Ortiz and Youkilis react like you said something about their mother whenever they get a called strike.

Little reported facts: things that Ortiz and Youkilis actually said to umpires:
Yo strikezone's so wide it needs its own zipcode.
Yo strikezone's so wide people jog around it for exercise.
Yo strikezone's so wide it was declared a natural habitat for Condors.
You're so blind you married your wife.

Mr. Florkowski, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

From the article:

- Also, I, like a lot of Angels players, did not feel the Red Sox were as talented as the Halos.

Nah, the Sox were more talented. Oh the gap's not huge (esp post-Tex) and that gap's nowhere near big enough to explain the blowout in the series. But to the extent the Angels or the fans really think they're as talented as their regular-season record would suggest, they're a bit misguided.

Is it time to adjust the ways the Angels play baseball?

Well, he pretty clearly means on offense. (And what whining at the ump has to do with Moneyball I'm not sure ...) And ... maybe. They're a solid lineup but pre-Tex had no outstanding hitters. You can win with that but if there are some outstanding hitters, why not add them. I hear tell the AL even has a position in the lineup where defense doesn't matter. But my point is, they don't necessarily have to be "patient" hitters. There are advantages (fewer Ks which generally leads to higher BA) and disadvantages (fewer walks) to the Angels generally hitting approach but as long as the overal OBP and SLG are there, you'll do fine. The hits vs. walks and BA vs ISO breakdowns on OBP and SLG just aren't that important.

Do the Angels need to release/fire/ask to step aside hitting coach Mickey Hatcher?

As I kinda hinted at in the another recent Angels thread -- I'm not sure it would matter. Yes, BIP is clearly Hatcher's philosophy but the Angels have been taking that approach for a long time so presumably it's the philosophy of Scioscia and at least some others in the organization. It's not like having fewer Ks and fewer BBs year after year happens by accident -- unless there's some very strange park effect in Anaheim.

The point being it's not clear Hatcher is the "problem." I'm not aware of any cases of the Angels acquiring a "patient" hitter and turning him into an "impatient" one. They have developed a number of high-K hitters who have yet to show substantial improvement in K rates under Hatcher -- other than Napoli they don't hit well either but so be it.

Firing Hatcher isn't likely to make a huge difference. I won't say it's impossible (compare the 2006, 2007 and 2008 Cubs) but in general such a shift requires new players. Signing Adam Dunn will do more for team "patience" than firing Mickey Hatcher.

Not that I see much reason to keep Hatcher around. Are there examples of hitters he seems to have had a big positive impact on? (not snarking, asking ... too lazy to look it up)

Juan Rivera - Keep him. Again, if the Halos can get Rivera to stay, he provides some decent pop off of the bench and is a better offensive player than Gary Matthews, Jr.

I just quote that because I want to point out again that ZiPS projects Matthews to be a slightly better hitter than Rivera in 2009. Now, fine, ZiPS doesn't know injuries ... but then who does know if Rivera will ever return to the average-ish corner bat he used to be. (In fairness, he goes on to say it depends how much $$ Rivera wants.)

Do the Angels need to release/fire/ask to step aside hitting coach Mickey Hatcher?

I always liked Hatcher as a player. He was a fun guy, would do whatever the team needed from him, at least within his talent level. And I felt he wouldn't have been a bad choice for MVP of the 1988 world series, if Hershiser hadn't been so awesome.

But I've never seen any reason that he would be/is a good hitting coach, although I can understand why Scioscia would want his friend around.

Actually, I think Scioscia would be a better hitting coach, and it wouldn't shock me if Hatcher were a good manager.

Youkilis, Ortiz, and yes, kevin, Pedroia, have reputations as incredible whiners at the plate.

Do the Angels need to release/fire/ask to step aside hitting coach Mickey Hatcher?

Only if they think they can do better, or if they have a plan and he's not capable of executing it. There are worse hitting coaches. Really.

Boston has good pitching, at least in the rotation. The Angels need some hitters whose success is less dependent on bad pitching. Whether their recent postseason struggles could have been addressed with a different hitting coach, or different players, I don't know.

Francisco Rodriguez - Let him go. That J.D. Drew home run was Frankie’s last dance at Angel Stadium. Let another team overpay him and let him save 70 games; he has been hittable all year.

Fair enough. He will get (over)paid. No sense being the one to pay.

I think the two key things that separated the Angels from the Red Sox this series were defense and hitting.

So, other than offense and defense, there were no key differences. OK.

Also, I, like a lot of Angels players, did not feel the Red Sox were as talented as the Halos. The Angels beat themselves, rather than letting the Red Sox beat them.

On defense, I agree. On offense... Matsuzaka was frustrating to offenses this year because pretty much every team had five great opportunities to score on him in each game, and didn't. A rusty or unhealthy Beckett was similar to Matsuzaka, as it turns out. Having half your games against pitchers you're convinced you can pummel, but don't, will help to form the impression that you could've done better, even if you really couldn't. Whether the teams have a talent differential, or which way it might tilt, I'll leave alone for now; but I think every team has thought they could beat Matsuzaka this year, and few teams could.

What I learned from watching the Red Sox-Angels series: Just take everything and complain like hell if the umpire dares call a strike. Eventually you will wear the guy down and the only thing that will be a strike is what you choose to swing at.

Works well. Of course every at bat goes 3-2 and the games last four hours but a win is a win.

It's good to see Angel fans can at least take solace in their team's moral superiority, if nothing else.

