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 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: September 10, 2011 at 02:24 AM (#3920832)
The problem I have with the math is the small remaining sample size. While in some respects it works in the Sox favor it also increases the likelihood of the sort of extreme results that would sink the Sox.

I really hope I look incredibly stupid in two weeks by I'm not feeling it.
   2. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 10, 2011 at 02:26 AM (#3920833)
While in some respects it works in the Sox favor it also increases the likelihood of the sort of extreme results that would sink the Sox.
No, it doesn't. It increases the likelihood of extreme events which could either sink or buoy the Sox. There is no reason to think that this team has significantly higher downside than upside risk. And the sample size is already accounted for in the simulation.

Again, worry all you like, but don't get the numbers wrong.

EDIT: The one thing you could argue, against the numbers, is that these games aren't independent events, that things could "snowball". My experience watching baseball is that things almost never really snowball in that way. Think of all the times you've been convinced the club will never win again, or never lose again, and certainly not with tonight's pitcher on the mound, then they go out and do just that.
   3. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: September 10, 2011 at 02:30 AM (#3920834)
I really hope I look incredibly stupid in two weeks by I'm not feeling it.


If it makes you feel any better, I doubt it will even take two weeks to make you feel stupid.
   4. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: September 10, 2011 at 02:40 AM (#3920837)
Let me ask a question, does the simulation run based on some YTD compilation of the sox or is t based on the current version of the rotation? If it's the former I think there IS reason to expect the downside to be more likely.

I'm not disputing that your numbers are accurately calculated and I realize all the reasons my feeling here is stupid but...
   5. Dale Sams Posted: September 10, 2011 at 02:49 AM (#3920840)
You don't have to explain yourself Matt. You're taking a math approach and I'm taking a gut feeling/I've been down this road before/I'm damn good at predicting my team based on who they play and what the pitching match-ups are.

I do the 50-50 thing all the time when I'm on the other side of the argument. Last year because the Rays and Yanks stumbled at the end, a lot of die-hard fans were pulling out "2004" and saying "If we sweep here, and if this happens, and if goats are sacrificed.." And I just calmly said how to win all these games it's like a 2% chance, etc..etc.. So I know where your coming from.

Sox will lose tomorrow because FORGODSAKEITSWEILANDVSHELLICKSON!!, and Sunday because Lester pitchs very well in these situations but never quite good enough. I predict an extra inning 4-3 loss.

There's also one problem with your logic. You say it's stretching it to call the Sox a .500 team. I said with 22 games to go, they would go 10-12. That's less than .500 and that's before the injury to Beckett, the complications to Youkilis and Bedard and is Lackey allright after tonight?

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Sox will lose the next two games, then go 9-7. But that seems awful generous right now.
   6. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: September 10, 2011 at 03:08 AM (#3920844)
I think a study could be done - and I'm not the guy to do it tonight - about teams that make up big chunks of games back late in the season, and how often they complete the comeback. Do teams that look like they're collapsing often actually collapse, or do they put it together?

What's the diagnosis/prognosis on Beckett? I missed it, if there was news.
   7. tfbg9 Posted: September 10, 2011 at 03:09 AM (#3920845)
They are not a .500 team right now. They're feeling it. The bats are suddenly silent. They are pressing.

They will be big underdogs tomorrow. Vegas will have them about 35% to win Saturday's game. And then they're one bad Lester start from being 3 games up in the LC with 16 left, 4 head to head with the team bearing down on them. Not to mention the Angels.
   8. tfbg9 Posted: September 10, 2011 at 03:16 AM (#3920854)
Its not simply a straight odds type thing. At some point it can snowball. If they get swept, it very well might.

If thet get swept, the straight odds outlook will still say they are 80% to take the WC. But then you're looking at a 7-9, 10-6 type situation, and the team will be in serious trouble of blowing this thing. They have one non-horrible SP left. Its not good, boys.
   9. tfbg9 Posted: September 10, 2011 at 03:27 AM (#3920864)
I guess I'm saying I see the odds at more like 90%. But that all goes out the window if its 3 games in the LC come Sunday night.
   10. Textbook Editor Posted: September 10, 2011 at 04:00 AM (#3920877)
My only question would be: if the Red Sox miss out on the WC, where would it rank all-time in terms of collapses? I'd have to think it would be pretty high up the list.

