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 4 of 4 pages ‹ First  < 2 3 4
   301. rr Posted: September 20, 2007 at 02:29 PM (#2533484)
Red
Sox
Nation's
Circular
Logic


This is good.

But IE is correct; I coined

Red
Sox
Nation
Chicken
Littles
?


a few days ago and hope it will catch on.

RSNPPs may have more staying power, though. Crazy Joe is an internet force.

I liked this sentence. It had an acronym I didn't understand, a turn of phrase I'm iffy on ("I am...a twitch") a vague illusion to a personal relationship to a key member of the Red Sox front office that would color one's views. That's a quality #3 in a list of three items.


I only met him once, but I am tight with a guy who dealt with LL extensively during the ballpark fight in San Diego. LL is apparently a bit of a twitch himself. He is a very smart man as well.

This is very amusing. 1.5 games up and heading to Tampa Bay, where the RS do well. Then, 2 games against an Oakland team that is 7 and 11 in September, and has 3 games in Cleveland before coming to Boston, where they will roll over. Then, 4 games against a Minnesota team that is 7 and 10 in September, and playing out the string.

The Red Sox aren't playing well right now. Most teams have bad stretches. Tampa pitching should help them get back on track.


Out here in one of the most irrelevant and most provincial cities in America, people were quite worried about the Padres six days ago. I told people to relax; they have seven games with the Giants and Pirates coming up. They now have a six-game winning streak and people are talking World Series. They also have tough series left with COL and MIL, so now I am telling those same people to calm down.

Conceding the obvious--that the standings would likely be different with no WC--I think this year's AL races really show--again--what the WC gives and takes away. I wish that the three division winners got in and the ones with the 2nd and 3rd best records had to play a one-game play-in to the LCS. Then the divisions and best record would really mean a lot. Of course it will never happen and has disadvantages, but the AL would be exciting as hell right now with that system. The Yankees run at the Red Sox would be huge, instead of just creating a discussion on management strategies and fan psychology. Even with their divisions in hand, the Angels and the Indians would be busting ass to try to get that bye.

OTOH, there is something to be said for getting all four of these teams into the playoffs and letting them go at it. As Joe Torre said back when Selig announced the WC, "We are trading some September excitement for some October excitement."
   302. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: September 20, 2007 at 03:03 PM (#2533523)
As Joe Torre said back when Selig announced the WC, "We are trading some September excitement for some October excitement."

Of course, Selig and his lackeys thought that they were creating September excitement. I know that lots of people think that Joe Torre is a moron, but he's a helluva lot smarter than Bud Selig.
   303. Nick Warino Posted: September 20, 2007 at 04:22 PM (#2533622)
If you believe the Red Sox are playing for the playoffs and not the division, AND that this is affecting the players' level of play, then perhaps the division wouldn't be in play if there was no wild card to fall back on.

By the way, playing for the playoffs ####### sucks. I really, really, REALLY want the division. Winning the division has value, especially considering that if the Sox don't get the division this year, it means they blew a 14.5 game lead to the Yankees, including, what, 8 games in the last month? 1978 will become the new 1918 and while that sort of thing is nonsense, it sucks to hear as a fan (especially for me, since my fiancee and her family are Yankee fans). Red Sox winning the World Series and losing the division is probably better than losing the World Series and winning the division, but those two things are not mutually exclusive and winning the division while also winning the WS is ideal. I wish the Red Sox would first try to win the division and then worry about the WS. I don't see how playing it safe on the division is going to help them much for the WS. Any perceived increased odds are pretty minimal and possibly countered by lack of homefield advantage in the first two rounds.

Also, Eric Gagne was one of my favorite non-Sox players so when he came here I was ####### ecstatic. But #### that guy. Could that trade have gone any worse?
   304. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq., LLC Posted: September 20, 2007 at 04:25 PM (#2533630)
Also, Eric Gagne was one of my favorite non-Sox players so when he came here I was ####### ecstatic. But #### that guy. Could that trade have gone any worse?
He could #### your mom?

Your dad?
   305. Nasty Nate Posted: September 20, 2007 at 04:32 PM (#2533640)
your goat?
   306. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 20, 2007 at 04:34 PM (#2533647)
He could #### your mom wide and outside? In the dirt?
   307. SoSH U at work Posted: September 20, 2007 at 04:38 PM (#2533652)
Well he could beat Clay Buchholz to death. With Jacoby Ellsbury.
That's about the only way it gets worse.
   308. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq., LLC Posted: September 20, 2007 at 04:40 PM (#2533655)
Well he could beat Clay Buchholz to death. With Jacoby Ellsbury.
And then #### them?
   309. Nasty Nate Posted: September 20, 2007 at 04:41 PM (#2533658)
And then #### them?
with beckett's arm
   310. Chip Posted: September 20, 2007 at 04:44 PM (#2533664)
He could #### your mom wide and outside? In the dirt?


Like he could hit your mom's target. Please.
   311. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: September 20, 2007 at 04:58 PM (#2533685)
Could that trade have gone any worse?


Turn heel, chairshot Papelbon, join Bedard and Morneau in the Canadian Legion of doom.

We should sign John Cena to play RF for the REd Sox next year. He could hit a 3 run HR with nobody on base.
   312. Dan Posted: September 20, 2007 at 05:00 PM (#2533690)

Also, Eric Gagne was one of my favorite non-Sox players so when he came here I was ####### ecstatic. But #### that guy. Could that trade have gone any worse?


