Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Sox Therapy > Discussion
Sox Therapy
— Where Thinking Red Sox Fans Obsess about the Sox

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
   101. The Original SJ Posted: October 04, 2005 at 12:01 AM (#1660554)
FWIW, any Yankee fans complaining about Texas (this goes for that #### A-Rod too) should STFU. No one owes you anything. If you don't like it, win more games next time.

I agree with this 100%. Texas owes them nothing.
   102. Eraser-X is emphatically dominating teh site!!! Posted: October 04, 2005 at 12:06 AM (#1660566)
A similar situation arose between St. Louis and Houston in 2001 - where Houston was the rightful division champs, but the Cards declared themselvs co-champions. I believe they were instructed to stop doing that.

You're wrong, MLB officials said that neither team is wrong and allowed the Cards to continue to fly the flag. I have no idea whether it's still up, but MLB was completely unhelpful in settling the issue.

Also, people who label individuals with broad ideological labels and then call others hopeless for not demonizing the person based on the label and follow it up by encouraging people to root against sports teams because of the nationality of the manager (I know it's indirect, but it is what you did) don't really need a label the folly of their position.
   103. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: October 04, 2005 at 12:30 AM (#1660594)
Eraser-X -

I think you're taking OleP's initial post much more seriously than he meant it. He wasn't "encouraging people to root against the White Sox." That was just giving a fun further "reason" to root for the Red Sox, as someone who's already rooting for those latter good, non-dictator-loving Sox.

You guys can have your further debate on the exact comparative ethical judgment to be laid upon Chavez, if you want, but I don't think it's fair to label OleP's initial fun post as a position statement.

And as the one who most recently mentioned the "technicality" - I'm not whining. I don't really care if the Sox technically get the division championship or not. I wanted them to win it outright, and I wanted the Yankees to finish second, and that didn't happen.

I'm using the "technicality" language because the Yankee fans seem to think they won the AL East themselves in any meaningful way. I mean, SJ deserves his 30 pieces of silver, but that doesn't mean the Yankees somehow won more games than the Red Sox.
   104. ericr Posted: October 04, 2005 at 01:06 AM (#1660639)
Hall of Fame views Astros and Cardinals of 2001 as NL Central co-champs:

Link
   105. Vance Law Revue Posted: October 04, 2005 at 01:48 AM (#1660702)
The Yankees, it appears by all rights, won the division on a technicality.

The Yankees won the division on a technicality in the same sense that a batter who pops up on the infield with runners on first and second and fewer than two outs is out whether or not the ball is caught on a technicality.

The Yankees won the division on a technicality in the same sense that a batter who reaches first base ahead of the ball after striking out on a wild pitch is safe on a technicality.

The Yankees won the division on a technicality in the same sense that a batter-runner who hits the ball on the fly over an outfield fence more than 250ft. from home plate is entitled to all four bases on a technicality.

As far as I know, "technicality" is just another name for a "rule."

Cleveland affected the outcome of the Eastern Division because they were a second place team, and the rule as written involves the record of other second place teams from the same record.

MLB thought about this situation before it happened, and they thought it was important enough to write a rule just to cover this situation.

That rule clearly indicates that the Yankees are division champs and the Red Sox are not.

IF you are going to complain about that, you might as well complain about your favorite hitter being called out after only 3 strikes.
   106. chris p Posted: October 04, 2005 at 02:19 AM (#1660747)
i just saw the jets head coach on espn talk about how players always say their ready to go in the game or whateve r... how he he's ready to go in the game, but he knows better. ya know, francona could learn a thing or two from that herm edwards character.
   107. tfbg9 Posted: October 04, 2005 at 02:20 AM (#1660749)
This is a dopey thread.

Hey, speaking of gambling, I saw that Vegas has both the Angels and the White Sox as roughly 7-5 favortites to win their rounds.
   108. Daryn Posted: October 04, 2005 at 02:44 AM (#1660787)
Not surprising ly karlmagnus was right about scot free:

No, this term is not related to the supposed penurious nature of those living in the north of Britain. Rather, it derives from scot meaning a payment or tax. This word appears in 1297. The origin is uncertain, it probably comes from Old Norse, but an origin in the French escot is not out of the question.

So to get off scot free is to get away without making the payment that is due.

-- courtesy wordorigins.com


That said, scots have come to think it is about their penurious nature and therefore it is somewhat inappropriate. Similarly, and slightly more bizarrely, there is a call in Canada at least to stop using the word niggardly for obvious reasons, even tough it is completely unrelated in meaning and origin to the offensive slur.
   109. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: October 04, 2005 at 04:23 AM (#1660947)
You strike me as the sort of person who cheats at "Go Fish."

You strike as the kind of person who has no idea what he's talking about.

I never cheat at anything. Ever.
   110. Famous Original Joe C Posted: October 04, 2005 at 04:51 AM (#1660972)
David Ortiz acknowledges the obvious: After the All-Star break, they didn't play that well.

