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. Captain Joe Bivens, Pointless and Wonderful Posted: October 08, 2007 at 06:15 PM (#2567468)
Fair enough, but after listening to the chirping of Boston fans forever, it's funny that the Sox are now the team of the front-runner, bandwagon, fashionable baseball-hat wearing "fan", are the team that Hollywood makes stupid romantic comedies about, are the team whose fans seem to annoy the fans of other teams around the country more than any other, are lumped in with the Yankees as a high-payroll team squashing the underdog teams, etc. I just find it funny.

Don't blame me. I think it's silly, too.

Discussions about whose fans are worse? Pass. From now on.
   102. 185/456(GGC) Posted: October 08, 2007 at 06:21 PM (#2567473)
So you're looking longer range than me, kev.
   103. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: October 08, 2007 at 06:28 PM (#2567484)
Andy, I think some of the resistance to your seductive brand of fandom is due to the part of most Red Sox fans that still needs to, or is at least accustomed to, self-identify(ing) as an underdog (albeit unrealistically in most contexts).

Oh, I can understand that. It's irrational, but understandable. By that I only mean that it's irrational for any Red Sox fan not to acknowledge that as long as they have a front office that knows what it's doing, there's absolutely no reason for their current run of success won't continue. They've got the money and the fan base to do it, and as a fan of the rivalry I'm grateful for it.

When approached by a Yankee fan saying, hand extended, "We're not so different, you know. Especially now that you guys won one, you're just like us. Come be part of the big boys club," it's hard not to be a little suspicious. To be perfectly honest, it gives me a not-so-subtle Darth Vader/Luke Skywalker sort of feeling (not that the Star Wars rhetoric needed dredging up again, sorry). We'll never join you to rule the galaxy as father and son! Especially since Yankee fans would insist on wearing the daddy pants. F**k that.

You seem to have misunderstood me. The Yankees need the Red Sox---the Red Sox team---to measure themselves against, and vice versa. The Red Sox fans are only slightly relevant to all this. Yankee hatred is expected from them, and that's cool, but without two great teams to go along with it, it's more pathetic than anything else. Just picture 1912 or 1961.

Trust me, if either of these teams were to fall to the level of the Orioles, you'd quickly become nostalgic for "the good old days"---which are now---when beating that hated rival really meant something beyond a trip down Sadism Street. You'll deny this, of course, and for a few years your professions would be believable, but after that your denials will ring hollow. It may be hard for those of you who can't remember too far back to believe this, but seriously, it's only baseball. It's not the Mideast or Northern Ireland. Though pretending that it is can be fun, I admit.
   104. dave h Posted: October 08, 2007 at 06:33 PM (#2567488)
Wow, I really got torn into for saying how my actual experience in Yankee Stadium went. It may very well be very different most days, but I expected to hear something as a Sox fan watching them get swept in Yankee Stadium. Maybe it was the day game (and it was screaming hot), maybe it was because the season was still going pretty poorly, I don't know. The guy in front of me was on his Blackberry most of the game.

There's a hardcore set of Yankees fans, and because they're good, there are a lot of hangers-on. Ditto for the Sox.
   105. karlmagnus Posted: October 08, 2007 at 06:33 PM (#2567489)
Ever since '78, I have regarded the Yankees rather as Van Helsing might regard a particularly recalcitrant vampire. Thus it would be nice if somebody else could bang the silver stake through their heart occasionally, and not leave this unpleasant and difficult job to us.
   106. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: October 08, 2007 at 06:42 PM (#2567501)
Andy, I want the Yankees to lose.

It's not that I'm afraid of playing them. I'm not. I think the way the Red Sox are hitting and pitching right now, they'll kick the crap out of the Yankees and that would be a lot of fun to watch.

It's because, if they lose, they'll have nothing to hang their hat on for the season and might very well fire Joe Torre, which IMO would be a very bad thing for them. I think an early exit will cause them to make a ton of stupid personnel decisons and that will be good for the Red Sox.


Yeah, I've thought of that, too, and it makes complete sense for a Red Sox fan to think that way, and you're about the purest Red Sox fan I've ever seen.

But I also think that you wouldn't really want any Yankee collapse to become permanent, because being an honest man, I can't imagine that you'd get that big of a thrill about having to shift your hatreds every year or two. That's what it was like for me as a Yankee fan in the 50's, and what it's like now is infinitely more interesting, and fun, despite the championship drought.