Same here.
   313. Captain Joe Bivens, Pointless and Wonderful Posted: September 20, 2007 at 05:05 PM (#2533696)
Deep breaths, Nick. Like the Nigerians who send me emails say, "all will be well at the end of the day".
   314. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: September 20, 2007 at 05:07 PM (#2533702)
Seriously, I LIKED the trade at the time. I LIKED the JD Drew signing at the time too. It makes those moves even worse, becuase they made me look bad PERSONALLY.
   315. SoSH U at work Posted: September 20, 2007 at 05:14 PM (#2533710)
Seriously, I LIKED the trade at the time. I LIKED the JD Drew signing at the time too. It makes those moves even worse, becuase they made me look bad PERSONALLY.


Yes Wok, it's poor transaction analysis that makes you look bad.
   316. Hugh Jorgan Posted: September 21, 2007 at 12:33 AM (#2534268)
Hmmm, 3 days later on this post and things are getting bit nasty with the #### your mum and dad..and goat! jokes. Seriously, do you think they are just playing to set up for the playoffs? I don't think so. Winning the division is important. Losing is not the end of the world, but I reckon psychologically its important. And I too was so taken with Gagne trade when it happened...Drew; not so much. He was fragile to begin with. The irony is that he has played...just not well.
For all you true believers, our pitching still rocks and will be more than enough to win the WS.
   317. Darren Posted: September 21, 2007 at 03:13 AM (#2534794)
One difficult question to answer: if they are putting health over all else, how do you explain Ortiz not being rested more often?

And all the "calm down, the Red Sox have a good chance talk," who is that aimed at? Just about every one of the skeptics thinks they have a good chance at the division. They/we just don't think it's wrapped up and have been repeatedly ridiculed for this belief.
   318. Textbook Editor Posted: September 21, 2007 at 03:35 AM (#2534829)
My sense of panic is about DEFCON 1 right now, because unless we lose 8 in a row and the Tigers win 8 in a row, we're going to the playoffs, at least. I am comforted by the fact that Mets fans must be at a DEFCON 5 level of panic...
   319. tfbg9 Posted: September 21, 2007 at 03:45 AM (#2534846)
Well, there's maybe a 2-4% chance, more or less, that the magic number will remain at 3 by Sunday night as far as the WC is concerned. So if its at 3 still, panic.
   320. Hugh Jorgan Posted: September 21, 2007 at 03:51 AM (#2534859)
"One difficult question to answer: if they are putting health over all else, how do you explain Ortiz not being rested more often?""
I couldn't state this better myself. There is no way you sacrifice the division when you have chance to strike a blow before the playoffs even begin.
I am most definitely not ridiculing you or other supporters for being concerned about the state of play. My position is that our pitching is still good(Gagne excepted) and we are just playing poorly right now. With a few wins comes some confidence which I reckon will set us up nicely for the playoff run.
   321. Darren Posted: September 21, 2007 at 03:56 AM (#2534863)
If you want proof that momentum doesn't exist, you need only look at the last series between the Red Sox and Yanks. The Red Sox came into the series off a walk-off win, the Yanks off a walk-off loss. You'd think that would have set Boston up to win game 1, but instead the Yankees staged an amazing comeback and won it. Huge momentum shift the other way, right? Wrong, Red Sox blow them out the next day. So Boston has reasserted itself and has the mo back? Wrong again, they lose the last one with their clutch god at the plate.
   322. Nick Warino Posted: September 21, 2007 at 07:40 AM (#2534990)
Similar to the Red Sox at Yankee Stadium in August. Red Sox went into the Stadium after one of their most dominant series victories in recent history, their top 3 starters lined up, and a day of rest. The Yankees, on the other hand, just lost 3 of 4 to their main playoff opponent, including a 16-0 blow out in the last game, and they had to travel with no off day. So of course they sweep the Red Sox to stay alive in the East.

This season is maddening.
   323. TVerik - Dr. Velocity Posted: September 21, 2007 at 01:51 PM (#2535109)
And all the "calm down, the Red Sox have a good chance talk," who is that aimed at? Just about every one of the skeptics thinks they have a good chance at the division. They/we just don't think it's wrapped up and have been repeatedly ridiculed for this belief.

I can't speak for the others, but I feel that the Sox are going to make the playoffs anyway, so the griping about the division going away is just that. As Darren points out in #321, even if they gag the thing away and play poorly for the last ten games, there'd be nothing stopping them from suddenly and unexpectedly rolling through everyone in October. Plenty of teams have "backed into" the playoffs and did really well, including both Series participants last year.

Now if they didn't have the WC to fall back on, it would be apocalyptic and I wouldn't blame any fans at all for talking about it.
   324. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 21, 2007 at 02:03 PM (#2535124)
I can't speak for the others, but I feel that the Sox are going to make the playoffs anyway, so the griping about the division going away is just that.
There was an entire thread entitled "I want the division!" in which various Red Sox fans outlined why they care about the division. I did so in this thread on at least two of its pages. JC, among others, agreed with me.

Don't tell me that what I care about is unimportant, and thus that my feelings about what I care about are "griping." There are lots and lots of fans who care about who wins the division and gets to fly the division pennant in front of their stadium.

