- 09:29 AM
- 11/21/24
Maybe more people would feel sympathetic about the White Sox's troubles if they hadn't thrown a World Series.
posted by joehyuk at 09:55 PM on August 17, 2005
Yeah, I didn't mean to make fun of you, tieguy. Just wanted to point out Fenway is not unique in its position in baseball history. I suspect there will still be tours of the new Yankee stadium, but I suspect the price may be reduced. (The Giant's park, for example, despite its newness, has tours for $10.) Then again, the Yankees are so arrogant they may even raise prices.
posted by joehyuk at 01:18 PM on July 10, 2005
And Yankee Stadium costs $14.
posted by joehyuk at 01:03 PM on July 10, 2005
You're right, tieguy. Wrigley Field costs $20 to tour.
posted by joehyuk at 01:00 PM on July 10, 2005
So did Ferrari not agree to the change in the expectation that they would then increase the chances of Schumacher winning and climbing back into contention for the championship?
posted by joehyuk at 07:57 PM on June 19, 2005
True. Which is why I thought it was noteworthy that people still feel strongly about this.
posted by joehyuk at 10:39 AM on March 22, 2005
A translation for the Cubs cartoon.
posted by joehyuk at 09:42 PM on February 08, 2005
Uh, is it just me, or is every single legal expert quoted in that article a Red Sox fan? (With the possible exception of the Professor from Tulsa.) Anyway, I think MLB has already said they consider the ball to be Mientkiewicz's, not that that necessarily means anything.
posted by joehyuk at 05:06 PM on January 23, 2005
Looks like dashing hopes aren't the only thing the Cubs and Red Sox have in common. This old Cub, a film about Ron Santo, former third baseman and current broadcaster for the Cubs (as well as "the most egregious [omission] ever made by the Baseball Writers Association of America"), was filmed during the 2003 season as well.
posted by joehyuk at 09:24 PM on March 24, 2004
Best of the Best needs to at least be on the martial arts movie list, if not ranked number one.
posted by joehyuk at 01:13 PM on April 14, 2003
No problem Samsonov 14, although I appreciate your fleshing out your response. Good point on the flagpole sitting and especially jumping rope. No one would consider jumping rope a sport (yet) but in many ways, it is very similar to an eating contest. However, I think the main difference to me is that when you are jumping rope, you only compete against a record, while in an eating contest (as in practically all other sport) you compete against others.
posted by joehyuk at 11:38 AM on July 05, 2002
Thanks for posting this, as I was debating posting it myself after already posting this previously, which also was about speed eating, as I am still interested in seeing discussion of what constitutes sport vs. game or other. Anyway, you can see my response in that thread, which I still consider valid. Interestingly enough, Samsonov14 was the first to respond in both posts.
posted by joehyuk at 03:43 PM on July 03, 2002
I'm not a 100% convinced it's a sport either, but I can't just dismiss it out of hand, as it shares many characteristics in common with most sports, such as: competition, training to increase ability, success partially dependent on physical abilities, etc. If you are arguing against it on the basis of athletic ability of the participants, I point you towards such sports as chess, billards, bowling, auto racing, and even baseball, where there isn't a requirement for general athletic ability, as long as you are proficient at the specific skills needed to prosper in the sport. If you refer to the area of spectacle, I submit that wrestling can be as much of a spectacle, and yet the legitimate form of it is unquestionably a sport.
posted by joehyuk at 04:49 AM on February 25, 2002
yerfatma, perhaps you're right about the disapora of Sox fans, but I still think Cubs fans are more numerous. I've seen away games where the Cubs fans outnumbered the home team fans. I think this is at least partially due to WGN broadcasting Cubs games all over the U.S. I can't recall how many times I've met or heard of people who said they first started following the Cubs by watching them on TV. And while I'll admit Cubs fans are not the most knowledgeable or intellectual fans, or even at times, the most passionate, I truly believe every Cubs fan has a deep and abiding love for the Cubs that will always be there. It's just that, after so many years of heartache, we have to act nonchalant or we'd die of despair. Oh, and tieguy, while I disagree that you need to have an enemy to rally around, Cubs fans have plenty. The Mets, the Cardinals, the... well, pretty much every other team in the league. Not to mention most of the American League as well. There's even hatred (or maybe it should be called distain) for the White Sox. Heck, I'm still a little bitter to the Tigers for denying the Cubs a title in 1945. But hey, I respect Red Sox fans, and I definitely don't question their sincerity to their team. I think the best of all possible worlds would produce a Cubs-Red Sox World Series, that went into extra-innings in game 7. And that the Cubs won, of course.
posted by joehyuk at 05:20 PM on February 08, 2002
I think Boston would go insane if the Red Sox were to win a World Series, but I think it would pale next to what would happen to the nation if the Cubs were to win one. Red Sox fans tend to be concentrated in the Boston area, but you can find a Cubs fan almost everywhere. Not only would Chicago be celebrating, but there'd probably be celebrations in most of the rest of the nation as well.
posted by joehyuk at 01:51 AM on February 07, 2002
thebigpoop, I'm not saying the Fire were screwed by having to go to Naperville, just that they were left scrambling for a place to play.
posted by joehyuk at 07:12 PM on February 05, 2002
I think if the Expos move to D.C., there's a good chance they'll be renamed the Washington Senators. As for soccer teams sharing stadiums, they do usually get screwed pretty easily. For example, in Chicago, the Fire were pretty much left in the lurch when they decided to renovate Soldier Field.
posted by joehyuk at 03:24 PM on February 05, 2002
The problem was that Jordan set an example for everyone else in the league to follow by stopping his participation in the dunk contest. I think the reason he gave was he didn't want the focus to be on him instead of the team, but it was also widely understood that he didn't want to risk getting hurt. Since then, it has become OK for other stars to follow his example.
posted by joehyuk at 12:46 AM on February 05, 2002
Franco defying the aging process
While it's impressive that Franco's a productive hitter at his age, I don't think the fact that he's still playing at 47 makes a big difference in evaluating him for the hall of fame. The total number of seasons played, while better than most major leaguers, isn't really unbelievably long. He missed some seasons here and there and his first full season wasn't until he was 24. All told, he's only played 16 full seasons of major league ball (and in quite a few of those seasons, including the last few, he played in 130 games or less). That's why, if you look at the list of players with most games played, Franco barely cracks the top 100. In fact, any argument for durability (except one based on age alone) that applies to Franco would apply to other players who are clearly non-HOFers, such as Steve Finley or B.J. Surhoff. Unless you're arguing they deserve to get in as well. Now, if you look at age alone, then yes, it is impressive that Franco is still playing at age 47. However, again, there are plenty of players who've played until their forties. If you look at this, you'll see that the oldest player for a given year is typically in their early to mid forties. In fact, just last year, Jesse Orosco (who, granted, is a pitcher) played at 46 (which is what Franco's official age for this season is). And looking at that list, you see just as many non-HOFers as HOFers on it. Counting back, out of the last ten players eligible for the hall who played until 46 or later, only four of them (all pitchers) are HOFers. I guess what I'm saying with all this is that while it's impressive that Franco's still playing, it's not unbelievably impressive and it's certainly not HOF-impressive.