Look, my pants aren't wet just yet, but the forecast is calling for possible drizzle on Monday should we lose the next two games.
   11. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 10, 2011 at 04:06 AM (#3920880)
What's up with the titles to these Sox Therapy threads?
   12. Lassus Posted: September 10, 2011 at 04:59 AM (#3920899)
I have determined that what this thread needs is a Mets fan telling you that you guys have nothing to worry about.

Seriously, it's a sure thing.
   13. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: September 10, 2011 at 05:28 AM (#3920906)
The bats are suddenly silent. They are pressing.

...4 games ago they scored 14 runs. 3 games ago they scored 10 runs. The bats are "suddenly silent" and they are "pressing" just because they scored 4 two games ago and 2 last game?
   14. plink Posted: September 10, 2011 at 05:55 AM (#3920917)
Over the last 5 games, the Red Sox have scored 29 runs and allowed 26.
   15. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: September 10, 2011 at 06:08 AM (#3920920)
Best possible outcome: Rays clamber allllll the way up to take the division... and the Angels take the WC.
   16. Dale Sams Posted: September 10, 2011 at 01:31 PM (#3920963)
Red Sox have also given up 52 runs in the last six non-Beckett/Lester starts
   17. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 10, 2011 at 01:34 PM (#3920965)
Red Sox have also given up 52 runs in the last six non-Beckett/Lester starts
Which is obviously a sign of some poor luck, along with the poor quality of the starters. If you run out six replacement level starters, you should get one or two reasonably competent starts.
   18. Dale Sams Posted: September 10, 2011 at 02:53 PM (#3920994)
Deleted. It doesn't particularly persuade me, how am I going to persuade Matt.
   19. robinred Posted: September 10, 2011 at 03:00 PM (#3920996)
Deleted. It doesn't particularly persuade me, how am I going to persuade Matt.


I was about to answer you. The short answer was, "No."
   20. Dale Sams Posted: September 10, 2011 at 03:18 PM (#3921009)
*If* the Sox lose today and tomorrow, I'll go ahead and post it.
   21. Darren Posted: September 10, 2011 at 03:23 PM (#3921010)
10% sounds quite reasonable, a lot more reasonable than 1%. No argument from me.
   22. robinred Posted: September 10, 2011 at 03:30 PM (#3921014)
To be clear here, I get why BOS fans are worried from a purely fan perspective. Team is playing poorly and your guys' rotation has been firebombed by injuries. But I also think that if you step back and look at the numbers and the personnel in the lineups, it is very, very unlikely that TB can actually pull this off.

The Rays have a pretty good team, of course, but as Wisinski pointed out in the other thread, they have some holes, and I don't see them as a 100-win team that has been held up by injuries or bad luck and is just hitting its stride.
   23. tfbg9 Posted: September 10, 2011 at 04:00 PM (#3921030)
Bpro has the thing at 99.2%--I just checked.
GTFOOH...I don't buy it.
   24. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 10, 2011 at 04:04 PM (#3921032)
10% sounds quite reasonable, a lot more reasonable than 1%. No argument from me.
My argument there is that 10% is basically the worst it could be. I think it's more like 2-4%.
   25. tfbg9 Posted: September 10, 2011 at 04:13 PM (#3921035)
24-I more or less agree, but we cannot measure "the human element", for lack of a better term.
   26. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 10, 2011 at 04:18 PM (#3921038)
I more or less agree, but we cannot mesure "the human element", for lack of a better term.
That's fair, but I'm not willing to concede the "human element" cuts in one direction or the other. We've seen this club come back from slumps all season long.
   27. tfbg9 Posted: September 10, 2011 at 04:29 PM (#3921045)
26-I like the way you think. Right here. On this specific thing.
   28. Smiling Joe Hesketh Posted: September 10, 2011 at 04:50 PM (#3921056)
Of course they can miss the playoffs. They have one competent starting pitcher right now out of five. Kyle ####### Weiland is pitching against Neimann tonight; I don't like their chances. Youkilis is out, Beckett is out, Bedard is out, and sadly Miller, Lackey and Wakefield are all still in. With that pitching roster they are at an extreme disadvantage in four games out of five.

Don't kid yourselves. They could easily blow this thing. They have certainly set themselves up nicely for a Mets-type collapse. You can't win games when you're always down 6-0 after 3 innings.

So yeah, I'm worried.
   29. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 10, 2011 at 04:59 PM (#3921065)
My argument there is that 10% is basically the worst it could be. I think it's more like 2-4%.