5. Lassus Posted: October 08, 2008 at 01:12 AM (#2974054)

Youkilis, Ortiz, and yes, kevin, Pedroia, have reputations as incredible whiners at the plate.

I think it took me watching one series with that team to come to that conclusion. Seriously, some of the biggest pussies in all of baseball.

I think it took me watching one series with that team to come to that conclusion. Seriously, some of the biggest pussies in all of baseball.

Yeah, youre right. They probably should take the Angels approach: never win anything, swing at everything and then when you get your ass handed to you year after year claim you were the more talented team - not counting defense and baserunning... or offense.

Hell, whatever the Red Sox hitters are doing the rest of the league should start doing. God forbid you have to watch one of your players complain about the strike zone and succeed! Id rather have hitters who lose gracefully!

Another issue might be the Red Sox hitters actually know where the strike zone should be, while Mark Teixeira actually had to explain what a strike zone was to many of the Angels after he was traded there.

Wait. The Red Sox are whiners? Sure Ortiz and Youkilis have reputations for complaining about balls/strikes; but in this series there was so much Halo whining it was stunning:

--Aybar flailing and hopping after runner is called safe at second.
--Hunter throwing such a febrile tantrum he actually manages to hurt himself after being called out at first.
--Sciocsia whining about nearly every call on every pitch: too many strikes called on Angels hitters, too few on Angels pitchers.


For a team that pretty much bumbled their own way out of the playoffs, they sure seemed to feel it was anyone's fault but their own.

Is anyone actually watching the games or just indulging their confirmation biases here?

Also this article is a poopsicle.

Is anyone actually watching the games or just indulging their confirmation biases here?

Red Sox bashing is the flavor of the week. Its ridiculous.

The plain truth is there isnt really much to dislike about Pedroia, Ortiz and Youkilis. There's not a fan here who would not want them on their team. People looking to knock them are grasping for straws by calling them complainers. Its absurd. Theyre knocking them for hating to lose... god forbid a professional athlete wants to succeed and shows emotion when he doesnt!

I think it took me watching one series with that team to come to that conclusion. Seriously, some of the biggest pussies in all of baseball.

Sure, they complain, but there were some extremely inconsistent strike zones in this series. Several of the Angels players (notably Teixeira) were pissed about it as well.

Sure, they complain, but there were some extremely inconsistent strike zones in this series. Several of the Angels players (notably Teixeira) were pissed about it as well.

pussies.

There is total incomprehension in Red Sox fans that everyone who is not a Red Sox fan HATES the Red Sox.

So a lot of the discussion about your team is BIASED - oh dear - and when this reportage of your team is skewed against your team, your reactions are obtuse because you cannot comprehend that people HATE your team.

Red Sox Nation, you are not pussies. You're too incurious to even have the fear of what is out there that being a ##### requires.

Halofan:

I didn't say the discussion about the Red Sox was biased (though I can certainly understand why plenty of people would dislike the Red Sox and their fans--Hell, even I find Papelbon's schtick a bit tiresome).

What I said was that people were watching with confirmation bias, a cognitive science term that refers to the tendency to see or interpret things in such a way as to fit your already-established belief: in this case that the Red Sox players whine about calls.

I agree that several Red Sox players whine excessively about calls and that they are known for it; but during this series, you could only conclude that they were the big whiners if that was what you were setting yourself up to see. The Angels' whining was constant, embarrassing, and weirdly inappropriate.

Primer is a lot more angry these days than it used to be.

True/false?

If true, identify three posters who are personally to blame and then swear at them and declare all the players on their chosen team to be reincarnations of Steve Garvey.

Did the Red Sox really out hit the Angels? .250 .325 .375 for the Sox vs. .273 .339 .344 for the Angels.

The Angels lost the series on poor fundamentals.

Primer is a lot more angry these days than it used to be.

WAAAAY FALSE... PRIMER IS A KINDER, GENTLER PLACE THAN THE DAYS OF YORE...

FWIW: I THINK COMMENTS ROCK NAILS IT - THE ANGELS PULLED A "DETROIT TIGERS" EXCEPT IT WASN'T JUST THE PITCHERS - AND THAT'S WHY BILLY BEAN'S !@#%$ DOESN'T WORK IN THE PLAYOFFS - A SHORT SERIES IS A DIFFERENT LEVEL OF ABSTRACTION THAT IS MORE PRONE TO RANDOM EVENTS - I WOULDN'T CALL THEM "LONG TAIL" EVENTS, BUT THOSE EVENTS THAT SEEM TO IMPACT A SHORT SERIES DO TEND TO BE LOWER LIKELIHOOD, HIGHER IMPACT!!!

IT'S THE MULTI-HOMER GAME FROM AN ADAM KENNEDY OR MIKE NAPOLI, IT'S SEVERAL ERRORS (EVEN IF THEY WEREN'T SCORED AS SUCH) FROM FIGGINS AND KENDRICK, IT'S ONE OF THE WORST OUTINGS OF THE YEAR FROM AN OTHERWISE STELLAR STARTER (ZAMBRANO)...

IT'S WHY WE WATCH, WHY THE "BEST" TEAM FOR THE PREVIOUS 162 GAMES DOESN'T ALWAYS WIN, AND WHY POST-SEASON BASEBALL IS SO GREAT!!!

AND ALL THIS NAVEL GAZING, THE CALL TO BENCH PLAYERS FOR NEXT YEAR OR FIRE COACHES - THEY ARE ALL ABSURD SUGGESTIONS BECAUSE THEY ARE BASED ON PERFORMANCE OVER A HANDFUL OF GAMES!!!

