking anything durring this season.Spanneraol (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No evidence? You sure about that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.140.120 (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ortiz comfirmed he failed the test.--Subman758 (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• No asterisk should be added. But it it should be mentioned that perhaps the comeback against the Yankees was not all that miraculous. Still there 97 other names on that list that have not come out. I wonder if Jason Varitek, and Trot Nixon are on it as well. I am a Yankee Fan, and I got a real reason to be mad, but still no asterisk should be applied to any record or win that may have been assisted by steroids, for two reasons. 1.) Whether we like it or not, they were not against the rules of baseball, at that time. 2.) It is in my opinion, the real reason players turned to steroids in the first place, was due to the pressure placed on them, by the FANS to perform, after the 1994 Major League Baseball strike.--Subman758 (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Several members of that Yankees team have been linked to steroids also, are you also recommending putting this information on the Yankees page also? The comeback was an accomplishment no matter what the steroid allegations are. This information should not be included on this page. Spanneraol (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• If you feel it should be there go ahead and add it. The bottom line is, it does belong here. No Yankee from 2003 is known to be on that list (Although there could be) remember A-Rod wasn't a Yankee until 2004. Clemens & Pettitte don't count as they are not known to be on that list. They were in the Mitchell Report. A report that is now known to be biased against the Yankees, as Sen. Mitchell had access to this list, and yet somehow good ole Martinez, & Ortiz were left out of the report. By the way Mitchell is from Boston. A Red Sox fan? You think? Go ahead and add it to the Yankees page, if you must. The sources I added, two of them were BOSTON NEWSPAPERS.

Furthermore I have already gone on the record as stating nothing should be taken from the Sox. Yeah their players MAY have used. Steroids, though don't give you the ability to read the best closer in the league better. Nothing should be taken from the Sox. NO ASTERISK'S should be added to any Title, or Record achieved in this era, of Major League Baseball. They were not against the rules of baseball until 2005, and I truly believe US THE FANS caused this whole steroid mess in the first place.--Subman758 (talk) 04:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we know at least one player on the Yankees was using performance enhancers in 2003, and that's Jason Giambi, through his own admission, and whether or not his name is on "this list". However, as I said on the baseball project page, if we add a section about PED use on this page, then every page for every team from the last 25-30 years will have to have such a section, and that's just ridiculous. Best that we keep it to the pages of the individual players, because the usage is not related to the team itself. -Dewelar (talk) 04:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have a different proposal, since you don't want to create a section for every team's page. I propose a new article Steroid Use in Major League Baseball. This information has to be documented, as it is proven to be true, Ortiz admitted he failed. Manny has failed twice now. It should cover every player known to have failed the testing, and those whom have come clean, with or without the results of any testing known, (Including A-Rod, Giambi, & Pettitte). It would not be fair to include Clemens until he ether comes clean, or is proven guilty by a jury of his peers. But it should be mentioned his name was in the Biased Mitchell Report.--Subman758 (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

An article of that sort might work.. but I would think you are too biased to write it.. your opinions of the Mitchell report shows that. And we currently dont know what substances the people on the "list" failed for or when they were taking it.. It's all very subjective at this point.Spanneraol (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not just my opinion of that report, not any longer. Take a look at this. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4408083 Hell I knew Mitchell was a Red Sox fan. I never knew he worked for them. Now we know he had a personal agenda. That was to smear the Yankees and leave the Sox unscathed. That report IS BIASED It's credibility can no longer be trusted.--Subman758 (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There is also this page, as well as this list which have already been created for this purpose. -Dewelar (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

References

OBP

What is the wikipedia rule on OBP? Why isn't the hitters OPB shown? That's just as commonly recognized as all the others and is far more vital than any of the others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.166.243 (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2004 Boston Red Sox season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120406093142/http://articles.boston.com/2011-06-17/sports/29670955_1_red-sox-piece-of-championship-hardware-greatest-comeback to http://articles.boston.com/2011-06-17/sports/29670955_1_red-sox-piece-of-championship-hardware-greatest-comeback

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)