Right now you've got two great franchises going for the jugular 19 to 26 times a year, both loaded with talent, with a slightly changing cast of characters each season and all of the history of bad blood gradually accumulating like a stock of great vintage wine. How the hell can you beat that? Would you really want to exchange that for a "rivalry" with a team that you play six times a year with three of them ending after midnight, a team that's ashamed to wear its own city's name on its jerseys? Please.
   107. Dingbat_Charlie Posted: October 08, 2007 at 06:46 PM (#2567507)
I hate them both, and my own team almost as much.
   108. walt williams bobblehead Posted: October 08, 2007 at 06:49 PM (#2567512)
a team that's ashamed to wear its own city's name on its jerseys?


Can't even say the word "angels", can you?
   109. 185/456(GGC) Posted: October 08, 2007 at 06:51 PM (#2567514)
I'm a "big picture" kind of guy, EWK. Always have been.


Well, I'll go even longer term and wonder if a long run of Red Sox success is good for baseball.
   110. rr Posted: October 08, 2007 at 06:55 PM (#2567522)
The closest thing I have experienced to Yankees/Red Sox as a fan is Lakers/Celtics, and I think that is one reason I am a rivalry hanger-on. The backdrop adds something, and I agree with Andy in the sense that I think it is good for the sport in questions when the love em and hate em teams are in contention, as long as their dominance does not become numbing.

And, yes, I have heard many Laker fans and a few Celtic fans say that they would like to see another series of Laker/Celtic battles some day. Having the rival down is fun for awhile--but only for awhile.
   111. karlmagnus Posted: October 08, 2007 at 07:04 PM (#2567533)
Robinred, I agree in theory, but I think I can happily wait for the Yankee recovery until we have pulled ahead of them in WS titles and resumed the right order between us as in 1903-1937.
   112. villageidiom Posted: October 08, 2007 at 07:21 PM (#2567550)
But I also think that you wouldn't really want any Yankee collapse to become permanent, because being an honest man, I can't imagine that you'd get that big of a thrill about having to shift your hatreds every year or two.

I don't think we'd shift hatreds as much as take comfort in knowing the Yankees won't be an issue. Too many times I've seen one bounce, or one dying quail, or one managerial decision, or one umpiring call, work in the favor of the Yankees. I've seen the Yankees play out of their freakin' minds for two months to make up a large lead. I simply don't want Boston to be in a position where that stuff has any impact.

I don't want it from other teams, either. But I identify it with the Yankees. I'd like the Yankees to stay down long enough for that identity to become meaningless. Even if it means Cleveland beats them in the ALDS, that's fine with me.
   113. rr Posted: October 08, 2007 at 07:29 PM (#2567564)
Well, I'll go even longer term and wonder if a long run of Red Sox success is good for baseball.


Yes, but with caveats. I think it would be good for baseball if one of the other three AL East teams broke up the Axis of Evil a couple of times. But, long-term, people get really into watching their teams beat the Yankees, the Lakers, the Celtics, Notre Dame, the Cowboys, the Raiders etc when those teams are good. When the Lakers are good, you can hear "Beat LA!" all over the Western Conference cities. If they keep winning, and I think they will, the Red Sox will be a team like that. They already are for some.
   114. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: October 08, 2007 at 07:34 PM (#2567575)
The closest thing I have experienced to Yankees/Red Sox as a fan is Lakers/Celtics, and I think that is one reason I am a rivalry hanger-on. The backdrop adds something, and I agree with Andy in the sense that I think it is good for the sport in questions when the love em and hate em teams are in contention, as long as their dominance does not become numbing.

And, yes, I have heard many Laker fans and a few Celtic fans say that they would like to see another series of Laker/Celtic battles some day. Having the rival down is fun for awhile--but only for awhile.


Robinred, I agree in theory, but I think I can happily wait for the Yankee recovery until we have pulled ahead of them in WS titles and resumed the right order between us as in 1903-1937.

I'm afraid that you might as well wait for Retardo to propose to Nieporent, and for Nieporent to agree to raise their children as Chomskyites. It's gonna be a loooooooooonnnnnnnnnng time before that happens.

That was fun but the Celtics/Sixers in the early 80's was even more fun. They played each other so much more often, were in the same division and the matchups were more compelling. It just didn't get any better than that. Red Auerbach even went so far as challenging Moses Malone to a fight during a pre-season game!

Man, those two blood feuds are hard for me to choose between, especially since both of them were in their second incarnations at that point, and I grew up in the time of the first one. The Celtics-Sixers was maybe a bit better because of proximity and the number of matchups, but I also remember that the chant that I heard in the Garden in the last moments of that final Celtics-Sixers game in 1982, directed at the Sixers as they were clinching the Eastern Conference title.

It went "BEAT L.A.---BEAT L.A.---BEAT L.A."

