[QUOTE=RickJay]
The difference being that Ruth’s stupidity cost his TEAM. It was a loser play. Williams being gutsy cost his team nothing.
There’s no way Williams would have been begrudged his decision had he fallen short of .400. Indeed, to this day he’d be admired for it.
[/QUOTE]
Except that it appeared the sports writers were questioning his decision to play and considering it a dumb move. Remember Ted Williams was not well liked by the Boston fans and especially by the Boston writers. It would have been spun at least local to Boston as a really boneheaded thing to do.
Now the rest of nation may have followed your logic as would I. But I think there is a legit argument that in Boston, derision would have followed failure.
Jim
[QUOTE=RickJay]
The difference being that Ruth’s stupidity cost his TEAM. It was a loser play. Williams being gutsy cost his team nothing.
There’s no way Williams would have been begrudged his decision had he fallen short of .400. Indeed, to this day he’d be admired for it.
[/QUOTE]
It’s far from a perfect analogy, just the first example to come to mind of a man taking a risk, failing, and being universally berated for it. While I ponder better examples, would you care to suggest a counter-example that works better? I.e., a man with a goal in his grasp who makes a risky move, fails, and is nonetheless hailed as a hero for risking (and losing) his sure thing? I can’t think of one, right off.
We Red Sox fans would have pissed and moaned about that one forever, I’m telling you.
[QUOTE=Hawkeyeop]
Sure you can. That is the entire point of home-runs.
[/QUOTE]
Solo home runs don’t help that much. That’s why I want the .350 singles hitter batting right in front of the slugger.