Is it OK to call it a choke and still be proud of them?

[powersackers]

Originally Posted by oneupper

Choke yes. Historic? Hardly.
And yes, the 2012 REDS were a team to be proud of. Over-achievers in some respects, and adversity beaters in others. The division was theirs with surprising ease.
Overall, a good year. We'll get over this bad ending soon enough.
It would be nice to get another shot next year.

Failing to win 1 of 3 at home is historic in the NL, never been done. Historic in baseball, second time ever.

[Tony Cloninger]

How do they react to this? The Mets have not recovered or did not recover from chocking during the regular season with Randolph. Boston took a year from 1986 until 1988 but they could never beat OAK in 88 and 90 and then basically disappeared for about a decade from real contending.

The 1962 Dodgers took only 1 year to recover. Now it's going to be who cares if they win the division...if they are going to go all early 2000's Oakland A's or mid 2000's Twins on themselves.

[Tom Servo]

Good season, terrible ending.

[MrCinatit]

But of course.
They choked, big...but they are still our ballclub.
I was rather sure after watching the grounder bounce of Rolen that the season was virtually over for the Reds. I could see the scared look in their eyes. But, but did not matter - still watched what I could, still rooted for them to the very end.
They a lot of good youngsters who got a little bit more post season experience this year. And watching a team celebrate a playoff win on their own turf, that has to hurt. Let us hope they never forget it.
But, even were they to go back into the dark abyss they were in six years ago again...I would still lovingly follow them. Once and always a Reds fan.

[oneupper]

Originally Posted by powersackers

Failing to win 1 of 3 at home is historic in the NL, never been done. Historic in baseball, second time ever.

Bad choice of words. Historic, yes because it was the first in the NL. Epic or memorable. No.

Epic chokes was Philly in '64, Mets in '07, Braves and Sox last year in the regular season.

Even the Giants in the '02 WS, the Buckner Red Sox, the Rangers in '11 etc, etc...were more "chokish". And who can forget the '03 NLCS Cubs.

This one won't be remembered like that.
Did the Cards choke in the '68 WS or the Sox in '67? (losing the last 3 as did several others).
No one really considers those chokes, rather Tiger and Card "comebacks".

This will be a Giant "comeback" in a preliminary series and will remembered only when some team goes up two games on another on the road in a LDS.
Historic Footnote. A really tough trivia answer.

[Ghosts of 1990]

Been a long time since I had chills like I did in the bottom of the 9th today when Jay Bruce fought Sergio Romo for 12 pitches like he was battling a lion. That was one of the gutsiest efforts I've ever seen in my life.

I knew they would probably lose. And yes they choked. But I was damn proud to know that was my team at that moment.

[Edskin]

I could actually feel my heart rate increase in the 9th... I was holding my 10 month old son and pacing. My father-in-law picked up my daughter from school but just drove her around because he knew it was the very end of the game and he didn't "want to subject her to that"

The Bruce AB was excruciating. He finally did what I asked him to do all year... Total focus, wait for his pitch, battle. No guessing or give up swings. I am not made at Bruce for flying out... He did everything he could to try and win that game for us. The team gave a tremendous effort today... And came up short. I am 100% content with what they gave.

But that doesn't change the fact, that it was indeed, a choke. Not a historically colossal choke maybe, but a choke for sure. This was a 90% FT shooter missing two to win the game... A kicker shanking a 30 yard FG... Winning 1 of 3 at home when you haven't lost three in a row all year is not asking much. Doing so when your opponent has 1 hit entering the 9th inning is asking even less.

Today, the Giants made some fabulous plays. Their star hit a grand slam, their ace kept us at bay, and two of their role players made huge defensive plays. We came close to matching those plays, but we didn't.

Baseball is a game of patience and process. But in the playoffs, you run out of time. Drawing a walk or getting an infield single isn't good enough. Sometimes in October someone has to step up and put one in the stands. We just couldn't quite get there.

13 years ago on a Friday night in Milwaukee Marquis Grissom robbed Eddie Taubensee of what very well might have been a game winning hit in extra innings. When I look back at 1999, I remember that amazing summer with fondness for sure. But nothing is etched in my memory like that Grissom catch. I can still see it plain as day. I guess you could say it haunts me.

And 13 years from now I have a feeling I will see the many plays today that didn't go our way that might have changed the outcome.

It stings.... When will I get over it? Never. And that's the truth. Have you gotten over the joy of the 1990 team? Do you not care about that anymore? Sure you do... And if the A's rallied to win the series you wouldn't remember it so fondly, would you?

That's why the tension was so thick today... Because the outcome that was about occur is forever irreversible.

[Edskin]

Originally Posted by Ghosts of 1990

We see eye to eye on a lot, Edskin.

I'm so sorry for you.....

[Wonderful Monds]

Originally Posted by Edskin

I'm so sorry for you.....

As an aside I've read this board for years and am familiar with many posters here, and I just *now* realized that your name is a reference to the Redskins. Man I am slow.