There is total incomprehension in Red Sox fans that everyone who is not a Red Sox fan HATES the Red Sox.

So a lot of the discussion about your team is BIASED - oh dear - and when this reportage of your team is skewed against your team, your reactions are obtuse because you cannot comprehend that people HATE your team.

Thanks for the info. Now go and put on your Dodgers cap. And get your shine box, while you're at it.

The Angels won the Series in 2002 by hitting the living hell out of the ball, not by "national league style" productive outs and bunts and nonsense, in my recollection. A long run by essentially the same team provides us a lot of data - outside of an outlying 2002 run, maybe it's time to declare that their style - whatever that is - doesn't work well in short series.

To clarify a little: the fact that Youk, Papi, and The Dwarf are whiners does not in my mind take anything away from the fact that they are truly excellent players (notwithstanding Ortiz's stumbling this year). I LIKE Pedroia, am fine with Papi, and even if just looking at Youkilis makes me want to turn my TV's tint all the way down so I can't see him, he's still done an excellent job. In the context of what's mentioned here in the quote, however, I thought it was an appropriate comment regarding their seemingly endless chirping.

and even if just looking at Youkilis makes me want to turn my TV's tint all the way down so I can't see him,

That is ####### funny.

I love the Sox, love most all the players (Lugo sucks balls), that said, yes, some of the players demonstrations *cough*Youk*cough* do get a bit old.

Do I think the Angels need to become like the Red Sox? Hell, no. I would be sickened if Angels batters reacted the way guys like David Ortiz and Kevin Youkilis do when they get a called strike or a called third strike. Ortiz and Youkilis react like you said something about their mother whenever they get a called strike.

No, the Angel way is to have Mike Scioscia whine about how the pitches are called all game long.

Primer is a lot more angry these days than it used to be.

True/false?

F you.

There is total incomprehension in Red Sox fans that everyone who is not a Red Sox fan HATES the Red Sox.

So a lot of the discussion about your team is BIASED - oh dear - and when this reportage of your team is skewed against your team, your reactions are obtuse because you cannot comprehend that people HATE your team.

You know, it's quite possible to understand that everyone hates us, but still call them out when they being biased, whiney-assed ##########. I don't really see the contradiction...

Red Sox Nation, you are not pussies. You're too incurious to even have the fear of what is out there that being a ##### requires.

Whereas you are outstandingly courageous... I know there are a lot of dickheads in "Red Sox Nation", but I'm sure as hell glad we don't have you.

Is anyone actually watching the games or just indulging their confirmation biases here?

My favourite this series was listning to Angels fans ##### about Pappelbon being a "Neaderthal" for being pumped after his outings (ERA 0.00 - it's not like it was entirely unjustified IMHO), after fist-pumping an entire season of krod *point to the sky*...

Red Sox bashing is the flavor of the week. Its ridiculous.

The plain truth is there isnt really much to dislike about Pedroia, Ortiz and Youkilis. There's not a fan here who would not want them on their team. People looking to knock them are grasping for straws by calling them complainers. Its absurd. Theyre knocking them for hating to lose... god forbid a professional athlete wants to succeed and shows emotion when he doesnt!

This sounds a lot like a Yankee fan from, say, 10 years ago defending, say, Paul O'Neill. Against complaining Boston fans.

Face it, Boston. This is the price of having a great team. Everyone else will hate your team, just as you are coming to love them more and more.

So I see we learned nothing from Matt's article the other day. I'll repeat my statement there:

Any fanbase ######## about another fanbase should understand that nobody else wants to hear it, and most will question why that fanbase feels it has the right or ability to downgrade others.

Face it, Boston. This is the price of having a great team. Everyone else will hate your team, just as you are coming to love them more and more.

As a Sox fan I couldn't agree with this statement more. I like talking to fans of other teams here and appreciate their takes, but ####### it, after every series I also find myself tempted to tell folks to go #### in a hat, lol.

I'm unsure how the Sox are a bunch of pussies for whining about calls but the Angels are not despite Scioscia and Butcher doing the very same thing on every pitch this series, but at this point we'll never reach consensus so it doesn't really matter.

It's never enough that two good teams played 4 tense games and one of them won the series. Nope, there must always be a referendum on the character of the players/fanbase/posters here. It's ponderous.

It isn't just here. Fans of teams without massive economic advantages feel that teams which have built-in revenue and payroll advantages should dispassionately walk away from close calls which go against them and allow "gentlemanly" interpretations of home runs/foul balls and such. As if tilting the playing field towards "unfair to the big-market club" somehow nets a completely fair overall system.

I understand it, but it ain't logical.

Fans of teams without massive economic advantages feel that teams which have built-in revenue and payroll advantages should dispassionately walk away from close calls which go against them and allow "gentlemanly" interpretations of home runs/foul balls and such.

Boston doesn't have a built in revenue and payroll advantage. While, certainly the RedSox have a payroll and reveneue advantage over most teams, that advantage isn't an input but rather an output.

Their is nothing structural about the Boston's payroll/revenue advantage besides owners who prioritize winning, and a dedicated fan base.