I have no problem with people who are entirely post-season focused, who care about about every playoff berth as a nearly equal thing. That's perfectly acceptable aesthetics of fandom. I don't get why my preferred style of fandom, which has a long history and a lot of adherents, is being dismissed as "griping" or whatever. I find it insulting.
   325. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: September 21, 2007 at 02:03 PM (#2535125)
If/when the Red Sox do clinch the WC, what would the celebration look like? Given they way they've been playing, it would have to be more of a relief than anything. Not only is this team not going out strong, but they look like total crap doing it.

I understand the rest thing, I really do, but does that mean the players just don't swing very hard? Pitcher's don't try to throw their best pitches? I don't get it. It makes me not want to watch the games if they're just going to wave their bats through the air and throw pitches like they just don't care. That sucks.
   326. Toby Posted: September 21, 2007 at 02:21 PM (#2535146)
I've been quiet around here for most of the season (and probably everyone is glad of that ;-) but I'll throw in my two cents:

On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being extremely strongly, my level of caring about whether the Sox win the division is about a 3.

I look at it this way: All other things being equal right now, if the team that had trailed Boston by 14 1/2 and now trails by 1 1/2 was, say, the Orioles or Blue Jays rather than the Yankees, my level of caring would be about 1.5.

And I think that's true for most Sox fans. The division flag is nice, but the AL pennant would be a lot nicer. I'd rather get the team poised to win the pennant than burn out to win the division. And yes, winning the division (and, indeed, finishing with the best overall record) helps with home field and all that, and that's worth something, but not much.

The fact that the other team is the Yankees, not the O's or Jays, does add some level of caring. For me it's about +1.5. My sense is that for most Sox fans it's more like +6.5 or +8.5. To that, I say, you have way too much invested in partisan loathing. I tip my cap to the Yankees for making September interesting.
   327. TVerik - Dr. Velocity Posted: September 21, 2007 at 02:29 PM (#2535156)
I didn't say that you (or any poster here) were a griper, MCoA. But an objective reading of many of the more hysterical opinions here reveals them to be "griping", or complaining. Sometimes complaints are completely legit; if I were in your spot, I'd likely talk about the same thing. But they're still complaints.

I thought that it was clear that "I can't speak for the others" and "I feel" represented my thoughts and not an attempt to force them upon others.
   328. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 21, 2007 at 02:43 PM (#2535178)
On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being extremely strongly, my level of caring about whether the Sox win the division is about a 3.

I look at it this way: All other things being equal right now, if the team that had trailed Boston by 14 1/2 and now trails by 1 1/2 was, say, the Orioles or Blue Jays rather than the Yankees, my level of caring would be about 1.5.

And I think that's true for most Sox fans.


I only wonder how much of this would have been true if the Yanks had blown that lead and the Red Sox had gained 13 games on them. I wonder how many Sox fans would be yawning and saying No Big Deal at that point.
   329. JC in DC Posted: September 21, 2007 at 02:43 PM (#2535180)
Yes Wok, it's poor transaction analysis that makes you look bad.


Best understated reply ever.

Again, I agree with MCoA and the other Sox fans who want the division.

It's easy for us Yankee fans to console ourselves by dwelling on how far we've come back. But, expectations change all the time. I can't speak for the other Yankee fans, and I know some of their comments are probably fueled by a desire not to jinx things and not to speak of their changed expectations, but now that we're this close, I want the ####### division and I'll be disappointed if we don't get it. And, further, now that we're in the playoffs, I want to do well in the playoffs and will be disappointed if we don't. NOTHING is guaranteed, our future looks bright, sure, but so does the Sox's, and so does Cleveland's, and so does the Angels. I totally agree with the guys who want the bird in the bush.
   330. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 21, 2007 at 02:48 PM (#2535187)
TVE,

I don't understand. You clearly stated that if a playoff spot were at serious risk, it wouldn't be "griping." You were using "griping" as a term for complaining about something that isn't worth complaining about.

Talking about a group of people I don't know competing for a prize that I won't share, and discussing what's wrong with the way they're competing for that prize, is complaining regardless of the exact structures of the competition for said prize. You've moved the goalposts completely in trying to make out as if you were being merely descriptive.

I similarly have no idea what you mean by not forcing your thoughts on others. You came into the thread and said that, in your opinion, my way of being a fan is "griping", a term which you obviously loaded with normative force. Whether you were "forcing your opinions" on others is immaterial, the point is that you were being needlessly insulting about a topic of aesthetic preference.
   331. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 21, 2007 at 02:50 PM (#2535191)
On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being extremely strongly, my level of caring about whether the Sox win the division is about a 3.

I look at it this way: All other things being equal right now, if the team that had trailed Boston by 14 1/2 and now trails by 1 1/2 was, say, the Orioles or Blue Jays rather than the Yankees, my level of caring would be about 1.5.
Let's say that 10 is how I felt during the 03/04 ALCSs and the 04 WS, and 1 is how I felt about the game on the last day of the 2006 season. I'd be about a 7 on the topic of the division. I definitely don't think I'm an outlier, from conversations I've had with a wide variety of Sox fans.
   332. tfbg9 Posted: September 21, 2007 at 02:53 PM (#2535194)
I only wonder how much of this would have been true if the Yanks had blown that lead and the Red Sox had gained 13 games on them. I wonder how many Sox fans would be yawning and saying No Big Deal at that point.