[vic715]

Originally Posted by KittyDuran

I been a fan since 1969 - can I give the team the "choke" label for 1970-1973 seasons, or is it only reserved if you fail in the first round? After the Fisk HR in '75 before the 7th game, I was thinking that the team needed a "curse" to cover up the failure to win it all.

This is my 52nd season and I don't think I ever felt any worse than I felt when they blew game 6 in that 75 WS,but when they lost game 3 Tuesday night I had the same gut wrenching feeling I had then.We all know that that team came back,but I just didn't have that same confidence in this team.This team is young and yes maybe it was a choke, or maybe they just aren't ready yet.

[redsmetz]

Originally Posted by Roy Tucker

Game 3 was as tight as any game could be. The Reds pitching was brilliant but blinked at a crucial time. If you want to call that a choke, then OK.

Game 4 they just lost. It happens.

Today they could have folded up the tent and gone home after being down 6-zip. But they battled back and continually threatened. Just could never get that big hit.

But I've been a Reds fan for 48 years, been to winning games of LDS's and NLCS's, and World Series games, and the bottom of the 9th was the most thrilling 1/2 inning I've ever seen. Standing in the middle of a roaring crowd yelling my fool head off was awesome. Bruce's at-bat was epic. They just came up short. It happens. I wouldn't call it a choke. I'd say injuries and a short staff caught up to them and they lost.

I think this reflects my thoughts pretty well. Throughout these three games, I've come to the conclusions that at times it's just a small thing that makes the difference. Really yesterday's game came down to one pitch and Posey deposited it in the seats. Lots of "what ifs" throughout these games. Cozart not just conceding the run and getting the out. The double steal attempt twice ending with the out at third (was I the only one who thought both times seemed more like runners moving with two outs rather than the steal they were attempting?). The good, sliding catch of Navarro's batted ball. The hard line out right at the shortstop. Inches, as they say. WOY says this, it's a cruel game.

But this team didn't quit. I was sad, but not angry, at the game's end. It was almost emblematic of the season itself. And finally it just wasn't there. I said to my wife that the strikeout might well be Scottie's last AB and now that seems to be the case.

We could have won, missed many an opportunity throughout the home stand. We didn't. It doesn't minimize the good season, really one of the best in Reds history. Was this our only opportunity? I'm doubtful, but one never knows. The 1970 season was followed by a woeful 1971. Then the World Series, another loss; losing to the Mets in '73. By the time we got back in 1975, it seemed like the usual choke was coming on, but they prevailed. That team was one for the ages and one not likely to be ever seen again. But, as Vaticanplum put it, this team was tenacious and I liked that description a lot. In the final analysis, they fell short.

Also, I can't take anything away from the Giants. They played each game full well knowing it could be their last this season. Maybe that's why I dreaded going to a Game 5. But hat's off to them. I wish them well, particularly if the Nats don't prevail.

But I'm not particularly on board with calling this a choke. As said earlier, it's a cruel game, one of inches and that's the way it is. February will be here soon enough and we'll start a new season again. Onward.

[vaticanplum]

I feel like if we're arguing about whether it's a choke, it's not a choke.

Chokes are obvious. Chokes are astounding. Chokes leave everyone watching the game, not just the fans of the losing team, in disbelief that what is happening is even possible. I watched the Yankees win Game 3 of 3 in the 2004 ALCS 19-8. It was wrapped up. As we all know, what happened next was a choke. giving up a grand slam in the second inning of the seventh inning and then visibly, palpably surrendering on the field. It was like they weren't even trying, weren't even breathing. That is a choke.

In 2010 the Reds sniffed victory in only one out of three games. That comes close to choke. In the one game in which they came close, they fumbled and lost it. That comes even closer. That felt like a choke to me, but in hindsight I think it was just getting beat by a better team.

"Choke" implies that all you had to do to win was not mess up. That it was yours unless you went out of your way to lose it. You can look at the whole picture of this and say that after winning two games convincingly, that was the case here. I think that's simplistic. As Roy says, Game 3 was a tight game. It could have gone either way. The Reds had one bobble; they didn't throw away the game. That leaves Game 4, which they lost under questionable pitching. Not a choke. And Game 5 which they came very close to winning in the ninth after being down 6-0. Even if they had lost that game 6-0 -- probably not a choke. In Game 7 of the 2004 ALDS the Yankees went on to give up four more home runs after the Damon grand slam. Yesterday was one bad inning from one pitcher.

I think sports fans in general have started to overuse the word choke. I think we're using it here because we're hurt. The fact that the Reds battled to win Game 1 after Cueto went down alone shows this was not a choke. They should have lost that game. They had masterful starting pitching in Games 2 and 3. The offense had flashes of brilliance throughout. When they lost, they lost because they just lost like baseball teams do a lot of the time. They didn't choke.

[Chip R]

If this was any other team, we'd be calling it a choke.

[CySeymour]

I think it's fair to call it a choke. But I am still proud to be a Reds fan.