Are you giving 25:1 on B-Ref sponsorship bets? I'll take the Rays/Angels side of that action.
   30. Dale Sams Posted: September 10, 2011 at 05:21 PM (#3921074)
I think Weiland goes against Hellickson, which is worse.
   31. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 10, 2011 at 05:38 PM (#3921081)
Are you giving 25:1 on B-Ref sponsorship bets? I'll take the Rays/Angels side of that action.
I guess I could bet $5 against your $.20, but that wouldn't exactly do much for Sean. And I'm not laying $125 on anything.

4% feels about right. I think 2-4% is a little bit on the low end, but 3-5% or 4-5% is probably about right.
Of course they can miss the playoffs.
No one's arguing that they can't miss the playoffs. The question is how likely it is, and how worried people feel about it. I don't really know who you think you're arguing against. I'm guessing by your tone that you think 4% is too low, or maybe that 10% is too low?

Or are you arguing that people should feel more worried regardless of the numbers? I can't tell.
   32. Darren Posted: September 10, 2011 at 05:50 PM (#3921088)
4% feels about right. I think 2-4% is a little bit on the low end, but 3-5% or 4-5% is probably about right.



Look at that dark spot on his pants--it's getting bigger!

No one's arguing that they can't miss the playoffs.


I'd say that's been a fairly common argument recently. That's really the only reason to call someone crazy/stupid/pants-wetting for thinking they could miss the playoffs.
   33. tfbg9 Posted: September 10, 2011 at 05:53 PM (#3921089)
13-they've had 3 games where they've scored 14, 12, & 10 runs(only two of which they've won) and 6 where they haven't hit: 2, 0, 4, 0, 4, 2.

They've hit well enough to win 33% of the time in their Sep. games.
Nice nitpick Biffer.
   34. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 10, 2011 at 06:08 PM (#3921096)
No one's arguing that they can't miss the playoffs.

I'd say that's been a fairly common argument recently.
Where? Not here, in this thread, where SJH made his post. Obviously "can't" is a stupid argument, but the point of this thread was to lay out some numbers and think about what the actual situation of the team is. The whole point of the thread was to get away from "they can't!" "they could!" "I'm scared!" "I'm not!"
   35. tfbg9 Posted: September 10, 2011 at 06:12 PM (#3921099)
The line on tonight's Weiland start is about 7.5/5 best 8 can tell.
   36. Answer Guy Posted: September 10, 2011 at 06:15 PM (#3921101)
I'm guessing by your tone that you think 4% is too low, or maybe that 10% is too low?


10% seems too low in light of just looking at the schedule and seeing one unfavorable starting pitching matchup after another.
   37. Dale Sams Posted: September 10, 2011 at 06:18 PM (#3921102)
TF, i once understood baseball lines. So to make 5 you have to bet 7.5? Wish i lived in Vegas.

Allright, you all want drama? I am officially wishing for an Angels-Rays-Red Sox tie at the end of the season.
   38. Darren Posted: September 10, 2011 at 07:45 PM (#3921139)
@MC,

I guess I'm making the wrong point in the wrong place. I thought the pants talk was a reference to the argument that people who are worried are insane. If your analysis shows anything, to me, it shows that being worried is reasonable because a 10% chance of a historic collapse is pretty bad news.
   39. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: September 10, 2011 at 07:58 PM (#3921144)
Ray, in 2007, about midway through the season, people were expressing worry about the team's chances. I said that they were a lock to make the playoffs and then looked good to win the WS. (I don't think I predicted them as a lock to win the WS, just to get into the playoffs, and from there, they had as good a chance, if not better than the other teams that would also make the playoffs). I called the worriers "pants pissers". It caught on. You're welcome.
   40. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: September 10, 2011 at 08:00 PM (#3921146)
And let me add that it was all in fun, my calling fellow Red Sox fans "pants pissers". I've been a fan since '67. I've done more than my share of pants pissing, but I haven't since '04.
   41. Darren Posted: September 10, 2011 at 08:13 PM (#3921156)

Ray, in 2007, about midway through the season, people were expressing worry about the team's chances. I said that they were a lock to make the playoffs and then looked good to win the WS.