What were your thoughts on that, Kevin? Did you agree with the chant? Or were you like me, and didn't even want to watch that Philly-LA final? I actually didn't mind the Sixers if they were playing anyone but the Celtics, but I couldn't stand the Lakers, especially pretty boy Riley and his Gucci look. So I guess I was for Philly, but I was really more interested in the baseball season at that point. I was too depressed to care about basketball.

But geez, would I love to see those two teams rise once more, and take the Knicks with them. Then the NBA would be worth watching again. It irritates me to no end to see all three of those teams be so bad for so long, which I guess is sort of what it must feel like to be an Orioles fan.
   115. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: October 08, 2007 at 07:40 PM (#2567587)
But I also think that you wouldn't really want any Yankee collapse to become permanent, because being an honest man, I can't imagine that you'd get that big of a thrill about having to shift your hatreds every year or two. That's what it was like for me as a Yankee fan in the 50's, and what it's like now is infinitely more interesting, and fun, despite the championship drought.

Well, this is true too but now you're asking me to make a choice between the chance of success and the chance of excitement and I have to admit I'll choose success over excitement any day. If the yankees decline, that increases the chance the Red sox will win another championship and I'll choose the championship over a chance for a dramatic series every time.


Another honest answer, even if I'd choose the opposite for the Yankees. I want to see them win, but I want to see them do it by beating the best possible teams. Sort of like in the pre-division days.

In fact, I like all these last few posts, too, by rr and villageidiom, since they go way beyond reflexive hatred. Not that there's any thing wrong with that, but it can get pretty generic after awhile. Well thought out hatred is the best kind.
   116. Bernal Diaz has an angel on his shoulder Posted: October 08, 2007 at 07:46 PM (#2567599)
The Ohio State Michigan rivalry is more heated than Yankees Red Sox. Not even that close.
   117. The Original SJ Posted: October 08, 2007 at 07:47 PM (#2567601)
says the guy from Ohio.
   118. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: October 08, 2007 at 07:51 PM (#2567607)
The Ohio State Michigan rivalry is more heated than Yankees Red Sox. Not even that close.

You could argue that. It's certainly had more years where both teams were at or near the top.
   119. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: October 08, 2007 at 07:53 PM (#2567610)
Well said, Kevin. Those were pretty much my sentiments about the Lakers. Give me Malone over Jabbar any day. And over Chamberlain, for that matter---but I don't really want to start another one of those threads.
   120. Bernal Diaz has an angel on his shoulder Posted: October 08, 2007 at 07:53 PM (#2567612)
says the guy from Ohio.


Who grew up in NJ as a Yankees fan.

Thank god I wised up.
   121. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: October 08, 2007 at 08:00 PM (#2567622)
I remember Brent Musberger suggesting to Billy Cunningham during a telecast of a Lakers/Suns game if the Lakers went all the way, they'd be considered the best team of alltime.

What did Cunningham have to say about that? I hope he said it in his best Brooklyn accent.
   122. 185/456(GGC) Posted: October 08, 2007 at 08:03 PM (#2567627)
Meanwhile, the the Celtics had to slog through the monster Eastern Conference like the marines on Guadalcanal to get there. The way I figured it, if the Sixers won the East, they deserved it all.


When did the balance of power shift to the West?
   123. rr Posted: October 08, 2007 at 08:04 PM (#2567628)
Yes, I did. I resented the Lakers because they got way too much credit from the national press, cruising through the pantywaist Western Conference every year without so much as a whiff of a meaningful challenge, and all that "Showtime" ######## with the Laker girls and ####### Dyan Cannon shaking her tits in front of the camera every chance she got and the owner bringing a pair of strippers with him to the owners box. It seemed like, if the Lakers won, it would be an affirmation that western civilization was sinking beneath the waves.


This is why it was so much fun when the Lakers kicked the Celtics asses, particularly with Heinsohn, Stockton and Musberger announcing.

I resented the Lakers because they got way too much credit from the national press,


Right. While the Celtic, of course, have been historically underplayed in the media.
   124. rr Posted: October 08, 2007 at 08:06 PM (#2567632)
When did the balance of power shift to the West?


It started about 15 years ago but was camouflaged by Jordan. One key was Shaq leaving Orlando for LA. This is one of many reasons why the Garnett trade was good for the NBA.
   125. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: October 08, 2007 at 08:07 PM (#2567635)
About five seconds after Jordan hung it up the second time. And look what happened in the two years in the middle---Houston. All that was left in the East was a rudderless Bulls team and a Knicks franchise that fully lived up to the hackattack sensibilites of their glitterati coach.

