If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Hardball Talk)   Here's the Boston Red Sox / St. Louis Cardinals World Series program ... from 1946   (hardballtalk.nbcsports.com) divider line 28
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

1043 clicks; posted to Sports » on 24 Oct 2013 at 10:30 AM (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



28 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-10-24 10:41:14 AM
Just the cover, though, you don't see the inside where there's a feature about a promising young rookie named Jamie Moyer
 
2013-10-24 10:50:20 AM

BunkoSquad: Just the cover, though, you don't see the inside where there's a feature about a promising young rookie named Jamie Moyer


That's right. "Ol' One Mississippi, Two Mississippi" was just coming into his own in '46. After lurching around the PCL for ten years, then serving his country in the Pacific theater, it was finally his time at a shot in the bigs.
 
2013-10-24 10:58:23 AM
Were all the players back from the war by then?
 
2013-10-24 11:04:38 AM

what_now: Were all the players back from the war by then?


I think so.
 
2013-10-24 11:11:03 AM
Imagine if Williams didn't lose 4-5 years in the prime of his career what his stats would have been.  The man was a beast.
 
2013-10-24 11:16:58 AM
It figures you have to go back to 1946 to find an image of a Red Sox player who doesn't look like a homeless douchebag.
 
2013-10-24 11:21:37 AM

idesofmarch: It figures you have to go back to 1946 to find an image of a Red Sox player who doesn't look like a homeless douchebag.


Technically, that's "World Series contender homeless douchebag."  If you're only looking for douchebags, you're looking in the wrong place.  It only took 6 comments to find one in this thread.
 
2013-10-24 11:24:44 AM

idesofmarch: It figures you have to go back to 1946 to find an image of a Red Sox player who doesn't look like a homeless douchebag.


Yet we only have to go back one post before yours to find a farker who doesn't sound like one...
 
2013-10-24 11:28:35 AM
CSB:
My wife's grandfather was a marine in WW II.  He was a life-long Red Sox fan, but also rooted for the Cardinals. We didn't know why, exactly, until after he passed a couple years ago. Going through all his belongings we found a stash of photo albums and memorabilia. One item was a yearbook from his time in the Civilian Conservation Corps. In it there were a lot of pictures and group photos. Turns out he was stationed with Stan Musial for a time and got to know him.

I imagine he must have been psyched about the 1946 World Series, though conflicted about who to root for. He did live to see the Sox win in 2004 against the Cardinals, so I guess he was happy either way.
 
2013-10-24 11:38:58 AM

Nana's Vibrator: idesofmarch: It figures you have to go back to 1946 to find an image of a Red Sox player who doesn't look like a homeless douchebag.

Technically, that's "World Series contender homeless douchebag."  If you're only looking for douchebags, you're looking in the wrong place.  It only took 6 comments to find one in this thread.


www.menshealthinstitute.org
 
2013-10-24 11:42:53 AM

idesofmarch: Nana's Vibrator: idesofmarch: It figures you have to go back to 1946 to find an image of a Red Sox player who doesn't look like a homeless douchebag.

Technically, that's "World Series contender homeless douchebag."  If you're only looking for douchebags, you're looking in the wrong place.  It only took 6 comments to find one in this thread.

[www.menshealthinstitute.org image 283x271]


I would guess not, what with the Red Sox in the world Series and all.
 
2013-10-24 11:45:34 AM

"This (1946) was the first World Series appearance for the Red Sox since 1918, and it would be their last appearance until 1967, when they would again lose to the Cardinals in seven games."


So the Yankees dominated the Red Sox in the AL, while the Cardinals dominated the Sox in the World Series.

 
2013-10-24 11:53:22 AM

EJ25T: idesofmarch: Nana's Vibrator: idesofmarch: It figures you have to go back to 1946 to find an image of a Red Sox player who doesn't look like a homeless douchebag.

Technically, that's "World Series contender homeless douchebag."  If you're only looking for douchebags, you're looking in the wrong place.  It only took 6 comments to find one in this thread.

