Guest Anglesault Report post Posted May 24, 2004 I picked up from my dad, who liked the Mariners but wasn't a big fan because he grew up when there wasn't baseball teams in Seattle. I picked up on the Giants, one of his favorite team, and the Sox, who were sporting Frank Thomas (I used to emulate his swing), who were in 1994 big time rivals with the Indians. I never got hooked into Seattle ball other than Griffey, and by 1995 the bandwagon had kicked into full gear and I hated the way fans were. And somehow this all translates to cheering for the Rangers. That would be cheering against the Yankees. Well, you gotta keep up that vicious White Sox-Yankees fe... Or the Giants-Yankee feud from...fifty years ago. It has nothing to to with feuds, it's just the common hatred for the Yankees by fans of EVERY other team. Like why people mindlessly hate the Lakers and hated the Cowboys during their heyday? America tends to hate winners. I never understood it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
the pinjockey 0 Report post Posted May 24, 2004 I was wondering how you could choke all the time when you have had two winning seasons in the last 19 years as well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cartman 0 Report post Posted May 24, 2004 Well America didn't start hating the Cowboys until they all made the news for being drug addict pimps. Baseball fans hate the Yankees because they see them as what's wrong with the league. I can't hate them for that because Boston is NO different really. The ONLY difference is that NY has MORE profit to use, and they have won. People like to see the Sox win because they are the "lovable loser who they feel bad for". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted May 24, 2004 Well America didn't start hating the Cowboys until they all made the news for being drug addict pimps. There was some hate for that whole Period, I think. The 49ers started to get some random haters around here during the 80s as well. People like to see the Sox win because they are the "lovable loser who they feel bad for". I thought that was the Cubs? Of course, I personally see no problem with what the Yankees do, nor the Sox, or the Angels. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bruiser Chong 0 Report post Posted May 24, 2004 Since they're in the same division as the Yankees, they wind up being on the short end of the stick more times than not, which tends to give off a loser vibe after a while. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted May 24, 2004 Like why people mindlessly hate the Lakers and hated the Cowboys during their heyday? Hey. I have focused well thought-out Laker hate. -Phil Jackson left the Bulls behind. He was supposed to be OUR coach and retire with MJ. -Kobe Bryant refused to play for any city smaller than Chicago that asshole. He cheated on a very attractive woman, and may or may not be a rapist. -SHAQ-FU? That's gonna stick with you in my mind, pal. Plus Charles Barkley was a better big guy that says funny things. -Karl Malone didn't retire from the Jazz with John Stockton, instead he tried to get a ring in LA. Stockton & Malone never should've been broken up. -Gary Payton screwed over the Bucks who traded Ray Allen away to get him. However since it's the deer-caught-in-headlights Bucks I'm only mildly annoyed. If he screwed over the red/white/forest green-wearing deer-spinning-a-basketball Bucks, I'd be seeing blood, because that is no emblem to be disrespected. Forget the NY. It's the deer. -Luke Walton gets 50% hate as a result of 50% of his genes. Sorry but that's the way it is. -Derek Fisher got lucky off bad timekeeping and ruined cooler player Tim Duncan's cooler game-winning shot. -Jack Nicholson. See? I put thought into my hate for the purple and gold. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bruiser Chong 0 Report post Posted May 24, 2004 Awesome win for the Cubs tonight, despite Morris turning it up after the first inning and the Cards slowly climbing back into the game. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Smues Report post Posted May 24, 2004 Like why people mindlessly hate the Lakers and hated the Cowboys during their heyday? Hey. I have focused well thought-out Laker hate. -Phil Jackson left the Bulls behind. He was supposed to be OUR coach and retire with MJ. -Kobe Bryant refused to play for any city smaller than Chicago that asshole. He cheated on a very attractive woman, and may or may not be a rapist. -SHAQ-FU? That's gonna stick with you in my mind, pal. Plus Charles Barkley was a better big guy that says funny things. -Karl Malone didn't retire from the Jazz with John Stockton, instead he tried to get a ring in LA. Stockton & Malone never should've been broken up. -Gary Payton screwed over the Bucks who traded Ray Allen away to get him. However since it's the deer-caught-in-headlights Bucks I'm only mildly annoyed. If he screwed over the red/white/forest green-wearing deer-spinning-a-basketball Bucks, I'd be seeing blood, because that is no emblem to be disrespected. Forget the NY. It's the deer. -Luke Walton gets 50% hate as a result of 50% of his genes. Sorry but that's the way it is. -Derek Fisher got lucky off bad timekeeping and ruined cooler player Tim Duncan's cooler game-winning shot. -Jack Nicholson. See? I put thought into my hate for the purple and gold. SHAQ-FU was a good point, but you forgot about all his rap albums. "Yo Shaq? Where ya at? I'm over here! Yo Shaq? Where ya at? I'm over here! (repeat for five minutes)" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fuzzy Dunlop 0 Report post Posted May 24, 2004 Kerry Wood was feeling more pain last night, and is going for a bone scan this morning. FUCK. Although, according to Hendry and Rothschild, both of whom have become very suspect in my mind, this is just some minor thing, and they told Wood to tell them if he felt anything at all during his simulated game. Sosa and Prior both expected back next week. Excellent. And finally, what the hell is up with the Cincinatti Reds? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted May 24, 2004 Luck. That's not a flame, just an assessment of their runs scored and allowed. No team has outperformed their stats by as many wins, and this stuff levels out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest OctoberBlood Report post Posted May 24, 2004 Luck. That's not a flame, just an assessment of their runs scored and allowed. No team has outperformed their stats by as many wins, and this stuff levels out. Oh wow. Luck my ass. Blah blah blah. It's May. You can't use those stats about runs scored against and for this early in the season. Yeah, ultimately - a team can't do that for the whole season and compete, but it's freaking May. Those stats don't mean shit right now. It all evens out by the end of the year. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted May 24, 2004 You most certainly CAN use those stats. The Reds thus far have played like a .500 team, with a better record to show for it. That is not to say they cannot get better, but if they continue to play like they have played, they are a .500 team. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest OctoberBlood Report post Posted May 25, 2004 Nah. It's pretty much like how judging BA and ERA with little atbats or innings pitched. Irrelevant early, telling and truthful late. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfaJack 0 Report post Posted May 25, 2004 Dude, a quarter of the season is gone. Those stats ARE meaningful now. Just accept the fact that the Reds are an average team. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest OctoberBlood Report post Posted May 25, 2004 Well, I guess the Cubs are just average too then, eh? Since we are tied and stuff. Looks like this whole divison sucks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted May 25, 2004 No, because the Cubs have a better record of runs scored and runs allowed. I am not pulling this out of my ass. This is based on 125+ YEARS of data. There is a strong correlation between runs scored and allowed, and wins and losses. Pull your head out of the sand. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest OctoberBlood Report post Posted May 25, 2004 No, because the Cubs have a better record of runs scored and runs allowed. I am not pulling this out of my ass. This is based on 125+ YEARS of data. There is a strong correlation between runs scored and allowed, and wins and losses. Pull your head out of the sand. I don't recall saying you did. I know about this stat, and like I said, it is very telling and so on, late in the season. But right now, this is a different team. Pitching has been better, and offense has been waking up a bit. Not everyone is 100% healthy, and still - 2 very important guys on the DL. So using this stat this early can say a few things, but not the whoel story. That's the point I was getting to. Oh, and it's only a 2 run difference - so blah blah blah. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted May 25, 2004 It is VERY telling early in the season, because it is an indicator of whether an early W/L record is the result of great play, or luck. As for different team, it works both ways. Sean Casey, Paul Wilson are playing way over their heads. Oh, and it's only a 2 run difference - so blah blah blah. That makes the club .500 quality. Last time I checked, .500 clubs didn't make the playoffs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest OctoberBlood Report post Posted May 25, 2004 No, that doesn't make a .500 club. That makes a 25-18 club. Better than the Phillies. Best in the NL with the Cubs. Thank you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted May 25, 2004 It makes them a .500 QUALITY club. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest OctoberBlood Report post Posted May 25, 2004 Possibly. Or better. Who knows. You WON'T know until the end of the season. Like I've stated. Those stats about RS/RA are based on the teams season long performance. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted May 25, 2004 Gah. No. They are an indicator of how well the team has TRULY played thus far. And they are no less effective than the W/L record itself. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Salacious Crumb Report post Posted May 25, 2004 Casey isn't playing that far over his head. He's on par with his 99 season. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest OctoberBlood Report post Posted May 25, 2004 Casey isn't playing that far over his head. He's on par with his 99 season. 2000, and 2001 were very fine seasons as well. The last two years, he's been injured and in pain, thus really preventing him from hitting like he once did. This year though, he seems to be BACK! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bored 0 Report post Posted May 25, 2004 Possibly. Or better. Who knows. You WON'T know until the end of the season. Like I've stated. Those stats about RS/RA are based on the teams season long performance. So if the stats don't mean anything right now then doesn't that mean the Reds record doesn't mean anything right now? Casey isn't playing that far over his head. He's on par with his 99 season. 1999 OPS: .939 2004 OPS: 1.028 He's playing over his head. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted May 25, 2004 In fairness, the Pythag. W/L Pct. for the Reds 6 game win streak is .764. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