Very few of them. So what? Different fan bases. One is composed largely of schadenfrued-seeking front-runners and their spawn (NYY), the other is composed of the type of guys who history-wise, root for the underdog, or their sons(BOS).

Go shoot some fish in a barrell. :)
   333. covelli chris p Posted: September 21, 2007 at 02:53 PM (#2535195)
and 1 is how I felt about the game on the last day of the 2006 season.

i don't care what they say! it's still a no-hitter!!!
   334. Toby Posted: September 21, 2007 at 02:55 PM (#2535197)
Andy,

that would be slightly more interesting to me, but not really. If the Sox and Yankees' seasons were reversed, right now I'd probably be something like:

level of caring about winning division: 4
level of caring about somehow blowing the wild card: 10
   335. tfbg9 Posted: September 21, 2007 at 02:56 PM (#2535199)
3.5 is where I'm at-as long as we're make the playoffs who really gives a crap? Hanging division title pennants is semi-weak anyway, I guess.

If the WC magic # is still 3 Sunday night, I'm gonna be hard to be around, though. :)
   336. tfbg9 Posted: September 21, 2007 at 02:57 PM (#2535202)
That's right Toby.
   337. TVerik - Dr. Velocity Posted: September 21, 2007 at 03:11 PM (#2535226)
I think there's a tremendous difference between "I feel that this is not worth worrying about" and "This is not worth worrying about; those who do worry are insane in the membrane"

I know I never said the second before (I've never typed "insane in the membrane"), and if I implied as much, I'm sorry.
   338. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 21, 2007 at 03:27 PM (#2535241)
Thanks, TVE. accepted.
   339. rr Posted: September 21, 2007 at 03:47 PM (#2535263)
You came into the thread and said that, in your opinion, my way of being a fan is "griping", a term which you obviously loaded with normative force. Whether you were "forcing your opinions" on others is immaterial, the point is that you were being needlessly insulting about a topic of aesthetic preference.


You brought this up before, and since I was the only person Darren called out by name in his lead-in, I think it is OK for me to put my .02 in although this is in some respects an NYY/Bos issue.

You are of course correct that fandom is a personal thing, and an aesthetic thing, and within certain limits of basic courtesy, I agree that no one should tell someone else how to enjoy his or her baseball.

But my impression has been that you, up until now, and Darren in general, don't really say or imply, "This is just my way of being a fan." It has been more like "Anyone who thinks the Red Sox are not really scrambling here and not really fighting a tough battle here is blind or is a moron, and in one case is a 'condescending smart guy'." And that was the case when they were still five or six games up with the first "Can Winning be A Priority Now, Please? thread.

That was never directly said, of course--you are almost always courteous, as is Darren, with the exception of when he went off on Harveys Wallbangers about the David Ortiz/Wily Mo Pena thing. But to me that has always been strongly implied, which is part of why, although Darren, as the lead-in indicates, focuses on me, a lot of Red Sox fans have been saying, essentially, "Chill. We have a tough team, we are in first place, even if we blow it we have the wild card, and we have the resources/brains to keep contending over time."

As to the term "griping" almost all fans gripe. But there is a difference between griping about, say, 15 straight losing seasons or having your team piss on Adam Dunn and likely cut him loose, and griping about being in the situation the Red Sox are in.

And, as TVE brought up in another thread, the opinion now seems to be that the Red Sox are losing because they are not really trying. I can see how that would piss you off, but that is also a hell of a luxury for your team to have--to be strong enough to screw around in September and still be in first place with ten days to go and have the best record in the majors.
   340. TVerik - Dr. Velocity Posted: September 21, 2007 at 03:53 PM (#2535272)
It barely dissolves your point, robin, but the Sox now have the league's third-best record in the AL, by less than a game.
   341. rr Posted: September 21, 2007 at 03:55 PM (#2535275)
It barely dissolves your point, robin, but the Sox now have the league's third-best record in the AL, by less than a game.


Good catch. I should have checked. The Indians and Angels keep winning.
   342. karlmagnus Posted: September 21, 2007 at 03:58 PM (#2535282)
It's not that the Indians and Angels keep winning, it's just that they do occasionally win, which is more than you can say for this lot recently. I am comforted only by the idea that this season's success will come down to the health and form of my two faves, Manny and Wakefuield. If they're both physically OK and formwise at their best, it would be very difficult for this basically good team to lose.
   343. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 21, 2007 at 04:03 PM (#2535290)
But my impression has been that you, up until now, and Darren in general, don't really say or imply, "This is just my way of being a fan." It has been more like "Anyone who thinks the Red Sox are not really scrambling here and not really fighting a tough battle here is blind or is a moron, and in one case is a 'condescending smart guy'."
I think there are two issues here that can be usefully disaggregated.

As I recall those threads, most of the debates were not about whether the division mattered, but whether the division was at risk. Most of the people who started talking about "pants pissers" weren't saying that losing the division didn't matter because the wild card could be had, but they were saying that people who were worried about the Yankees were pissing their pants like little children and worrying about something of negligible likelihood. (I'm using Bivens as the example here, which could suggest he annoys me, but this is not the case - like everyone else, I think Bivens is awesome.) Regardless, the question here was whether risk existed. This was an empirical argument.