[www.menshealthinstitute.org image 283x271]

I would guess not, what with the Red Sox in the world Series and all.


Vibrator's vitriolic response led me to believe otherwise.
 
2013-10-24 11:58:06 AM
Everyone should follow @BeschlossDC on twitter.
 
2013-10-24 12:03:15 PM

skinink: "This (1946) was the first World Series appearance for the Red Sox since 1918, and it would be their last appearance until 1967, when they would again lose to the Cardinals in seven games."
So the Yankees dominated the Red Sox in the AL, while the Cardinals dominated the Sox in the World Series.


And in 2004 they knocked them both off.
 
2013-10-24 12:08:14 PM

skinink: "This (1946) was the first World Series appearance for the Red Sox since 1918, and it would be their last appearance until 1967, when they would again lose to the Cardinals in seven games."
So the Yankees dominated the Red Sox in the AL, while the Cardinals dominated the Sox in the World Series.


St. Louis won two series against the Red Sox that both went seven games. So not really, no.
More recently they were swept in 2004 by a Red Sox team that never trailed in any of the four games, and after last night are 8-11 vs. Boston in World Series games all time.
 
2013-10-24 12:17:05 PM

skinink: "This (1946) was the first World Series appearance for the Red Sox since 1918, and it would be their last appearance until 1967, when they would again lose to the Cardinals in seven games."
So the Yankees dominated the Red Sox in the AL, while the Cardinals dominated the Sox in the World Series.


That 1967 Cardinals team was a beast. Bob Gibson was unbelievable - three starts, three complete games, three wins. 26 strikeouts in 27 innings pitched against 5 walks and three earned runs. Oh, and Gibson hit a homer in Game 7, too. They named him series MVP - no surprise there. Lou Brock had an OPS of 1.107 and stole 7 bases without getting caught. Roger Maris hit .385 with 7 RBI. Nelson Briles got the other win, in Game 3, going the distance in a 5-2 victory.
 
2013-10-24 12:34:40 PM

phyrkrakr: That 1967 Cardinals team was a beast. Bob Gibson was unbelievable - three starts, three complete games, three wins. 26 strikeouts in 27 innings pitched against 5 walks and three earned runs. Oh, and Gibson hit a homer in Game 7, too. They named him series MVP - no surprise there. Lou Brock had an OPS of 1.107 and stole 7 bases without getting caught. Roger Maris hit .385 with 7 RBI. Nelson Briles got the other win, in Game 3, going the distance in a 5-2 victory.


Lonborg, on two-days rest after the four-way battle for the pennant, was out of gas. Gibson, on the other hand, came back from two months on the Dl with a broken leg. I'm trying to find the refernce, but I believe Gibson pitched through a blister in Game 7 as well.
 
2013-10-24 01:26:35 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Everyone should follow @BeschlossDC on twitter.


This, but also...why is Ted batting right-handed on the cover?
 
2013-10-24 01:27:38 PM

obeymatt: Dusk-You-n-Me: Everyone should follow @BeschlossDC on twitter.

This, but also...why is Ted batting right-handed on the cover?


They actually discuss that in the comments section.  Apparently it wasn't meant to be Ted it was just some artists depiction of a generic baseball player.
 
2013-10-24 01:30:29 PM

obeymatt: Dusk-You-n-Me: Everyone should follow @BeschlossDC on twitter.

This, but also...why is Ted batting right-handed on the cover?


The guy was even kind enough to post a link.  I'll link it here :)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/roadshow/archive/201206A06.html
 
2013-10-24 01:35:24 PM

FarkedOver: obeymatt: Dusk-You-n-Me: Everyone should follow @BeschlossDC on twitter.

This, but also...why is Ted batting right-handed on the cover?

The guy was even kind enough to post a link.  I'll link it here :)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/roadshow/archive/201206A06.html


Thanks, I usually avoid the comments section of any story Fark links to. I guess this one was the exception.
 
2013-10-24 01:37:23 PM

obeymatt: FarkedOver: obeymatt: Dusk-You-n-Me: Everyone should follow @BeschlossDC on twitter.