So the following factors don't exist:

NESN
A large geographic territory
A comparitively wealthy fanbase
The historical nature of the franchise in general
As a college town, Boston attracts more than their share of impressionable young people whose team allegiances haven't been fully formed yet
A pervasive media presence surrounding the team

Re:payroll:

The Red Sox won with Youkilis, Pedroia, and Ellsbury,, 1/3 of their starting lineup, making relatively short money. And Lester, Papelbon, Delcarmen, Okajima, and other bullpen guys making relatively short money. Compare that to the great Yankees teams of the late last century.

OK. So. Angels fans don't like the Red Sox. Red Sox fans do. As a result, Angels fans tranfer their dislike from franchise to fanbase. Understandable. I can sympathize.

Since I'm a nice guy, I'm gonna go ahead and unofficially authorize all fans of all teams to dislike the Red Sox and Sox fans as much as they want. I ask in return that Angels fans understand when Red Sox fans hold contrary opinions.

Thank you and you're welcome.

The plain truth is there isnt really much to dislike about Pedroia, Ortiz and Youkilis. There's not a fan here who would not want them on their team. People looking to knock them are grasping for straws by calling them complainers. Its absurd. Theyre knocking them for hating to lose... god forbid a professional athlete wants to succeed and shows emotion when he doesnt!

Well, two things can both be true: you can think they are excellent players (in Ortiz's case, an excellent hitter -- half a player, since he's only a DH) and thus you might want them on your team (depending on your team's needs). But you might also think there's plenty to dislike about them in terms of their whining incessently and whether or not there is any justification whatsoever. Hell, I bet there are some (perhaps many) of their teammates who sometimes want to strangle some of those guys, and find them among the most annoying people they've ever had to work with, but they are glad they are teammates because they help 'em win.

It's not that hard to respect their ability as players but not think much of their behavior on the field.

Compare that to the great Yankees teams of the late last century.

Before the turn of the century, Jeter, Posada, Rivera, and many of the particulars were comparatively underpaid - some were pre-arb. Really, the only Yankee making megabucks at that time was Bernie Williams.

NESN
A large geographic territory
A comparitively wealthy fanbase
The historical nature of the franchise in general
As a college town, Boston attracts more than their share of impressionable young people whose team allegiances haven't been fully formed yet
A pervasive media presence surrounding the team

1. Not structural.
2. No larger than most.
3. Some parts of the Boston fanbase are wealthy others are rather poor relative to cost of living, especialy if you include a lot of the "large georgraphic area" you reference you need to get very faroutside of Metroboston, which is not wealthy.
4. Not structural.
5. Most college aged people all ready have teams. It's the fanbase that energizes them, IMHO. Not structural.
6. Not structural. Media's presence is a biproduct of the teams popularity, which I propose is largly not structural. Chicken or egg?

This team wasn't nearly as popular under previous ownership. Other cities have much larger structural advantages.

So the following factors don't exist:

NESN
A large geographic territory
A comparitively wealthy fanbase
The historical nature of the franchise in general
As a college town, Boston attracts more than their share of impressionable young people whose team allegiances haven't been fully formed yet
A pervasive media presence surrounding the team

NESN isnt "built in", the team built it themselves
geographic territory - okay this is built in, but not unique to boston
i was gonna go down the list but I gotta go

As a result, Angels fans tranfer their dislike from franchise to fanbase.

This isn't true. I don't really care all that much one way or other about the players or management of the Red Sox. I think Theo's a bit of a drama queen, but Francona seems like a genuinely good guy. His demeanor seems a lot like Scioscia to me actually.

But the Red Sox fanbase is made up primarily of total d-bags. They're d-bags when they're in Anaheim. They're d-bags when they're in Chicago. They're d-bags when they're in Detroit. And I'm just going to go ahead and assume that they're d-bags in Boston.

My dad actually grew up rooting for the Red Sox. It's probably the main reason I'm an Angels fan. When he ended up in Southern California, he was an American League fan, so he rooted for the American League team, and despite growing up 15 minutes from Dodger Stadium, we were Angels fans in my family. So as a kid, outside the Angels, I rooted for the Red Sox. I wanted them to win the series in 1986.

Since then, with a few notable exceptions, pretty much every Red Sox fan I've come in contact is a total dick, or at least becomes a total dick when the subject of baseball (or sports in general) comes up. I'm even start to get the sense from Bill Simmons that he thinks "Red Sox Nation" is getting a little too douchey. When you're too douchey for Simmons, you've got some issues.

This team wasn't nearly as popular under previous ownership. Other cities have much larger structural advantages.

The first point is true enough, but not relevant here. Even in the dark years of poor ownership and lackluster performance on the field, the Sox never had Tampa-level or Montreal-level or Kansas City-level or Pittsburgh-level apathy.

The second sentence is completely untrue, in my opinion. Take New York out of the discussion and give me a few examples of this, please.

you can think they are excellent players (in Ortiz's case, an excellent hitter -- half a player, since he's only a DH) and thus you might want them on your team (depending on your team's needs). But you might also think there's plenty to dislike about them in terms of their whining incessently and whether or not there is any justification whatsoever.

In my experience, a fanbase will welcome almost any good player to their team, no matter how much he was hated somewhere else. Crappy players like Shea Hillenbrand, not so much.

Probably the only good player that I ever hated to the point where I would never root for him, even if he were on my team, is Theoron Fleury.

In my experience, a fanbase will welcome almost any good player to their team, no matter how much he was hated somewhere else. Crappy players like Shea Hillenbrand, not so much.

There are players who the fanbase is just waiting to boo as soon as they have an excuse.

I'm convinced that Armando Benitez was going to hear it from the Bronx crowd sooner or later, but the fact that he was ineffective from the getgo brought it on faster than I expected.