It's funny that you misremember the argument this way.
   42. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: September 10, 2011 at 08:15 PM (#3921159)
Ok, link away!
   43. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 10, 2011 at 08:20 PM (#3921162)
Yeah, I thought "pants pissing" thing was all in fun - obviously we worry about things and this was a way of making light of it. That's how I took Joe's bit back in the day.
   44. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 10, 2011 at 10:03 PM (#3921192)
Ray, in 2007, about midway through the season, people were expressing worry about the team's chances. I said that they were a lock to make the playoffs and then looked good to win the WS. (I don't think I predicted them as a lock to win the WS, just to get into the playoffs, and from there, they had as good a chance, if not better than the other teams that would also make the playoffs). I called the worriers "pants pissers". It caught on. You're welcome.


I was talking about more than just this title, though, when I asked what was up with the titles to these threads. Like the title: "So, Jacoby Ellsbury."
   45. Textbook Editor Posted: September 10, 2011 at 10:14 PM (#3921198)
Maybe a better title would be:

The One About The Pants Pissing
   46. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: September 10, 2011 at 10:15 PM (#3921199)
Oh. Well, this title is an obvious nod to the Beatles' "Revolution".
   47. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 10, 2011 at 10:16 PM (#3921200)
The title here is a play on the opening lyrics to "Revolution." I thought it sounded funny in April, and yesterday I figured I'd call it back.

"So, Jacoby Ellsbury" is what happens when I decide to post something without coming up with workable post title. I am not a particularly hard-working blogger.
   48. Textbook Editor Posted: September 10, 2011 at 10:26 PM (#3921206)
FWIW, I like the titles. "So, Jacoby Ellsbury..." has the feel of starting off a conversation, which is the whole point.
   49. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 10, 2011 at 10:30 PM (#3921211)
That was what I was going for, TE, thanks. I feel like it's a bit of a cop-out, since it's what I go for when I don't come up with anything even marginally clever, but the goal for the blog is mostly to keep the conversation and the community up and running, and I have a goal of never letting the blog responsibilities interfere with my life to any measurable degree, so I try not to worry about it much.
   50. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: September 11, 2011 at 12:16 AM (#3921255)
This is the only active team blog at BTF. The titles of posts don't seem particularly relevant to me as long as we have a place to discuss things. Like pants pissing.
   51. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 11, 2011 at 01:14 AM (#3921308)
The title here is a play on the opening lyrics to "Revolution." I thought it sounded funny in April, and yesterday I figured I'd call it back.


I totally missed that, which makes me feel stupid :-)

I was just noting that the titles were unique; obviously, it's the blog post and discussion that are relevant.
   52. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: September 11, 2011 at 01:47 AM (#3921348)
Soon a certain Smiths song's lyrics should be referenced as the title. Only "Boston" should replace "London", and "Dorchester" should fill in for "Birmingham".
   53. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 11, 2011 at 02:10 AM (#3921383)
EDIT: chattered here by mistake
   54. robinred Posted: September 11, 2011 at 03:09 AM (#3921533)
Heck of a game.
   55. tfbg9 Posted: September 11, 2011 at 03:19 AM (#3921548)
Troll away, as$hole.
   56. Answer Guy Posted: September 11, 2011 at 03:25 AM (#3921555)
Yeah I think that Smiths song sums it up. Hang the blessed DJ.
   57. tfbg9 Posted: September 11, 2011 at 03:30 AM (#3921563)
Its apparently happening.
   58. Best Regards, President of Comfort Posted: September 11, 2011 at 03:34 AM (#3921569)
Its apparently happening.
Maybe. If the Red Sox win tomorrow, they're just fine. If they lose tomorrow, you can start panicking.
   59. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: September 11, 2011 at 03:36 AM (#3921572)
I've been panicking for a week now. Nice to have some company.
   60. robinred Posted: September 11, 2011 at 03:37 AM (#3921575)
Troll away, as$hole.


Heh.

And, actually, though, I meant it. It was a good game. Not trolling at all. If I wanted to taunt Boston fans, I would have tried to say something funny. Boston is still in great shape, but I can see why some of their fans are getting nervous, like I said in the other thread.

Jeff Mathis just hit a HR--Angels up 5-0. That race will presumably be 1.5 now.
   61. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: September 11, 2011 at 03:43 AM (#3921583)
[60] Yeah, somehow Jeff ####### Mathis was the offensive star against the Yankees tonight ... hard as that is to possibly believe.
   62. tfbg9 Posted: September 11, 2011 at 03:43 AM (#3921584)
Yeah sure you meant it you lying f*cking tw@t. You admit you hate the Sox, and then come into the thread at that time with that transparent bullsh1t. Go #### yourself.