Now that the division is clearly at risk, people have started making the argument that it doesn't matter because of the wild card. I do not recall this argument from previous threads, not at all. This is an aesthetic argument.
   344. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: September 21, 2007 at 04:03 PM (#2535292)
One is composed largely of schadenfrued-seeking front-runners and their spawn (NYY)

As a Yankee fan since 1962 who grew up rooting for the likes of (late-career) Tom Tresh and Horace Clark and THE Dooley Womack, let me just say (with all due respect and in the best possible way) #### you. If erik doesn't get to inadvertently and indirectly call Matt a whiner, then you don't get to indiscriminately call a few million people schadenfreude-seeking front-runners either.
   345. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 21, 2007 at 04:04 PM (#2535297)
Also, the term "condescending smart guy" was obviously developed in response to being condescended to, which happened all the time in those threads. I don't want to play the who suffers more game and I don't want to play who started it, but rr seemed to be suggesting that Darren has launched an unprovoked, personal attack on people, and that's obviously incorrect.
   346. rr Posted: September 21, 2007 at 04:09 PM (#2535304)
[quote]One is composed largely of schadenfrued-seeking front-runners and their spawn (NYY)

As a Yankee fan since 1962 who grew up rooting for the likes of (late-career) Tom Tresh and Horace Clark and THE Dooley Womack, let me just say (with all due respect and in the best possible way) #### you. If erik doesn't get to inadvertently and indirectly call Matt a whiner, then you don't get to indiscriminately call a few million people schadenfreude-seeking front-runners either.

One of the ancillary benefits of hanging out at BTF is that it reconfirms how wrong it is to generalize about people. You reconfirm that "Yankee Fans" and "Red Sox Fans" are a bunch of different kinds of people, with different attitudes about their teams and about the game. I hear people in San Diego talk about \"####### Yankee fans" or \"####### Red Sox" fans and I just smirk. Any tent that both includes Wok and SoSHU is pretty damn big.
   347. TVerik - Dr. Velocity Posted: September 21, 2007 at 04:14 PM (#2535309)
As I recall those threads, most of the debates were not about whether the division mattered, but whether the division was at risk.


My recollection is that they're about both, sometimes simultaneously. Which is confusing as all get-out, I agree.

And one factor in exclusion can be a useful softening of position - "Did I say the division was not at risk? Well, instead of admitting that I was wrong about that, I'm now going to say that it doesn't matter." Or vice versa.
   348. rr Posted: September 21, 2007 at 04:19 PM (#2535315)
As I recall those threads, most of the debates were not about whether the division mattered, but whether the division was at risk. Most of the people who started talking about "pants pissers" weren't saying that losing the division didn't matter because the wild card could be had, but they were saying that people who were worried about the Yankees were pissing their pants like little children and worrying about something of negligible likelihood. (I'm using Bivens as the example here, which could suggest he annoys me, but this is not the case - like everyone else, I think Bivens is awesome.) Regardless, the question here was whether risk existed. This was an empirical argument.

Now that the division is clearly at risk, people have started making the argument that it doesn't matter because of the wild card. I do not recall this argument from previous threads, not at all. This is an aesthetic argument.


None of that really deals with what I was focusing on.

Also, the term "condescending smart guy" was obviously developed in response to being condescended to, which happened all the time in those threads. I don't want to play the who suffers more game and I don't want to play who started it, but rr seemed to be suggesting that Darren has launched an unprovoked, personal attack on people, and that's obviously incorrect.


Pathetically touchy, and 100% wrong. I have admitted several times that Darren and I are 50/50, and have admitted several times part of why I have the opinions I do, including twice in this thread. And if you don't think Darren has ever said anything condescending to me, you are full of ####. The only "unprovoked personal attack" I have ever seen Darren make was on someone else, and if you had read or remembered what I said in THIS thread, I entered by making a couple of good-natured jokes about being in the lead-in. I mentioned it again to explain why I was popping off what is mostly about an NYY/Bos issue, since Darren decided to make me a minor character in this drama.
   349. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 21, 2007 at 04:22 PM (#2535318)
rr -

in regard to the second paragraph, I totally agree. I think you're misreading me - I took your comment to be implying that Darren started it, and all I meant to argue was that people started it together. I certainly didn't mean to paint anyone as the pure, righteous victim.
   350. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 21, 2007 at 04:26 PM (#2535324)
None of that really deals with what I was focusing on.
With regard to this, please explain.

As I read it, you asked about your reading of Darren as talking about the Red Sox obviously being at risk. I said that I read that as an empirical claim that the Red Sox were at risk of losing the division.

You contrasted this reading of Darren to my claims about the aesthetics of fandom in caring about the division. I said that I see this as clearly distinct from the question of whether the Red Sox were in trouble in the divisional race. If the issue is that you don't really care about the divisional race, that's a separable issue.
   351. rr Posted: September 21, 2007 at 04:28 PM (#2535328)
My recollection is that they're about both, sometimes simultaneously. Which is confusing as all get-out, I agree.


True, and that also gets mixed with fan/individual psychology/rhetoric issues. And, as you say and as MCoA points out, all three get mixed up: Is the division at risk/does it matter/why are you ######## are all part of the same discussion.

I know that in one thread I specifically posted the Red Sox playoff % from BPro--both divisonal %, and playoff %--and they were at 97.8 or something and were at 100% last week.

