A few random thoughts in no particular order:
1. Congrats to the Red Sox.
2. Both teams had the best record in their league so we finally got to see the two best, not two hottest, teams play each other.
3, Can we knock off with this dynasty stuff? Three wins in 10 years, none of them consecutive, doesn’t make for a dynasty. If you think it does, then the Cards are also a dynasty having two wins in six years (2006 and 2011). It’s a nice team, but not a dynasty.
4. It wasn’t a particularly well-played Series. Lots of errors and bone head plays.
5. Isn’t it interesting that David Ortiz is finally getting his due. The other victories (although Ortiz was instrumental in 2004’s ALCS) seemed to hold up other players as the rock of the Red Sox. There was Schilling, there was Ramirez, there was Damon and Pedroia. There was always someone other than Ortiz getting the most credit for the victories (again leaving aside the 2004 ALCS). Now finally Ortiz gets to step front and center. Having just said all that, I still don’t consider him a Hall of Famer at this point.
6. It will be interesting to see how both teams do in the offseason. The Cards have to decide on Beltran and find out if Chris Carpenter can still pitch. The BoSox have to figure out what to do with Drew and Ellsbury. Wouldn’t it be interesting to see St. Louis go after both? Ellsbury leading off in St. Louis (with current leadoff man Carpenter hitting 2nd) would add a new dimension to the Cards lineup and Drew hits better than Kozma. I have no idea where Ellsbury will go, if anywhere, but Detroit could certainly use an infusion of speed in that lineup. Frankly, I think the loss of Ellsbury and Drew will hurt Boston more than losing Beltran will hurt St. Louis. But then maybe all of them will stay where they are. These things are impossible to predict (Heck, maybe my Dodgers will end up with a couple of them).
7. Finally, I don’t expect to see a repeat next year.
Tags: 2013 World Series, Boston Red Sox, Carlos Beltran, David Ortiz, Jacoby Ellsbury, St. Louis Cardinals
Verdun2's Blog 
November 4, 2013 at 8:50 am
What is your opinion about how the Red Sox players can avoid getting food stuck in their weird beards?
Glen
November 4, 2013 at 9:18 am
Shave
v
November 4, 2013 at 8:56 am
Having rooted for the Cardinals in the series, I was kind of disappointed about David Freeze. Freeze froze, mainly at the plate. Two years ago, he was a hero and did EVERYTHING right, but in this post-season he was lackluster, at best. That sixth game against the Rangers, capped off by Freeze’s dramatic homer, was, in my book, as exciting as the sixth game of the ’75 series (Red Sox winning the game over Cincy) and the 6th game of the ’86 series (Mets winning the game, and eventually the series, against the Red Sox.)
Glen
November 4, 2013 at 9:18 am
Have for years been prone to favor the 1991 game 6 (Kirby Puckett vs the Braves) but nothing wrong with the games you pick.
v
November 4, 2013 at 9:44 am
I’ll be honest— I don’t remember much about the ’91 series. I didn’t watch much of it. I was living in Kingston, New York (Ulster County, north and across the river from Poughkeepsie) and was too preoccupied with the chick I was going with at the time. But, looking back on it, she only liked me because I owned a car, albeit a crappy-looking one. Oh, well.
I guess that a game in a world series or a series itself is mostly exciting when the team that you’re rooting for is winning. I was rooting for the Red Sox against the Reds in ’75 (How could ANYONE root against Bill Lee, the Spaceman, who was so darn funny and colorful with his hilarious with his cerebral and witty comments) and the sixth game was UNFORGETTABLE. To ME, the most overlooked thing in the sixth game was NOT Fisk hitting the home run that won the game, but even more dramatic was when Bernie Carbo hit that home run (he was pinch-hitting, as I seem to recall) to tie the game when the Red Sox were WAY down, and it looked like the series was over. Of course, the 7th game was SO anti-climactic (as so many seventh games ARE), with Joe Morgan hitting that Texas-leaguer over the infield to end the game. What a let-down. I liked the Reds, but that year, I just happened to like the Red Sox MORE, and that’s why I rooted for them.
And in ’86, I was rooting for the Mets against the Red Sox, and the sixth game…… well, YOU know the rest!!!!
Glen
November 4, 2013 at 10:27 am
I agree, while it was a mostly entertaining Series, it was generally kind of sloppy. Nice that Ortiz is finally getting more national attention, but, like you, I don’t quite see him as a HOF’er just yet. I would love to see the Mets get Ellsbury, but they won’t get off their hands and do anything. Boston and St. Louis are both very impressive franchises, but no, I wouldn’t say either one is a dynasty. On the other hand, should the BoSox find a way to win it all again next year, I might have to reconsider.
Nice post,
Bill
November 4, 2013 at 11:14 am
To be a dynasty, at least to my way of thinking, you gotta win at least 2 in a row. So, yeah, if the BoSox win again next year, then their run from 2007-2014 would be a dynasty to me. Not sure 2004 for dynasty purposes.
v
November 4, 2013 at 12:26 pm
I think Drew (or perhaps Jhonny Peralta or Alexei Ramirez) makes all the sense in the world for the Cardinals. Kozma is a dead loss with the bat, and he’s good enough defensively, but not strong enough where it makes up for his inability at the plate. That said, I think the Cards are in a position where they have at least the hope of being a dynasty–they have young talent already in St. Louis and more in the pipeline.
As far as Ortiz goes, I agree he’s close to being a Hall of Fame guy now, and if the Twins hadn’t bollixed the early part of his career, I don’t think there’d by any doubt to his Cooperstown-worthiness.