This, but also...why is Ted batting right-handed on the cover?

The guy was even kind enough to post a link.  I'll link it here :)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/roadshow/archive/201206A06.html

Thanks, I usually avoid the comments section of any story Fark links to. I guess this one was the exception.


It was actually rather informative, I was surprised myself.
 
2013-10-24 01:47:24 PM

idesofmarch: EJ25T: idesofmarch: Nana's Vibrator: idesofmarch: It figures you have to go back to 1946 to find an image of a Red Sox player who doesn't look like a homeless douchebag.

Technically, that's "World Series contender homeless douchebag."  If you're only looking for douchebags, you're looking in the wrong place.  It only took 6 comments to find one in this thread.

[www.menshealthinstitute.org image 283x271]

I would guess not, what with the Red Sox in the world Series and all.

Vibrator's vitriolic response led me to believe otherwise.


Assuming that festering boil Binghamton has a library, you should look up the definition of 'vitriolic.'

/your Boobies was vitriolic -- his response wasn't.
//u definitely mad bro.
 
2013-10-24 01:53:32 PM

enik: idesofmarch: EJ25T: idesofmarch: Nana's Vibrator: idesofmarch: It figures you have to go back to 1946 to find an image of a Red Sox player who doesn't look like a homeless douchebag.

Technically, that's "World Series contender homeless douchebag."  If you're only looking for douchebags, you're looking in the wrong place.  It only took 6 comments to find one in this thread.

[www.menshealthinstitute.org image 283x271]

I would guess not, what with the Red Sox in the world Series and all.

Vibrator's vitriolic response led me to believe otherwise.

Assuming that festering boil Binghamton has a library, you should look up the definition of 'vitriolic.'

/your Boobies was vitriolic -- his response wasn't.
//u definitely mad bro.


Well in this festering boil we do have internet access and a quick Google define comes up with "filled with bitter criticism or malice" so I'd say I used it correctly - what do YOU think it means?

/also, look who's calling the kettle vitriolic
//u definitely dumb bro
 
2013-10-24 02:27:32 PM

idesofmarch: enik: idesofmarch: EJ25T: idesofmarch: Nana's Vibrator: idesofmarch: It figures you have to go back to 1946 to find an image of a Red Sox player who doesn't look like a homeless douchebag.

Technically, that's "World Series contender homeless douchebag."  If you're only looking for douchebags, you're looking in the wrong place.  It only took 6 comments to find one in this thread.

[www.menshealthinstitute.org image 283x271]

I would guess not, what with the Red Sox in the world Series and all.

Vibrator's vitriolic response led me to believe otherwise.

Assuming that festering boil Binghamton has a library, you should look up the definition of 'vitriolic.'

/your Boobies was vitriolic -- his response wasn't.
//u definitely mad bro.

Well in this festering boil we do have internet access and a quick Google define comes up with "filled with bitter criticism or malice" so I'd say I used it correctly - what do YOU think it means?

/also, look who's calling the kettle vitriolic
//u definitely dumb bro


Please guys, can't we stop the fussin' and a feudin'?

Let's all just agree that you're both stupid.


/go Cards
 
2013-10-24 02:36:54 PM

Ready-set: Please guys, can't we stop the fussin' and a feudin'?

Let's all just agree that you're both stupid.


/go Cards


static.someecards.com
 
2013-10-25 12:13:01 AM

mome23: skinink: "This (1946) was the first World Series appearance for the Red Sox since 1918, and it would be their last appearance until 1967, when they would again lose to the Cardinals in seven games."
So the Yankees dominated the Red Sox in the AL, while the Cardinals dominated the Sox in the World Series.

St. Louis won two series against the Red Sox that both went seven games. So not really, no.
More recently they were swept in 2004 by a Red Sox team that never trailed in any of the four games, and after last night are 8-11 vs. Boston in World Series games all time.


Make that 9-11... wait... 9-11?

/Never Forget
//Go Cards
 
Displayed 28 of 28 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report