EDIT: rr's right about "camouflaged by Jordan." Jordan was to the East's dominance in the 90's what the Yankees were to the AL's "dominance" of the World Series in the Stengel era. The rings were there, but you didn't want to look too closely at what was underneath it.
   126. Mattbert Posted: October 08, 2007 at 08:17 PM (#2567647)
Andy, I understand and agree with almost 100% of #105. I wouldn't be sad in the least if the Yankees went into the tank for a season or three, but it's more entertaining to have a lively foil when you're fighting to be on top. My copout here is that I imagine a difference between "rooting" for the Yankees to be good (but lose to the Red Sox in excruciating fashion) and rooting for them to win. The Yankees actually winning ballgames is an unfortunate byproduct of their being competitive. All that said, I have come to really dislike Anaheim in the last 5 years for some strange reason, so I'm pretty content with them as a backup rival in case of emergency.
   127. Mattbert Posted: October 08, 2007 at 08:17 PM (#2567649)
robin,

When the Lakers are good, you can hear "Beat LA!" all over the Western Conference cities. If they keep winning, and I think they will, the Red Sox will be a team like that. They already are for some.

I think Seattle is one of the places where the Red Sox already are a team like that. Sox fans absolutely took over Safeco in 2005, which really pissed off quite a few Mariners fans. Then the M's got on a roll where they reeled off 9 straight home wins against the Sox. About halfway through that streak, the M's fans really started giving it to the Boston folks at Safeco pretty hard, and there was definitely a David and Goliath component to the animosity.

The first ejections of M's fans for abusive behavior/taunting I'd ever seen at Safeco came in the series Boston played there in August; in the first game of that series, actually. I didn't go to the final two games of that series because I had to work that weekend. The Sox, naturally, won both of them after forcing me to endure the humiliation of attending 9 consecutive hair-pullingly frustrating defeats. It was hard not to take that personally.
   128. rr Posted: October 08, 2007 at 08:20 PM (#2567653)
The play the Celtics got was deserved. Winning 11 times in 13 years kind of makes an impression.

The Celtic legacy deserves respect. Watching Bird was great.

But Bird's teams won 3 titles, not 11, or even 5.
   129. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: October 08, 2007 at 08:22 PM (#2567655)
The Ohio State Michigan rivalry is more heated than Yankees Red Sox. Not even that close.


I think it's cute that Bernal is trying so hard to make us hate the Indians as much as we do the Yankees. It won't work, but I laud the effort.
   130. rr Posted: October 08, 2007 at 08:25 PM (#2567658)

The Celtics never got their asses kicked by the Lakers. they beat them twice, once in 1985 when both starting forwards were hurt (Bird was playing with a dislocated knuckle and Maxwell was out with torn cartilage in his knee) and stll managed to make it close.

And in 1987 when everything that possibly could have gone wrong went wrong (Bias dying, McHale and Walton breaking foot bones, Parish spraining both his ankles prior to the Finals, DJ rolling his ankle and Ainge spraining his right knee. The only significant player who wasn't hurt was Bird and they still managed to make it close. If the Celtics were in the West, they would have won 5 or 6 titles in the eighties.


Yeah, yeah, yeah. And some old Laker fans will ##### about the heating in the Garden locker rooms in '84 till this day. I watched those games. The Celtics deserved it when they won and vice versa.

I have an anecdote about a guy I used to know slightly and work with playing 2-on-2 with another guy, Bird and Walton about 20 years ago. Maybe I will post it later when time allows. The guy played pro bal in Europe.
   131. Dan Posted: October 08, 2007 at 08:28 PM (#2567665)
All that said, I have come to really dislike Anaheim in the last 5 years for some strange reason, so I'm pretty content with them as a backup rival in case of emergency.

Personally, my hatred of the Angels is second only to that of the Yankees.
   132. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: October 08, 2007 at 08:56 PM (#2567716)
Andy, I understand and agree with almost 100% of #105. I wouldn't be sad in the least if the Yankees went into the tank for a season or three, but it's more entertaining to have a lively foil when you're fighting to be on top. My copout here is that I imagine a difference between "rooting" for the Yankees to be good (but lose to the Red Sox in excruciating fashion) and rooting for them to win. The Yankees actually winning ballgames is an unfortunate byproduct of their being competitive.

I think you're saying that you don't want the Yanks to get too damn close for comfort. You might accept a 1999 style balance of power in reverse, but ideally you'd want a reverse 1998, where the Yanks would have been in the playoffs, but not good enough that they would've likely threatened the Sox in the postseason even with all the randomness in the Treder textbook.

