I was listening to the Red Sox away broadcast over the internet just now and the radio announcer said the Red Sox had just done what no other team in Major League history had ever done: come back from 0-3 in a post season 7-game series to force a game 7. Then later, when I was browsing ESPN, one of the by-lines says “Now Boston has a chance to do what no team has done, come back from an 3-0 deficit to win a postseason series.” So which is right? Or is it both? Were the Sox the first team to force game 7 after losing the first 3, or do they have a chance to be the first to win a series after losing the first 3?
Those two statements are exactly the same. Boston has come back from a 3-0 deficit to force a game 7. If you have been down 3-0, the only possible way you can have a chance to win a 7-game series is to force a game 7.
It’s both. They are the first to force a game 7 after losing the first three. Because they are the first to force a game 7 after losing the first three, they are the first to have a chance to win the series after losing the first three.
The ESPN site quote says Boston “…has a chance to do what no team has done, come back from an 3-0 deficit to win a postseason series.” (Bolding and italics mine.) Essentially saying no team has ever won a series having lost the first three games. And Boston has the chance to do that.
The announcer said no team had ever even made it to game 7 after losing the first three games, regardless of who actually wins the 7th game (and therefore the series).
Two different statements.
Yes, they are two different statements, but they are both true. Why would you think they were contradictory?
In fact, doesn’t one statement automatically mean the other MUST be true?
No matter what happens tomorrow, they are now the first to be down 0-3 and force a Game 7.
If they win tomorrow the will be the first to do something else in addition to today’s feat.
Haj
Okay, so it’s my own wording that’s unclear.
ESPN: No team down 0-3 has won the next 4 to take the series.
Radio guy: No team down 0-3 has won the next 3 to force a 7th game.
Both statements are still true. The Radio one is slightly more specific. The ESPN one leaves open the possibility of there being a team who has won the next three, but not the fourth. But in and of itself, it is not untrue.
Yep, cool. That’s what I needed. Thanks, I’ve got my mind around it now.
Yeah. I guess now that I look at it that way, it does. I guess I was wondering if maybe the radio guy didn’t mis-state the situation.
Thanks to you all. I’m not the sharpest guy on the board. 
No. Ok, well, half. Radio Guy’s statement implies ESPN’s statement, but ESPN’s statement does not imply Radio Guy’'s statement.
Radio Guy’s statement, if true, means that ESPN’s statement must be true (no team has won the next three, no team could possibly have won the next four). The opposite, however, doesn’t hold. A team down 0-3 could have won the next three games, and lost the fourth, thus making ESPN’s statement true, but NOT Radio Guy’s.
As it is, if you made the statements now, ESPN would be correct, while Radio Guy would be incorrect.
I heard on the radio this morning (99.1 WHFS) that no team has been down 3-0 in a 7 game series and come back to win the series in baseball. It has been done twice in professional sports, both in the NHL. I do not recall the teams they mentioned but I belive that one was in the 1970s and the other in the 1940s.
The 1974 New York Islanders against Pittsburgh, and the 1942 Toronto Maple Leafs against Detroit. It’s never happened in the NBA.
It has been done in baseball - the 1937 Little World Series between the International League champion Newark Bears and the American Association champion Columbus Redbirds. The Redbirds, starring Enos Slaughter, took the first 3 games in Newark before Joe Gordon and the Bears swept 4 in Columbus.
[slight hijack]
You know what’s unusual about hockey? How many teams have come back from down 3-1 in playoff series. No series lead is safe in the NHL.
[/slight hijack]
I believe I heard the following on Fox last night.
In Major League Baseball, only three teams have ever come back from a 3-0 deficit to force a seventh game in post-season play of any kind.
The Red Sox are the first team to come back from a 3-0 deficit in the ALCS to force a 7th game.
No team has ever come back from a 3-0 deficit to win either a League Championship or a World Series.
I also found the following on MLB.com
*Of the 25 previous teams that trailed a best-of-seven postseason series 3-0, none had ever forced a Game 7. Until now.
The Sox hope more history awaits them Wednesday night when they try and become the first team in their sport to win a seven-game series after losing the first three.*
Reading all these differently-worded-but-not-exactly-contradictory statements leaves me with two questions:
a) Everyone seems to agree that no American League team has ever forced a 7th game in the playoff for the pennant after losing the first 3 games. Has it ever happened in the National League?
b) Has any team ever come back from a 3-0 deficit to force a 7th game in the World Series (keeping in mind that the World Series has been around a lot longer than the LCS)?
No.
No.
Actually, only three 0-3 teams, including this one, have ever forced a *sixth * game. The 2004 Sox are the first ever to force a seventh. The answer to both of your questions is No.
The statement that I have heard repeated several times on the radio is that (until now) no team in ANY postseason MLB series has been down 3-0 and come back to force game 7. Is this not true?
It’s true. The only teams that even forced a sixth game were the 1998 Braves (in the NLDS vs the Padres) and the 1999 Mets (in the NLDS vs the Braves). Both of those teams lost Game Six. So, yes, this is the first team to start 0-3 and force a seventh game.
What I heard was that 25 teams have gone 0-3 in a 7 game series
20 were swept (lost the series in game 4)
3 lost the series in game five
2 made it to game six and then lost
Obviously now the numbers would be 26 going 0 and 3, with only one making it to game 7.