More recently, I believe that LaTroy Hawkins was teetering on this edge - before the 2008 season began, I ran across discussions here about the likelihood of his being DFA'd before too long.

Randy Johnson was obviously a great player. Despite overall decent-to-good numbers in NY, the fans never really embraced him.

My father never accepted that Wade Boggs was a Yankee.

Take New York out of the discussion and give me a few examples of this, please.

What's the point? You're not going to change your mind, becuase this conversation has been had on and off for years on this site. The effort it would take me to convince you that Toronto or Chicago or LA have larger advantes isn't worth my time. Never mind, if start citing SanDiego, SanFran, Phili, or Houston or God forbid St Louis just isn't worth the time.

The first point is true enough, but not relevant here.

Of course it's relevant. When my premise is the advantages the team has is largely (not completly) driven by a very fan friendly ownership group and a rabid fanbase. You take away the ownership and the redsox "structural" advantages are small as their rvenue advantages disapear into the ownerships pocket and if it happened for a long enough time period they would disapear entirely. I.E. pre-impossiable dream.

Primer is a lot more angry these days than it used to be.

So's your mom?

I'm inclined to agree about Chicago (though with two teams sharing the city as opposed to one in Boston, I'm not sure how much scrutiny it holds up to), but I strongly disagree about Toronto or San Diego or San Francisco or Philly or Houston.

I think that a legit test is how quickly an informed person laughs when the statement, "X is a baseball city" is said.

As a college town, Boston attracts more than their share of impressionable young people whose team allegiances haven't been fully formed yet

Are we talking about Red Sox Nation, or the Symbionese Liberation Army???

OK. So. Angels fans don't like the Red Sox. Red Sox fans do. As a result, Angels fans tranfer their dislike from franchise to fanbase.

That's dumb. There's some decent Sox fans here like SOSH and Bivens. And I do like most of the Angels fans here; even Shredder, except when he and Vlad get into their Simers wars. Hell, he was one of the posters who made this place what it was back in the day. With his digressions about music, he was probably the first casual poster and gave this place a personality that other baseball sites lacked.

Agree with GGC about Shredder and his role in making Primer what it was. I'm sorry to see how poorly he regards Red Sox fans but I've been hearing it from him for years.

But yeah, every team's fan base is going to have jerks among them and they are the ones that are most noticeable.

another of these threads? i watched most of the games. the angels pretty much ran themselves out of too many opportunities, you can't do that against a team of boston's caliber in a short series. in the course of a long season the gambles pay off enough, but in a short series you don't always have time to wait for the breaks to come back.
not sure i'm getting this other argument, but boston/new england is BIG metropolitan statistical area. they are a big market team with all the advantages that implies.
that said, i don't begrudge red sox nation their current feeling of satisfaction. ownership exploited those advantages: went out and got the right players, developed some, paid for others, started running the business right, etc. ... cheers to them.
if st. louis' gm somehow got epstein drunk and traded a couple of prospects and a regular or two for dustin pedroia, i'd be ecstatic. dude can play, and god knows we need a middle infielder.
i could care less if he is a whiner or not, not that i'm saying he is.

I love the Simers wars! Vlad is so eloquent.

It's never enough that two good teams played 4 tense games and one of them won the series. Nope, there must always be a referendum on the character of the players/fanbase/posters here. It's ponderous.

And, and I also want to know what happened to the PICTURES I was supposed to see this week! Okay! I want a goddamned concerted effort to come out of a record that isn't a, a, a f*cking up- tempo record every time I do a goddamned DEATH DEDICATION!

Hi.

Agree with GGC about Shredder and his role in making Primer what it was. I'm sorry to see how poorly he regards Red Sox fans but I've been hearing it from him for years.

I was debating whether or not to make a crack about him or one about LAW bringing up five hour old conversations in the Lounge.

Keep to the High Road, GGC. It's where you'll find the High Life.

I think that a legit test is how quickly an informed person laughs when the statement, "X is a baseball city" is said.

Do you not recognize that how great a "baseball city" is, is largely determined by the quality of team. And is not a "structural" issue.

Lets take Pitt for example. Their is no inherent reason why they should like Football more than Baseball, besides quality of ownership and quality of the team. Yet, the team is an amazing football market, and well a poor baseball one. That is not a structural issue. That's an execution issue.

Hell, he was one of the posters who made this place what it was back in the day. With his digressions about music, he was probably the first casual poster and gave this place a personality that other baseball sites lacked.

It was mostly just a way to talk about myself, which is really my favorite subject.

Their is nothing structural about the Boston's payroll/revenue advantage besides owners who prioritize winning, and a dedicated fan base.

I think just about everyone would agree that, historically, Boston has had a stronger fan base than their winning percentage would suggest. How do you explain this without conceding structural advantages?

3. Some parts of the Boston fanbase are wealthy others are rather poor relative to cost of living, especialy if you include a lot of the "large georgraphic area" you reference you need to get very faroutside of Metroboston, which is not wealthy.

Connecticut and New Hampshire are two of the wealthiest states in the country, while Rhode Island is well above average.

The plain truth is there isnt really much to dislike about Pedroia, Ortiz and Youkilis.

Pedroia and Ortiz are fine in my eyes, but Youkilis really is a demonstrative and whiny b*tch.
And this is from a guy who was very happy to draft him in my fantasy league.
I respect his talent, but not his personality.
After seeing him complain about strikes one time, I realized he is pretty much Paul O'Neill v2.0 (now with beard!).