That's fair enough, but as I said, I like an occasional 1998, but to me the most enjoyable season ever was 1978, where every moment was nerveracking, and all three opponents (KC and LA, too) had the complete capability of beating the Yanks into a pulp (and the Dodgers almost did), but somehow the Yanks pulled it out. I'd take that any day over some of those snoozefest pennant races I grew up with.

I can understand, I think (smile), why a Red Sox fan might not agree with my choice of year. But wasn't 2004 infinitely better because of the comeback? Wasn't the extra dose of sadistic satisfaction at seeing the Yankees be the first team in history to choke away a 3-0 lead much more satisfying than a reverse 1999 would have been? Wasn't it worth the agony of the first three games? It sure would have been for me.
   133. walt williams bobblehead Posted: October 08, 2007 at 09:04 PM (#2567735)
We have to avenge 1948.
   134. walt williams bobblehead Posted: October 08, 2007 at 09:24 PM (#2567765)
1999 was indeed good. But we need a second win. In 1948 they beat Boston twice.
   135. rr Posted: October 08, 2007 at 09:30 PM (#2567774)
Got class. Hard as it is to believe, I do have a job. Am on break this second.
   136. rr Posted: October 08, 2007 at 09:33 PM (#2567778)
"Got class? Does that mean, if you tell us the story, you will be revealing something you shouldn't"

No, I am TEACHING a class. The story is not juicy or anything--just a little look behind the scenes. I will post it when I have a few mins.
   137. Dan Posted: October 09, 2007 at 04:31 AM (#2569426)
I hate the Angels because I hate seeing guys hack at pitches out of the zone and getting bloop hits, and I hate that they play guys like Garett Anderson and Darin Erstad in corner spots, etc. And that they get lauded for "playing baseball the right way" or whatever. And that guys like Kendrick and Anderson with no discipline get called things like "among the best PURE hitters in the league!"
   138. Phil Coorey. Posted: October 09, 2007 at 07:36 AM (#2569531)
The Ohio State Michigan rivalry is more heated than Yankees Red Sox. Not even that close.


The Red Sox - Yankees rivalry is global.

Other nations have been sucked into the rivalry and soem have never even heard of either Ohio...

:)
   139. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: October 09, 2007 at 10:35 AM (#2569557)
hey yankees, enjoy the offseason.

enjoy watching A-rod leave.

and i hope joba ####### chamberlain has his arm torn off by a grain thresher back in west bumfuck nebraska.
   140. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: October 09, 2007 at 10:52 AM (#2569559)
I don't have a big problem with Joba, I have a problem with them constantly fellating his dad. OOOH!!! HE GOT POLIO!!! White people just feel bad that they treated Native Indians like S!@# back in the day that they forgot to vaccinate Joba's dad, and now they're trying to cover up their guilt by making a feel good story out of their jackassery.

However: If Jon Lester was a Yankee, Lymphoma would be now called Lester's disease.
   141. Flynn Posted: October 09, 2007 at 11:27 AM (#2569568)
If you were a true fan of baseball, you wouldn't say this. You would instead appreciate the differences between different rivalries, teams, and regions that makes the whole of baseball great. But, since you're not a true fan of baseball, you did say it.


No, sorry. Hugging is not an acceptable action in a rivalry, and the Cubs/Cards rivalry is defined by hugging. Sosa and McGwire hugging. And the fans hugging. It was lame.

Red Sox and Yankee fans would never hug over anything. Neither would Giants and Dodgers fans. No Dodger hugged Barry Bonds and no Yankee hugged Pedro Martinez.
   142. Pat Rapper's Delight (as quoted on MLB Network) Posted: October 09, 2007 at 08:30 PM (#2570183)
If the Yankees win, then the Red Sox have a 25% chance of winning a World Series, but the Yankees also have about a 25% chance of winning one.

If the Indians win meanwhile, then the Red Sox have a 10% chance of winning a World Series, but the Yankees have 0% chance of winning one.

It is with no reservations and no hyperbole that I say I would prefer the latter scenario. It's not particularly close.

I know I'm late to the party, and I rarely post here in ST but I made pretty much the same comment to my wife before the playoffs started. In the aftermath of 2004, if the Red Sox win that's great and I'll be really happy, but what I really want is the Yankees to be bounced in a few games as possible. I can't imagine any Sox playoff loss from here on out hurting me as much as 2003 or 1986 or 1978 because I can always pop in my DVD now and relive the dogpile after Foulke flips to Mientkiewicz when all was finally right in the world.
   143. covelli chris p Posted: October 09, 2007 at 08:32 PM (#2570185)
and no Yankee hugged Pedro Martinez.

you sure that wasn't what zimmer was trying to do?
Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Downtown Bookie
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.4743 seconds
34 querie(s) executed