[RFS62]

Originally Posted by Roy Tucker

Game 3 was as tight as any game could be. The Reds pitching was brilliant but blinked at a crucial time. If you want to call that a choke, then OK.

Game 4 they just lost. It happens.

Today they could have folded up the tent and gone home after being down 6-zip. But they battled back and continually threatened. Just could never get that big hit.

But I've been a Reds fan for 48 years, been to winning games of LDS's and NLCS's, and World Series games, and the bottom of the 9th was the most thrilling 1/2 inning I've ever seen. Standing in the middle of a roaring crowd yelling my fool head off was awesome. Bruce's at-bat was epic. They just came up short. It happens. I wouldn't call it a choke. I'd say injuries and a short staff caught up to them and they lost.

Originally Posted by redsmetz

I think this reflects my thoughts pretty well. Throughout these three games, I've come to the conclusions that at times it's just a small thing that makes the difference. Really yesterday's game came down to one pitch and Posey deposited it in the seats. Lots of "what ifs" throughout these games. Cozart not just conceding the run and getting the out. The double steal attempt twice ending with the out at third (was I the only one who thought both times seemed more like runners moving with two outs rather than the steal they were attempting?). The good, sliding catch of Navarro's batted ball. The hard line out right at the shortstop. Inches, as they say. WOY says this, it's a cruel game.

But this team didn't quit. I was sad, but not angry, at the game's end. It was almost emblematic of the season itself. And finally it just wasn't there. I said to my wife that the strikeout might well be Scottie's last AB and now that seems to be the case.

We could have won, missed many an opportunity throughout the home stand. We didn't. It doesn't minimize the good season, really one of the best in Reds history. Was this our only opportunity? I'm doubtful, but one never knows. The 1970 season was followed by a woeful 1971. Then the World Series, another loss; losing to the Mets in '73. By the time we got back in 1975, it seemed like the usual choke was coming on, but they prevailed. That team was one for the ages and one not likely to be ever seen again. But, as Vaticanplum put it, this team was tenacious and I liked that description a lot. In the final analysis, they fell short.

Also, I can't take anything away from the Giants. They played each game full well knowing it could be their last this season. Maybe that's why I dreaded going to a Game 5. But hat's off to them. I wish them well, particularly if the Nats don't prevail.

But I'm not particularly on board with calling this a choke. As said earlier, it's a cruel game, one of inches and that's the way it is. February will be here soon enough and we'll start a new season again. Onward.

Originally Posted by vaticanplum

I feel like if we're arguing about whether it's a choke, it's not a choke.

Chokes are obvious. Chokes are astounding. Chokes leave everyone watching the game, not just the fans of the losing team, in disbelief that what is happening is even possible. I watched the Yankees win Game 3 of 3 in the 2004 ALCS 19-8. It was wrapped up. As we all know, what happened next was a choke. giving up a grand slam in the second inning of the seventh inning and then visibly, palpably surrendering on the field. It was like they weren't even trying, weren't even breathing. That is a choke.

In 2010 the Reds sniffed victory in only one out of three games. That comes close to choke. In the one game in which they came close, they fumbled and lost it. That comes even closer. That felt like a choke to me, but in hindsight I think it was just getting beat by a better team.

"Choke" implies that all you had to do to win was not mess up. That it was yours unless you went out of your way to lose it. You can look at the whole picture of this and say that after winning two games convincingly, that was the case here. I think that's simplistic. As Roy says, Game 3 was a tight game. It could have gone either way. The Reds had one bobble; they didn't throw away the game. That leaves Game 4, which they lost under questionable pitching. Not a choke. And Game 5 which they came very close to winning in the ninth after being down 6-0. Even if they had lost that game 6-0 -- probably not a choke. In Game 7 of the 2004 ALDS the Yankees went on to give up four more home runs after the Damon grand slam. Yesterday was one bad inning from one pitcher.

I think sports fans in general have started to overuse the word choke. I think we're using it here because we're hurt. The fact that the Reds battled to win Game 1 after Cueto went down alone shows this was not a choke. They should have lost that game. They had masterful starting pitching in Games 2 and 3. The offense had flashes of brilliance throughout. When they lost, they lost because they just lost like baseball teams do a lot of the time. They didn't choke.

It really comes down to the definition and context implied with the use of the word "choke".

To me, "choke" for an individual player means to tighten up and perform at a lower level than his average.

Did the Reds individuals do this, or did they just get outplayed, along with some old fashioned bad luck, perhaps the one thing that has been with championship baseball since it began in the 1800's.

I don't think they choked. Did the odds favor us to win one of three at home? Sure. Did they favor us sweeping 2 on the dreaded West Coast? That would be laughable to have predicted. Perhaps the Giants choked in those two games.

We lost our ace and the best player in baseball was a shadow of himself since the injury. The Giants reached back for something extra and played inspired baseball.

I loved the season and this definitely hurts. It's like handing us an ice cream cone after game two, then smacking it out of our hands at the brutal end.

I imagine there will be enough wailing and gnashing of teeth around here for weeks to come that we may need a separate forum for "ProzacZone".