Do you not recognize that how great a "baseball city" is, is largely determined by the quality of team. And is not a "structural" issue.

Sometimes yes and sometimes no. There are some cities where it the popularity of baseball and the team is largely a structural issue. Toronto is one example. The Blue Jays could have the run of success the Red Sox are currently enjoying and it would still be a hockey city and the Leafs would still receive the majority of the media coverage. Sure, the team would draw well for those years (as the Jays and other casually supported teams tend to when they're winning), but this would stop as soon as the Jays went back to being somewhere between average and above-average.

While I agree that Youkilis especially is a whiny ##### I find it quite rich that Angel fans would complain since no one in the history of time complains about balls and strikes than Mike Scioscia. I'm surprised it works since if I was an umpire I'd either squeeze the strike zone more with each successive comment or throw him out of every game in the first inning. The man is a disgrace.

It was mostly just a way to talk about myself, which is really my favorite subject.

And it was an enjoyable read. Too, you inspired Dan Werr's Fanboy: An Unauthorized Biography of Shredder; one of the funnier posts I've read here.

I think just about everyone would agree that, historically, Boston has had a stronger fan base than their winning percentage would suggest

Prior to the impossiable dream attendence was mediocre at best, which was pretty much incline with e the results.

"impossible dream" = good resources, smart managment, talented team somehow wins title!

It isn't just here. Fans of teams without massive economic advantages feel that teams which have built-in revenue and payroll advantages should dispassionately walk away from close calls which go against them and allow "gentlemanly" interpretations of home runs/foul balls and such. As if tilting the playing field towards "unfair to the big-market club" somehow nets a completely fair overall system.

I understand it, but it ain't logical.

2008 Opening Day Payrolls
Boston: $133,390,035
Los Angeles(ie the bigger city): $119,216,333

Considering the Sox traded away a big salary player (albeit paying the remaining money) and the Angels traded FOR a big salary player... well, this was certainly a HUGE disparity between these teams.

I do enjoy seeing my small town Red Sox go up against big boys like the Tigers ($137,685,196) and Yankees ($209,081,577), though...

Prior to the impossiable dream attendence was mediocre at best, which was pretty much incline with e the results.

So the strong fan base you brag about wasn't around before then? Is that really your position?

2008 Opening Day Payrolls
Boston: $133,390,035
Los Angeles(ie the bigger city): $119,216,333

Considering the Sox traded away a big salary player (albeit paying the remaining money) and the Angels traded FOR a big salary player... well, this was certainly a HUGE disparity between these teams.

I do enjoy seeing my small town Red Sox go up against big boys like the Tigers ($137,685,196) and Yankees ($209,081,577), though...

It's almost as if the $51 million posting fee for Dice-K and the other two baseball teams in Southern California are imaginary...

I thought that it was kevin and not MHS who said that the fanbase was strong pre-1967.

But the Red Sox fanbase is made up primarily of total d-bags. They're d-bags when they're in Anaheim. They're d-bags when they're in Chicago. They're d-bags when they're in Detroit. And I'm just going to go ahead and assume that they're d-bags in Boston.

Nice generalization, d-bag!

"impossible dream" = good resources, smart managment, talented team somehow wins title!

overcoming the currrrrrrrrse, you left that ouuuuuuuuuut

"impossible dream" = good resources, smart managment, talented team somehow wins title!

Impossible Dream is the term often used in baseball circles to desribe the 1967 RedSox.

So the strong fan base you brag about wasn't around before then? Is that really your position?

According to attendence numbers not really, that I have seen. And certainly not according to most local lure.

But the Red Sox fanbase is made up primarily of total d-bags.

Fair enough, but in my experience most sports fans are d-bags. Singling out Boston fans seems a little arbitrary.

So the strong fan base you brag about wasn't around before then? Is that really your position?

I'm not braging. Yes, my belief is the redsox fan base was rather blah, middle of the pack prior to 1967. The thoughts of most people the generation before me echo that from my own conversations. The local opinion on the RedSox was in their eyes clearly different pre and post 1967. I can't speak to it, as I was just a twinkle in my mothers eye.

For all the fire-Mickey-Hatcher types out there, and/or people who don't like the Angels' offensive philosophy -- Am I the only one who thinks that Angel hitters worked the hell out of counts against Boston starters this series? Seriously, they had Dice-K and Beckett to 100 pitches through 5. Lester, who wasn't at all wild (and who was awesome), was still at 100 through six both games, I think. The team was *much* more patient than usual in the playoffs, got a big bunch of baserunners, but then just choked in the clutch (an on the basepaths, and in the field). It's bizarre to me to blame this series on the lack of count-working.

Am I the only one who thinks that Angel hitters worked the hell out of counts against Boston starters this series?

I thought they did alright in that regard, but keep in mind Daisuke is terrified of throwing pitches in the strike zone, and Beckett was not 100% (reportedly). But I agree with your larger point- without looking at the numbers, I do feel like the Angels got to a lot of 3 ball counts.