Nice join date BTW, must've been a fun night for you.

I see you edited out the insult. You can put it back if you want, you fat f*ck. Troll.
   63. tfbg9 Posted: September 11, 2011 at 03:49 AM (#3921590)
99.7% my ass.

Thank God for 2004...that's what I say.
   64. Answer Guy Posted: September 11, 2011 at 03:53 AM (#3921595)
Thank God for 2004...that's what I say.


Also, 2007. Anguished in adolesence, spoiled in my 30s.
   65. robinred Posted: September 11, 2011 at 03:57 AM (#3921598)
Hunter just hit one--6-0 LAA.

I assume Maddon will stay with Farnsworth, but I am sure he is thinking about the recent outings and Farns' history.
   66. robinred Posted: September 11, 2011 at 04:05 AM (#3921609)
I see you edited out the insult.


Yeah, thought better of it. Not sure what set you off like this, but this seems personal. Don't have a personal issue with you, although I have given you a little shitt at times, to be sure, but I do that with a few people. Time to chill it out. Peace, etc.
   67. Answer Guy Posted: September 11, 2011 at 04:08 AM (#3921612)
Boston is still in great shape, but I can see why some of their fans are getting nervous, like I said in the other thread.


"Great shape" is a stretch. They have exactly one functional starting pitcher, and a major cog from their lineup gone missing again. The only solace is that they've got 7 left vs. the Orioles and if they win five of those games it's pretty tough for Tampa/Anaheim to catch them no matter what they do.
   68. McCoy Posted: September 11, 2011 at 04:08 AM (#3921614)
Some personal insult historian you are, nitwit.
   69. robinred Posted: September 11, 2011 at 04:16 AM (#3921618)
"Great shape" is a stretch


You may be right. But I think TB will lose a few and the Boston lineup will put enough runs on the board to get Boston home. If TB catches them, well, I will admit I was wrong.

Some personal insult historian you are, nitwit.


Heh. This is a new meme. I edited out the insult because I just lit up the objective pipe.
   70. tfbg9 Posted: September 11, 2011 at 04:19 AM (#3921621)
67-sounds like a guy trying to weasle out-of being called-out, accurately, for trolling.

68-made me laugh. But a "baseball historian" ought to be aware of Ted Williams flying combat missions.

Back to the matter at hand. Are we choking? If TB wins the next one, you bet your ass we are.
   71. Dan Posted: September 11, 2011 at 04:20 AM (#3921622)
I'll worry if they lose tomorrow. At the moment just annoyed at the way they lost tonight.
   72. Answer Guy Posted: September 11, 2011 at 04:22 AM (#3921625)
Huh? I'm a troll now?

*scratches head*
   73. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 11, 2011 at 04:23 AM (#3921626)
"Great shape" is a stretch. They have exactly one functional starting pitcher,


Did Erik Bedard go off and join a monastery or something? Why does he not qualify as a "functional starting pitcher"?

And Beckett's injury doesn't appear serious.
   74. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 11, 2011 at 04:23 AM (#3921627)
Robinred's "Who, me?" routine is amusing.
   75. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: September 11, 2011 at 04:25 AM (#3921629)
Did Erik Bedard go off and join a monastery or something? Why does he not qualify as a "functional starting pitcher"?


Because he's hurt and is going to miss at least one more start.
   76. tfbg9 Posted: September 11, 2011 at 04:25 AM (#3921630)
Robinred was trolling. Or ought to know better. Why, are you fat? :-)
   77. Answer Guy Posted: September 11, 2011 at 04:26 AM (#3921632)
Did Erik Bedard go off and join a monastery or something?


Though he'd doubtless qualify, I've yet to be convinced Bedard's actually healthy.
   78. Answer Guy Posted: September 11, 2011 at 04:28 AM (#3921633)
One of the gay couple living next to Stan and Francine on "American Dad" described himself as "straight thin, but gay fat." That might describe me these days, made heavy by all the free food the office brought in this summer.
   79. Answer Guy Posted: September 11, 2011 at 04:29 AM (#3921634)
Yes, I owned Bedard in multiple fantasy leagues before, so yeah I'm feeling snakebitten.
   80. tfbg9 Posted: September 11, 2011 at 04:29 AM (#3921635)
Lemmee guess, tomorrow's Bpro Playoff Odds report, BOS:

98.5%!
   81. robinred Posted: September 11, 2011 at 04:31 AM (#3921636)
Robinred's "Who, me?" routine is amusing.