Also, since we are separating things, it might be useful to mention that there is difference between "the division is at risk" and "losing the divsion." I do recall many people, including me, saying the Red Sox were going to win the AL East. I don't recall many saying "there is no way the Yankees will get any closer and make it interesting."
   352. rr Posted: September 21, 2007 at 04:29 PM (#2535331)
rr -

in regard to the second paragraph, I totally agree. I think you're misreading me - I took your comment to be implying that Darren started it, and all I meant to argue was that people started it together. I certainly didn't mean to paint anyone as the pure, righteous victim


Thanks. I have said many times I respect both you and Darren, and I meant it.
   353. tfbg9 Posted: September 21, 2007 at 04:30 PM (#2535332)
As a Yankee fan since 1962


Gee, what team just came out of the blue after decades of mediocrity to shock the nation and won the WS in 1962?

Seems like you were a front runner way back when, as a kid. Thanks for upholding my stereotype of the origins of NYY fandom.

Heh heh. Zing.
   354. SoSH U at work Posted: September 21, 2007 at 04:42 PM (#2535356)
I'll be the first to admit, I was saying something close to "stop worrying about the division, it's in the bag," rather than "we've still got the wildcard if we lose it." Of course, I never imagined the club would seemingly take such a cavalier attitude about the division, which has played a sizable role in the division going from "in the bag" to "crap it's too damn close." I still think the Sox will win, but it should have never gotten this close.
   355. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: September 21, 2007 at 04:52 PM (#2535378)
Gee, what team just came out of the blue after decades of mediocrity to shock the nation and won the WS in 1962?

Well, since my awareness of baseball had just come out of the blue after an eternity of non-existence, this is pretty damned irrelevant. If I were a front-runner way back when, as a kid, I'd have switched my allegiance somewhere between 1965 and 1969, wouldn't you think?
   356. The Marksist Posted: September 21, 2007 at 04:53 PM (#2535382)
Tangential but not random question: we're all humans here (well, almost all), and as such we are probably neither 100% rational nor is our mental/emotional world 100% internally consistent--why then, in internet forums, do we hold each other to such a high rationality/internal-consistency standard?

Or whatever.

j
   357. rr Posted: September 21, 2007 at 04:55 PM (#2535389)
Tangential but not random question: we're all humans here (well, almost all), and as such we are probably neither 100% rational nor is our mental/emotional world 100% internally consistent--why then, in internet forums, do we hold each other to such a high rationality/internal-consistency standard?

Or whatever.

j


Cause it's all written down?
   358. . . . . . . Posted: September 21, 2007 at 04:57 PM (#2535393)
Very few of them. So what? Different fan bases. One is composed largely of schadenfrued-seeking front-runners and their spawn (NYY), the other is composed of the type of guys who history-wise, root for the underdog, or their sons(BOS).

Ah, the typical Fenway denizen, who roots for the underdog, votes Democrat, then returns to his lily white cul-de-sac in Weston or Dover and jerks off while staring at his noble, altruistic face in the mirror.
   359. TVerik - Dr. Velocity Posted: September 21, 2007 at 05:02 PM (#2535400)
There's no reason to bring John Kerry into this.

"I...did...not...support...the...Boston...Red...Sox...before...I...did...support...the...party...previously...mentioned..."

And I voted for that guy; in retrospect, it was still the right choice for me.
   360. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 21, 2007 at 05:05 PM (#2535407)
Yeah, that's the most annoying thing about tfbg9 - his unwavering liberal politics.
   361. tfbg9 Posted: September 21, 2007 at 05:08 PM (#2535416)
#355 You could have been a Mets fan, but you're a conformist I guess. Walter Mitty type guy, in his NYY feety-pajamas?
   362. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: September 21, 2007 at 05:17 PM (#2535432)
You could have been a Mets fan, but you're a conformist I guess.

In 1969, you would have been a Mets fan if you were a conformist.
   363. tfbg9 Posted: September 21, 2007 at 05:20 PM (#2535439)
#362-Lemee guess, you weren't voted class clown?
   364. rr Posted: September 21, 2007 at 07:05 PM (#2535685)
"With regard to this, please explain."

****

Your empirical/aesthetic distinction was well-taken, but as TVE said and I added to, that can get messy. My point was that in making the argument "The division is at risk"
a certain attitude was often assumed which went far beyond "I know they are still highly likely to win, but I just feel this way because of my traits as a fan" which blurred those distinctions.

And, in turn, in my case, certainly, my attitude went beyond, "I can see why you are uptight, and that is just you as a fan, but I disagree with your argument" and into some snarking.

With me and you and Darren, I think the root of the dispute on one level is our differing opinions about the payroll issue and how much that affects the teams the Yankees and Red Sox put on the field, and in turn the "underdog" designation etc.
I also suspect, that WRT Darren and me specifically, our overall view of payroll and what it means in terms of looking at teams is different in general, and manifests WRT NYY/BOS.

And, remember they are still 1.5 up, likely due for some Ws, and playing the Devil Rays this weekend, in spite of the fact that Epstein/Francona are NOT, apparently, doing everything they can run the team in such a way so to help it to win regular season games.

The division may be at risk, but if you had to put ten grand down right now, would it be on the Yankees?

And I am not asking that to be a wiseass: earlier in the thread, I asked Darren, as I had several times before, which of the two teams, in his opinion, has a better 25-man, a better FS, a better FO and a better FM, and his answer was "Pretty close on all counts."