Fenway attendance from ballparks.com:

Red Sox
attendance at
Fenway Park
2007 2,970,755
2006 2,930,588
2005 2,847,888
2004 2,837,294
2003 2,724,165
2002 2,650,862
2001 2,625,333
2000 2,585,895
1999 2,446,162
1998 2,314,704
1997 2,226,136
1996 2,315,231
1995 2,164,410
1994 1,775,818
1993 2,422,021
1992 2,468,574
1991 2,562,435
1990 2,528,986
1989 2,510,012
1988 2,464,851
1987 2,231,551
1986 2,147,641
1985 1,786,633
1984 1,661,618
1983 1,782,285
1982 1,950,124
1981 1,060,379
1980 1,956,092
1979 2,353,114
1978 2,320,643
1977 2,074,549
1976 1,895,846
1975 1,748,587
1974 1,556,411
1973 1,481,002
1972 1,441,718
1971 1,678,732
1970 1,595,278
1969 1,833,246
1968 1,940,788
1967 1,727,832
1966 811,172
1965 652,201
1964 883,276
1963 942,642
1962 733,080
1961 850,589
1960 1,129,866
1959 984,102
1958 1,077,047
1957 1,181,087
1956 1,137,158
1955 1,203,200
1954 931,127
1953 1,026,133
1952 1,115,750
1951 1,312,282
1950 1,344,080
1949 1,596,650
1948 1,558,798
1947 1,427,315
1946 1,416,944
1945 603,794
1944 506,975
1943 358,275
1942 730,340
1941 718,497
1940 716,234
1939 573,070
1938 646,459
1937 559,659
1936 626,895
1935 558,568
1934 610,640
1933 268,715
1932 182,150
1931 350,975
1930 444,045
1929 394,620
1928 396,920
1927 305,275
1926 285,155
1925 267,782
1924 448,556
1923 229,688
1922 259,184
1921 279,273
1920 402,445
1919 417,291
1918 249,513
1917 387,856
1916 496,397
1915 539,885
1914 481,359
1913 437,194
1912 597,096
Attendance figures
courtesy of Total
Baseball

A large geographic territory

Only a New aYorker would describe new England as a "large geographic area".

Eric, I think you need to travel about a little more.

39. Shredder Posted: October 08, 2008 at 10:17 AM (#2974223)

But the Red Sox fanbase is made up primarily of total d-bags. They're d-bags when they're in Anaheim. They're d-bags when they're in Chicago. They're d-bags when they're in Detroit. And I'm just going to go ahead and assume that they're d-bags in Boston.

Shredder continues:

Boston fans are the biggest lowlifes on the planet! They're all ############# cocksuckers. In fact, I saw a homeless Red Sox fan once who was such a d-bag, I rolled him for the 57 cents he had in his pocket and took his shoes for good measure. I ran over with my car a little old lady who had a Red Sox cap on when I was driving in Pasadena once. Why? To teach them a lesson on how to be a decent human being.

man, they had almost as many customers in 1912 as they did in 1965. wonder what the pop. of boston was in those two years?

My dad actually grew up rooting for the Red Sox. It's probably the main reason I'm an Angels fan. When he ended up in Southern California, he was an American League fan, so he rooted for the American League team, and despite growing up 15 minutes from Dodger Stadium, we were Angels fans in my family. So as a kid, outside the Angels, I rooted for the Red Sox. I wanted them to win the series in 1986.

Whew. Good thing Shredder's dad moved to Southern California. Otherwise, he might be rooting for the Red Sox.

Now that would justify all the Boston fan hate.

man, they had almost as many customers in 1912 as they did in 1965. wonder what the pop. of boston was in those two years?

It stayed remarkably stable throughout those years, phred. At least until the baby boom hit in the fifties.

Meh, Shredder's OK from what I've seen. There are for more obnoxious and despisable Angel's fans around these parts...

Eric, I think you need to travel about a little more.

At this point in my life, I have lived in Red Sox territory more than lived in Yankee territory.

I can't think of a bigger populace unshared among baseball teams. Obviously, there are more square miles in flyover country, but this isn't that.

your reactions are obtuse

What? What did you call me?

...Solitary! A month!

man, they had almost as many customers in 1912 as they did in 1965. wonder what the pop. of boston was in those two years?

I believe it was about the same (not counting suburbs) in those years. IIRC population increased all the way through to the 1950s, then dropped a bunch with the exodus to the suburbs soon after that. It's harder, I think, to gauge the metro-Boston population from 1912, but from what I gather (a) it was a lot of people, as eastern MA had a lot of industries/factories/etc. but not nearly all in Boston; and (b) the extent to which people would travel into Boston to see a baseball game was probably not that large back in that day. I'm guessing (attendance)/(likely eligible population) was probably huge in 1912, and very low in 1965.

EDITed to include italics. If it's not national italics day, it should be.

I can't think of a bigger populace unshared among baseball teams.

According to the US 2007 census estimates, the entire population of New England is 14.3 million. About 2 million of that is in western CT, Yankee country.


NY state alone has 19.3 million. NJ has 8.7 and PA has 12.4. If you add halfof NJ and a quarter of PA, then split it in 2 (13.4 mil), that certainly exceeds the potential fanbase of the Red Sox for both the Yankees and Mets.

You should know this. It's your home turf.

It truly takes saturn-sized cajones for a Yankee fan to be complaining about another team's inherent advantages.

Who went to games in 1912? They were all day games. From what I recall, the Royal Rooters were mainly small businessmen who could set their own hours, but what %age of the fans where they?

The plain truth is there isnt really much to dislike about Pedroia, Ortiz and Youkilis. There's not a fan here who would not want them on their team.

Wrong.

From what I recall, the Royal Rooters were mainly small businessmen ner-do-well alcoholics who could set their own hours, but what %age of the fans where they.

Fixed.

Two MVP candidates and one from the past. If you don't want them on your team, you must be rooting for the Big Red Machine or the '61 Yankees.