"Amusing" is what Ray says when he misses stuff and is buffaloed by his biases. So I will explain:

I admitted I have given the guy some crap, just like I have given you some crap. And you have given me some crap, as you did in that last post. This seems to be beyond that, however.

And, if you said that because you think "heck of a game" was trolling, well, you're wrong.
   82. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: September 11, 2011 at 04:36 AM (#3921638)
At this rate the Rays will win the East and the wild card will come out of the West. Ouch!
   83. robinred Posted: September 11, 2011 at 04:37 AM (#3921640)
At this rate the Rays will win the East and the wild card will come out of the West. Ouch!


I guess if Boston fans piss their pants, Yankee fans have to actually shitt their pants to top them, right?
   84. tfbg9 Posted: September 11, 2011 at 04:37 AM (#3921641)
Oh, nice try robinred. And I see one of your pastimes is:
"LYING ON THE INTERNET".

Whadda fat, beady-eyed doosh.
   85. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 11, 2011 at 04:40 AM (#3921642)
"Amusing" is what Ray says when he misses stuff and is buffaloed by his biases. So I will explain:

I admitted I have given the guy some crap, just like I have given you some crap. And you have given me some crap, as you did in that last post. This seems to be beyond that, however.

And, if you said that because you think "heck of a game" was trolling, well, you're wrong.


I don't really care about this silly issue, but you popped into a Red Sox thread 2 minutes after they lost to comment "heck of a game." Then you acted shocked that someone thought you were trolling. Then you uttered an insult, before thinking better about it and deleting it.

Troll all you want - I couldn't care less - but pretending you're shocked that someone took it as a troll is pretty weak.
   86. Lassus Posted: September 11, 2011 at 05:51 AM (#3921657)
If robinred has confused you, I'll be thrilled to blatantly - if lightheartedly - troll:

The Mets fan says you have nothing to worry about. No one could lose a lead that big.


And, I watched. It was a heck of a game.

You people need help, generally, and tfbg9 needs medication, specifically.
   87. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: September 11, 2011 at 06:39 AM (#3921666)
The Mets fan says you have nothing to worry about. No one could lose a lead that big.


Heard this very thing from my brother tonight. It scared me.
   88. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: September 11, 2011 at 09:52 AM (#3921681)
Wow. People get nasty when the team hits a rough patch.
   89. bunyon Posted: September 11, 2011 at 12:17 PM (#3921690)
I just want to add, that I, too, thought it was a heck of a game.


Was Game 7 of the 75 Series a heck of a game?

Were Games 6 and 7 of the 91 Series both great games? (Asked as a die-hard Braves fan).


If you answer no to either of those based on who you root for, you have no reason to be discussing baseball. Go buy a pom-pom and a foam finger. The game tonight was a great game. Crushing, I'm sure, for the Sox and their fans but still a great game. If you think "Heck of a game" is a troll, then you should probably leave the internet as soon as possible because you aren't going to make it.

These forums are not reserved for fans of certain teams. And, certainly, no one who is a huge fan of El Fato DH should be using weight as an insult toward anyone.

In other words, grow the #### up.
   90. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: September 11, 2011 at 12:28 PM (#3921693)
The propensity to use Sox Therapy as a Game Chatter, an unfettered expression of emotion among partisans (with the attendant thin skin) is something I just don't understand. My opinion is that this was probably (I didn't see the game) a good, sorta-meaningful game. And baseball fans like these games, regardless of rooting interest. So I think #54, while it may be troll-like, is defensible in a way it wouldn't be in the Game Chatter.
   91. Banta Posted: September 11, 2011 at 12:31 PM (#3921695)
Speaking as a Mets fan who lived through 2007, if someone had showed up during that collapse to post "heck of a game" after a critical loss, I would not have been very happy. Now, it wouldn't have been rational, but I can certainly understand the emotion there.

Don't think it makes the post "trolling" exactly though. Just being a bit of a dick.
   92. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: September 11, 2011 at 12:36 PM (#3921696)
Personally I had no issue with robin reds post and quite a bit with teddy's. Having said that we are all die hard baseball fans here. For that reason we take this stuff too seriously so a fan of an opposing team coming into "our house" moments after a terrible loss during a terrible streak when emotions are running high should know he is asking for trouble, regardless of how innocuous a statement may have been.