That is a good argument for a 14.5 game gap closing, but not for some of the other stuff.
   365. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: September 21, 2007 at 08:47 PM (#2536004)
Any tent that both includes Wok and SoSHU is pretty damn big.

Yeah, Therapy is one big love tent.

No matter what happens, Dustin Pedroia brings us together.

Ah, the typical Fenway denizen, who roots for the underdog, votes Democrat, then returns to his lily white cul-de-sac in Weston or Dover and jerks off while staring at his noble, altruistic face in the mirror.

Dude, are you calling me WHITE?

AWESOME!!! (channeling Dave Chapelle skit about the blind Black KKK dude)


level of caring about winning division: 4
level of caring about somehow blowing the wild card: 10


yeah, that second one would probably match my attitude.

The division erks me because it involves Home-Field Advantage. You can't beat the Angels or the Indians on the Road. Those teams are so damn good that you need Home Field advantage to beat them.

We had that home field advantage, but about 3 months of idiocy and Eric Gagne blew it for us.

The division may be at risk, but if you had to put ten grand down right now, would it be on the Yankees?

I'd probably put it towards the "ditch the Virginity" fund.
   366. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: September 21, 2007 at 08:54 PM (#2536024)
I'm pretty sure the Omega Man would be the one person who couldn't get his Virginity ditched--one way or another--for 10K
   367. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: September 21, 2007 at 08:57 PM (#2536034)

I'm pretty sure the Omega Man would be the one person who couldn't get his Virginity ditched--one way or another--for 10K


I was hoping for methods that didn't involve you know, laws broken.


Yes Wok, it's poor transaction analysis that makes you look bad.


I find it a big deal. It hurts my baseball rep. I was pimpin' JD Drew to play 110 games at .900 OPS. I was pimpin' Eric Gagne to eat Okajima's innings. And what do I get? Two flaming failures.

At least I called the Lugo failure.
   368. TVerik - Dr. Velocity Posted: September 21, 2007 at 09:19 PM (#2536076)
You can't beat the Angels or the Indians on the Road.

I don't agree. I said it upthread about my team, but it goes for the Sox as well: If they're playing well, they can beat anyone, anywhere. What's arguable is "how long has it been since the Sox played well?" and "can they just suddenly start playing well if they choose?"
   369. Captain Joe Bivens, Pointless and Wonderful Posted: September 21, 2007 at 09:51 PM (#2536101)
Now that the division is clearly at risk, people have started making the argument that it doesn't matter because of the wild card. I do not recall this argument from previous threads, not at all. This is an aesthetic argument.

Matt, I still think the Red Sox will hang on and win the division. After getting swept in Toronto, they've made it more difficult than I expected, and now anything can happen. But winning does matter to me, because I want the Yankees run of Division Championships to end this year, not next year, when the team rebuilds.

The only guarantee I can make now is that I have been more relaxed the past month than many of the posters who go to Game Chatters.
   370. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: September 21, 2007 at 10:05 PM (#2536112)
I was hoping for methods that didn't involve you know, laws broken.
With a 10K budget, a decent bar or two and some determination, you can definitely do it without breaking any laws.
   371. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: September 22, 2007 at 02:40 AM (#2537016)
I don't agree. I said it upthread about my team, but it goes for the Sox as well: If they're playing well, they can beat anyone, anywhere. What's arguable is "how long has it been since the Sox played well?" and "can they just suddenly start playing well if they choose?"

Angel Stadium is a FORTRESS. Their fans are awesome, and they've got the F!@#ing monkey. You can't take 2 out of 3 from their house.
   372. Mattbert Posted: September 22, 2007 at 07:10 AM (#2537410)
Ah, the typical Fenway denizen, who roots for the underdog, votes Democrat, then returns to his lily white cul-de-sac in Weston or Dover and jerks off while staring at his noble, altruistic face in the mirror.

Spoken like a true myopic New Yorker. If you really knew Boston and its baseball fans, you'd know the typical Fenway denizen is far too drunk to jerk off after a ballgame. And if we were at all interested in rooting for an underdog, we'd be...I don't know...Royals fans or something.
   373. Darren Posted: September 22, 2007 at 12:41 PM (#2537446)
Matt, I still think the Red Sox will hang on and win the division. After getting swept in Toronto, they've made it more difficult than I expected, and now anything can happen.


Apology accepted.


A couple notes on RR:

1. I disagree with your characterization of the conversation about the division being in jeopardy. The way I recall it is my posting a thread called "Can winning be a priority" and a bunch of people lambasting me (and others) for being a chicken little. I did not ever give anyone a hard time for thinking the Red Sox were in great shape to win the division (certainly didn't call anyone a moron), I only gave them a hard time for lambasting those who doubted it was a slam dunk. The actual events on the ground have proved me (and others) correct that the division was actually in play.

2. The Harveys Wallbanger Wily Mo/Ortiz thing: Look back at the thread. Harveys did his usual thing of deciding that it was up to him to pass judgment on the character of a ballplayer he doesn't know. This usually involves an overweight player who doesn't play 1B for the Brewers. In this case, he went after Ortiz using a strawman AND a complete falsehood. People called him on the strawman ('Ortiz is an alleged leader of men') but no one had mentioned that he as completely wrong about Ortiz not defending Wily Mo. He had done so and if Harveys was at all interested in the subject he could have easily found out. But he was only interested in taking a shot at a player who he had predetermined was a jerk. He does it over and over again. If anyone wants an amusing read, you should look at the mental gymnastics he does to determine that Fielder is a good lad who's working hard to control his weight and that Dunn was a lazy oaf who let himself go.
   374. rr Posted: September 22, 2007 at 03:45 PM (#2537521)
The actual events on the ground have proved me (and others) correct that the division was actually in play.