For all the fire-Mickey-Hatcher types out there, and/or people who don't like the Angels' offensive philosophy -- Am I the only one who thinks that Angel hitters worked the hell out of counts against Boston starters this series? Seriously, they had Dice-K and Beckett to 100 pitches through 5. Lester, who wasn't at all wild (and who was awesome), was still at 100 through six both games, I think. The team was *much* more patient than usual in the playoffs, got a big bunch of baserunners, but then just choked in the clutch (an on the basepaths, and in the field). It's bizarre to me to blame this series on the lack of count-working.

Dice-K was the walkiest pitcher in the league if not the planet this year, and anyone who had been watching Beckett even in the regular season knows his stuff wasn't what it had been -- remember that July 19 game where Erick Aybar tripled against Beckett with the bags loaded? No way that happens last year. So it's not a surprise the Angels worked the count in this series.

For me, the principle reason to fire Mickey Hatcher is one of symbolism: the Angels need to knock off this ridiculous idea that they can't draft for, and teach and develop plate discipline in the minors. It's the irrational attachment to smallball — as evidenced so brutally in the top of the ninth in the ALDS Game 4 — that the Angels need to modify. There's nothing wrong with it if used sparingly, but the situation was just begging for an RBI single, but Scioscia played right into his stereotype and offered up a suicide squeeze. The singles-oriented offense he advocates collapses in front of pitchers who don't allow them.

I don't think Mickey Hatcher is the problem. I don't think he's the architect of the organizations offensive philosophy. I think his job is to implement it. And if I'm right, firing him does nothing. They need a change of philosophy, and that comes from Scioscia and Reagins. If all they do is hire someone else to manage the philosophy they've already got, it's not really an effective move. Similarly, if they DO decide to change their philosophy, I've got no reason to believe Hatcher couldn't effectively implement that.

And if I'm right, firing him does nothing.

I agree with you 100% on this point. Which is why I say firing him would only be symbolic, but it should be done as a public repudiation of their hacktastic little-ball tendencies.

I agree with you 100% on this point. Which is why I say firing him would only be symbolic, but it should be done as a public repudiation of their hacktastic little-ball tendencies.

Absolutely. Hitting is all about controlling the strike zone. What struck me most from this past series is how much more advanced and effective Texeira's (the newcomer) approach was, versus the rest of the team.

If you don't want them on your team, you must be rooting for the Big Red Machine or the '61 Yankees.

Or I'd rather root for players I like than players I hate. I wouldn't have wanted Michael Jordan on the Knicks either.

i won't insist on it, but i don't think you can award a franchise its entire msa when it shares it with another team. put another way, not every new yorker is equally a fan of the yankees and the mets, especially when it comes to buying tickets.
i looked at some census figures for metropolitan statistical areas (msa) and found that boston msa was ranked 10th behind NYC, LA, Chicago, Philly, Dallas, Miami, Washington, Houston, Detroit.
(i am considering msas because i think they are a much more meaningful stat when you are talking about fan bases. people have cars now, so it isn't a stretch to think a city's msa is an MLB team's real pool of customers.)
since NY, Chic., and LA have more than one team in their msas (anaheim is well within the LA msa), they are sharing those markets.
okay. even when NYC is thought of as two markets, one for the mets and one for the yanks, one half of NYC is still larger than boston's msa. damn near twice as large, in fact.
but i'm just not comfortable in assuming boston's market is so small, since they draw from a base that goes pretty far out. new england is larger than nyc/north nj/western conn., and we have to remember that the NYC msa rubs up against the philly msa to the south, so suddenly it seems nyc loses a potential pool of fans, whereas new england gets all of MA, a good portion of conn., r.i., maine, new hampshire. not terribly heavily populous north of boston, but still a lot of people.
i won't deny there is still a gap between bos. and ny re market size. i just wonder how big it is.

Yeah, Jordan was no Russell.

NY state alone has 19.3 million. NJ has 8.7 and PA has 12.4. If you add halfof NJ and a quarter of PA, then split it in 2 (13.4 mil), that certainly exceeds the potential fanbase of the Red Sox for both the Yankees and Mets.

I must be missing something. Why is this a response to Erik's assertion about a "populace unshared among baseball teams"?

And PA has Phillies and Pirates fans, not Mets or Yankees fans.

I think that the Scranton area has some Yankee fans (And some Phils fans.)

Why is this a response to Erik's assertion about a "populace unshared among baseball teams"?

Erik entered that in there just so he wouldn't have to explain his own team's inherent population advantage.

Since the false dichotomy was so nakedly obvious and self-serving, I chose to ignore it.

And PA has Phillies and Pirates fans, not Mets or Yankees fans.

Northeast PA has a lot of Yankees fans. I doubt too many Mets fans.

And are there actually any Pirates fans left besides Emeigh? I haven't seen one since the BTF meet-ups we had in the triangle several years ago.

(i am considering msas because i think they are a much more meaningful stat when you are talking about fan bases.

No, ############, no! Are you *trying* to start this argument again? Werr is in his hideyhole, let's don't bait him out here.

NY state alone has 19.3 million. NJ has 8.7 and PA has 12.4. If you add halfof NJ and a quarter of PA, then split it in 2 (13.4 mil), that certainly exceeds the potential fanbase of the Red Sox for both the Yankees and Mets.

Yeah but you have to account for the 10% of Buffalo's population and the people in the part of NY near Erie, PA who support the Indians.