Hey, it was undeniably a great game and the personal stuff is completely uncalled for. But really, too expect reasoned discussion seconds after a crushing loss is optimistic to say the least.

I dont think I made any personal attacks last night but if I did (in any thread) I apologize.

Edited for clarity
   93. bunyon Posted: September 11, 2011 at 12:36 PM (#3921697)
Emotion is fine. React emotionally in a stupid manner and you'll get called for it. I think it's complete BS that anyone around here thinks they're team is immune from any sort of criticism (except from like minded fans). I'm not sure what Erik is saying about game chatter. Last time I was there (admittedly, a long time ago), fans from both teams would show up along with folks, like me, who simply wanted an online discussion of a game. Saying "heck of a game" after a walkoff in the 11th inning that also saw a 9th inning comeback doesn't seem outlandish in anyway to me. It WAS a heck of a game.

If your fan's spirit is too fragile to take that go to ESPN Boston or New York or to your local bar.

That others piled on is really bizarre and, I think, backs up RR's statement that it seems personal. Which is also fine. If you don't like RR, call him an a$$hole. I have no problem with that (well, I don't agree with it, but you can think whoever is an a$$hole). But if commenting, objectively, on a baseball game is troll-like behavior, this entire site is trolling.
   94. Darren Posted: September 11, 2011 at 12:39 PM (#3921698)
These forums are not reserved for fans of certain teams.


Well, technically...
   95. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: September 11, 2011 at 12:44 PM (#3921700)
I think Game Chatters are an online sports bar. I don't hold anyone's statements in there too seriously - "Robinson Cano will never get another hit" or "The Red Sox won't make the playoffs this year" is contextually different when said by a fan in a moment of great loss; as compared to the same statement posted the following day in another thread. I'm more likely to call out the latter and to expect some rigor and accountability.

We're fans. Part of being fans is the complete loss of self, of saying and doing things in the "heat of the moment" that you wouldn't otherwise do. A further example of this - I am not a yeller. I don't raise my voice at work or at home, because the logical side of me knows that it's not productive and can lead to hurt feelings down the road. But I yell at my TV when the Yankees are playing.
   96. bunyon Posted: September 11, 2011 at 12:52 PM (#3921702)
Well, technically...

So, I need a password, separate from that to logon to BBTF to get in here?


But I yell at my TV when the Yankees are playing.

Me, too, Erik. Me, too.
   97. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: September 11, 2011 at 01:02 PM (#3921706)
Saying "heck of a game" after a walkoff in the 11th inning that also saw a 9th inning comeback doesn't seem outlandish in anyway to me. It WAS a heck of a game.


I agreed with that statement before and I'll agree with it now. I'm just saying I wouldn't have gone to a Yankee blog 3 minutes after the 2004 ALCS and said "well, this was a thrilling series" and expected reasonable responses.

I think it should be noted that only Teddy and Ray got on RR with Teddy in particular crossing the line. I don't think anyone else said anything even remotely critical of him.

The Game Chatters frankly suck. I rarely go in there because it is generally nothing but ########, whining and moaning. I was there last night because I was ########, whining and moaning but they are like that from game one of the season. They aren't the least bit fun but I wasn't looking for fun last night during the chatter, I was just pissed. I wish they were as you described but they are not.
   98. Lassus Posted: September 11, 2011 at 01:10 PM (#3921708)
But I yell at my TV when the Yankees are playing.

In 1999, my neighbors told me they nearly called the cops, concerned there was a domestic issue.
   99. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: September 11, 2011 at 01:11 PM (#3921711)
I haven't been a regular in years, either. Maybe I'm pining for something that no longer exists.

I want an anonymous group of people who are smart yet emotional, who are subject to the same great swings of feeling that I am: from elation to horror in minutes. That's what the sports experience is for me. I can't be at many Yankee games and I don't live around NYC, but in 2003/2004 I found the Chatters to be the place to go in order to find informed passion.
   100. Lassus Posted: September 11, 2011 at 01:17 PM (#3921712)
Mets chatters are still pretty fun, although currently a little sparse due to team performance.
Page 1 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
The Ghost fouled out, but stays in the game
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 1.1517 seconds
60 querie(s) executed