You can look at it that way. What I said, and many others said, was "The Red Sox are going to win the AL East." So, "Events on the ground" are, it appears, going to "Prove me (and others) right." No one that I recall said, "No way the Yankees get any closer." It is to some extent a semantic/rhetorical point. And I am well aware you never called anyone a moron. The post made that clear.

2. The Harveys Wallbanger Wily Mo/Ortiz thing: Look back at the thread.

I read the whole thing. I think:

a) You misread Harvey's rhetoric to an extent.
b) I think your response was over the top, and pretty much everybody who read it and commented on it in that thread agreed. I suggest saving that kind of stuff for guys like me and levski (although I have extended the proverbial olive branch your way a couple of times, and you don't seem too interested in acknowledging that). Harvey arguably attacked Ortiz. He didn't attack you. (Yes, Harvey can stick up for himself; that is not what this is about).
   375. tfbg9 Posted: September 22, 2007 at 04:38 PM (#2537554)
B-Pro's vaunted ELO Playoff Odds Report has the Sox at ~84% to hold on for the East.

tfbg9's OTTOHH system places the figure at ~66%. For the NYY's. Still.
   376. rr Posted: September 22, 2007 at 04:42 PM (#2537556)
tfbg9's OTTOHH system places the figure at ~66%. For the NYY's. Still.


Good one. How do you watch Red Sox postseason games without having a heart attack?
   377. bibigon Posted: September 22, 2007 at 04:50 PM (#2537559)
Good one. How do you watch Red Sox postseason games without having a heart attack?


I don't personally. Really, I can't do it. Close games, I often have to go take a walk because I just can't stand the pressure of watching. This has made me miss out on good memories (Derek Lowe's strikeout to end the ALDS), and bad ones (Aaron Boone).

I really just can't deal with it otherwise.
   378. rr Posted: September 22, 2007 at 04:57 PM (#2537565)
I often have to go take a walk


Jerry West was famous for this during Laker playoff games. People would see him walking around the parking lot and stuff during tight games.
   379. Darren Posted: September 22, 2007 at 08:02 PM (#2537727)
I don't think there's much point in further discussing the Harvey thing. I don't like the way he judges players' characters--that's about the extent of it.

You can look at it that way. What I said, and many others said, was "The Red Sox are going to win the AL East." So, "Events on the ground" are, it appears, going to "Prove me (and others) right."


Yes, but you're missing my point here. It's one thing to just say "The Red Sox are going to win the East." Any reasonable person is going to read and that and realize you mean they have a great chance, not 100%. This was the position taken by VI and a couple others.

But you and others went far past that. You all mocked the very idea that someone could think the Yankees could come back. Someone who did think they could come back must be a pantspissing idiot with an inferiority complex.

But the Yankees came back to within 1.5 games with 9 to play, showing that it was obviously reasonable to believe they could come all the way back. All the people talking about pantspissers were suddenly saying "Um, yeah, I still think the Red Sox have a very good chance!" Which, of course, is moving the goalposts by whole football fields (to stretch an analogy to its limit).
   380. villageidiom Posted: September 23, 2007 at 01:15 AM (#2538092)
This was the position taken by VI and a couple others.

Look Ma, I'm a standard-bearer!
   381. Baldrick Posted: September 23, 2007 at 02:27 AM (#2538197)
a) You misread Harvey's rhetoric to an extent.

Not just "to an extent." He deliberately took offense at a relatively innocuous comment because he thinks it's part of some larger horrible pattern that only he can see.

Harvey was wrong, no doubt about it, and he was rightly corrected. Except for Darren, it was a pretty open and shut case of genial communication correcting mistaken ideas.
   382. Darren Posted: September 23, 2007 at 02:40 AM (#2538235)
Not just "to an extent." He deliberately took offense at a relatively innocuous comment because he thinks it's part of some larger horrible pattern that only he can see.


If I thought it was part of a larger pattern, then I didn't deliberately take offense to an innocuous comment.

Harvey was wrong, no doubt about it, and he was rightly corrected. Except for Darren, it was a pretty open and shut case of genial communication correcting mistaken ideas.


Several people corrected Harvey on Ortiz's reputation, which I acknowledged in my post. Nobody (but me) corrected him on the fact that Ortiz had actually defended Wily Mo. If he's going to go around trying to trash someone's reputation, he should be sure that the person actually did what he said he did. And if Harvey has no problem calling Dunn a lazy oaf, he should have no problem with someone calling bullshit on him when he's full of ####. I was merely hoping to correct the poor lad. I sincerely hope that he corrects his ways in the future.
   383. Dr. Vaux Posted: September 23, 2007 at 03:34 AM (#2538291)
That was great, Daiske and Terry. Really great.
   384. Darren Posted: September 23, 2007 at 03:42 AM (#2538296)
Dice has some serious work to do over the offseason. He's got really really shakey control. Terry needs to find a new job over the offseason. He has no idea when to take a pitcher out.
Page 4 of 4 pages ‹ First  < 2 3 4

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
BFFB
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.9603 seconds
34 querie(s) executed