That's from Buster Olney's blog today. Yeah, Buster, 46-29 sure is obviously lousy. Next thing you'll probably tell us productive outs are an important statistic.
   111. The Original SJ Posted: October 04, 2005 at 05:09 AM (#1660986)
Hey, speaking of gambling, I saw that Vegas has both the Angels and the White Sox as roughly 7-5 favortites to win their rounds.

Not where I play....

Chicago 2.20
Boston 1.61

LAA 2.25
NYY 1.57

AL Pennant

NYY 2.80
BOS 4.00
LAA 3.60
CHW 4.75
   112. Famous Original Joe C Posted: October 04, 2005 at 06:02 AM (#1661041)
Wow, heavy action on NYY, huh?
   113. The Original SJ Posted: October 04, 2005 at 07:23 AM (#1661080)
there is always action on NYY, it is hard to make money on them, the odds in vegas are never true odds, because so many people bet on them.
   114. Eraser-X is emphatically dominating teh site!!! Posted: October 04, 2005 at 08:23 AM (#1661093)
What are the odds on the Series?

MC, yeah, I may have overreacted, and there's certainly some evidence that Chavez's regime has human rights problems, probably even beyond those of the Bush adminstration (not that that should be some mystical line in the sand).

I wasn't going to say anything until the follow-up posts when the argument was basically, "If you don't agree with me, you are a lost cause and I'm not going to even put forth the effort to explain why".

I'm also a little sick of the "stupid Ozzie" attitude that some folks around here have. Ozzie is certainly a character and I don't like a lot of what he says, but he had a great year managing. I have yet to see any substantive critique of his managing choices other than the normal bush league, "This one particular move was dumb" analysis. Don't get me wrong--when he leaves A.J. in to strike out with the bases loaded against a lefty, it bothers me. But his handling of the pitchers this year has been impressive whether it be skilled or just extremely lucky.
   115. Phil Coorey is a T-Shirt Salesman Posted: October 04, 2005 at 09:31 AM (#1661112)
My sportsbook has the Red Sox as favourites over the Whiteys.
   116. tfbg9 Posted: October 04, 2005 at 02:48 PM (#1661347)
SJ-you're right. My boss read me the lines backwards. They did seem out of whack...
   117. tfbg9 Posted: October 04, 2005 at 02:50 PM (#1661355)
We're the overdogs! Yipee!
   118. tfbg9 Posted: October 04, 2005 at 03:08 PM (#1661446)
OK, as long as we're talking about betting on the MFY's, I might as well confess to what I've been doing the past few seasons.

As Torre's 'Roiders enter the first round of the playoffs, I wager $200 on them. If they lose, as a Sox fan who works in NYC, I'm overjoyed (I look at it this way: if there was a magic wand I could rent for a day to wave at the Evil Empire, preventing them from winning the WS that season, I'd gladly lay out a couple hundred bucks if that was the fee, every damn year!).

If the Red Sox' arch enemies should win ALDS round, I "parlay" my take on them to emerge victorious in the ALCS, and then the WS. Either they eventually lose, and I'm happy, or they win and I get a chunk of cash as consolation prize. Buy a basic laptop or something...heh heh. So far I've "lost" my bet twice, 2003 and 2004.

I should have thought of this way back in 1995.
   119. tfbg9 Posted: October 04, 2005 at 03:10 PM (#1661459)
So, SJ, I'm down on the EE at -136. Hate me if you want-I can't lose!
   120. Joel W Posted: October 04, 2005 at 03:45 PM (#1661573)
tfbg9, I know a lot of people who did this for the Presidential election...
   121. Joel W Posted: October 04, 2005 at 03:55 PM (#1661605)
If people want some arbitrage, getting in on the angels at 2-1 at SJ's sportsbook could be offset by selling the angels at basically 1-1 on Tradesports. Same with the White Sox.
   122. Sean Forman Posted: October 04, 2005 at 04:35 PM (#1661739)
tfbg I've been talking about doing this for years, but never have done so. I'm too much of a wimp to wager overseas and I wouldn't know how to find/approach a bookie either.
   123. mommy Posted: October 04, 2005 at 04:55 PM (#1661781)
"I never cheat at anything. Ever."

good one.
   124. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: October 04, 2005 at 05:09 PM (#1661808)
I put some money down on the Padres at 36-1 to win the World Series. Even if they only have a 1 in 3 chance to win each series (which is fairly ludicrous), that still leaves them at only 27-1 to win the Series.

good one.

Why is that so hard to believe?
   125. tfbg9 Posted: October 04, 2005 at 06:07 PM (#1661950)
Luckily, I work with a guy who loves to bet and hates the MFY's the old fashioned way-he bets against them!

The first year I did this I went with an intenet bookie place. I "lost" and therefore collecting never became an issue.

Biff, ignore mommy-mommy's a troll.
Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
JE (Jason)
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.1837 seconds
41 querie(s) executed