11/05/24
October 04, 2005
Is this in the best interests of all of baseball?: I mean really, Fox loves it, I think Selig does too. But come on, this guy has a point. I'm not from other parts of the nation, but are they as into the Yankees and Sox as much as we are in the Northeast? After all, I just want the Yankees to win, I dont care who the opponent is, as long as they lose. And I'm sure the same goes for fans of all teams.
...and a big so-what. Look, anytime I even hint that the sports coverage in the United States could be a little bit more balanced, by including more than one gender and three-and-a-half sports, a buncha thick-necks bellow, "Aaaah quitcherbitchen that's reality, that's what people wanna see yuh know??" Sauce for the goose and all that. If it makes sense to reduce the wide world of sports to half of three-and-a-half, why stop there? Doesn't the same argument apply in taking it down to just two teams? (And don't even try the, "But I don't care about the red sox or yankees and I'm a people, so there!" That argument's been tried before and failed. Sure, you're a people. You just don't count, I guess.)
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:34 PM on October 04, 2005
All sports have rivalries. Baseball's biggest one is the Yanks & Bosox. What's the big deal. It's being talked about now because for like the last ten years or so they've finished 1- 2 in their division and had some great post season series. The Cards & Cubs also have a great rivalry. But when one team (Cards) has good years, and the other team (Cubs) pretty much sucks, there's not much to hoot and hollar about. Personally I'd love to see the Cubs in the series (call it pitty) but I doubt I'll live that long.
posted by drevl at 10:38 PM on October 04, 2005
People are "in to" the YankSox because it is forced upon the nation by the plethera of media coverage secondary to the hunger for advertising dollars. Once Hollywood puts in their two cents (Fever Pitch) you know its gotten too ridiculous to respect. I never cared about either until they became teams that would face the Cardinals (interleague/post season) and I really hope to see both of them exit from the division match ups.
posted by cardsfan at 10:43 PM on October 04, 2005
Since I first discovered SpoFi in Sept. there have been numerous baseball postings covering almost every team and subject. Somehow, postings pertaining to the yanks/bosox seem to receive endless comments while most non yankee/bosox postings fade away quickly (or magically turn into yankee/bosox comments). If the yanks and sox were mired in the cellar, I have serious doubts that the Jays and Rays would produce this level of interest.
posted by drevl at 11:11 PM on October 04, 2005
People are "in to" the YankSox because it is forced upon the nation by the plethera of media coverage secondary to the hunger for advertising dollars. It's more than the media. People, most at least, are not mindless robots. Sportsfilter is an open community. A few times I've heard complaints that this is sox/yankee filter, yet anyone can post any link to any team they desire. But it's a rarity.
posted by justgary at 11:16 PM on October 04, 2005
After all, I just want the Yankees to win, I dont care who the opponent is, as long as they lose. Liar. I refuse to believe that a Yankees fan wouldn't like to beat the Red Sox this year more than any other team. To suggest you'd get the same joy out of beating the Chicago White Sox to get to the World Series (assuming NY gets past LA), as you would beating the Red Sox...that's just not true. Every fan of every team that loses in the playoffs the way the Yankees did (collapse of epic nature) would love to get "revenge" on that team ASAP. It would be like listening to Ottawa Senators fans who insist that the Toronto Maple Leafs are "just another team" in the playoffs. If you really are a fan, then it simply isn't true. I have serious doubts that the Jays and Rays would produce this level of interest. If 2005 ended with Toronto and Tampa Bay on top and NY and Boston in the cellar, I'm pretty sure there would be a VERY long discussion about it. And by discussion I mean gloating, ranting, raving and general misbehaving.
posted by grum@work at 11:17 PM on October 04, 2005
I dont care who the opponent is, as long as they lose. And I'm sure the same goes for fans of all teams. A comment from bronxbanter after the yankees won the east: I will be crushed if the Sox go further than us. I will be crushed if they actually beat us again, and I will be crushed if they win back to back WS. Aside from those doomsday scenarios, I am satisfied with our results. And that's quite common. It goes for both sides.
posted by justgary at 11:33 PM on October 04, 2005
grum, there is a certain hunger for revenge/redemption. but if the yankees get through to the series without seeing boston it would not be any less satisfying for me. why cheapen it by saying that it would only be truly joyful if they had to beat boston to get there? now, i'm sure there are people that feel that way, but the fans that i know don't care.
posted by goddam at 11:49 PM on October 04, 2005
Consider that ESPN is located slap-bang between Boston and New York, and think what the coverage might be if the sports network was based out of Los Angeles. (The west coast teams, it seems, get truly stiffed in the divisional round, thanks to scheduling that implies they're at fault for being in the wrong time zone.)
posted by etagloh at 01:23 AM on October 05, 2005
What's this baseball thing I keep hearing about?
posted by owlhouse at 02:13 AM on October 05, 2005
GOOOOOOO!! anyone but the Yankees.
posted by Sasquatch12154 at 07:21 AM on October 05, 2005
I'm a Rangers fan, so I don't know much about this thing you call the "post-season." The incredible Red Sox/Yankees series last year has me eager for a rematch, but I don't think we're going to get it. The White Sox are looking pretty tough.
posted by rcade at 07:53 AM on October 05, 2005
I'm a Jays fan - and same goes for me. With my team out, I wanna see the most drama, intensity and idiot commentators spouting off as I can. Boston/Yankees do it everytime - guaranteed. Then, either of them can lose to whomever comes out of the NL, so I don't have to hear about the victory throughout the entire offeseason - AND get to see the two richest teams in baseball lose their shit and make massive sweeping changes. (Like no more Manny. Seriously, the guy is a total HoFer and Boston really wants nothing to do with him. Yes he's got a huge contract - but he's damn good.)
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 08:06 AM on October 05, 2005
Is it good for the game? Without a freakin doubt! The last two Sox/Yanks postseason matchups not only lived up to the hype, but exceeded it. I will pull for any team that faces the yankees as will the majority of baseball fans but it makes it that much better to know that steinbrenner will have to listen to another full year of commentary on how the sox reversed the curse. It's also gonna be nice knowing that the Yankees are going to be watching clemens and pettitte win another ring, but this time with my astros!
posted by cooga at 08:09 AM on October 05, 2005
I have serious doubts that the Jays and Rays would produce this level of interest. Dude, I'm still pissed off about Halladay's 2003 ejection against the Rays which could've cost him his Cy Young title.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 08:42 AM on October 05, 2005
DrJohn. The fans of the Jays and Rays would get all excited. The matchup wouldn't likely generate the kind of noise (good and bad) as this rivalry. Yhe Yankees and Bosox rivalry has existed for generations. However, it doesn't mean much, or generate much excitement unless both are having good years (ie: fighting for the penant). How well I recall the great Yankee years of 1960 through 1964. Believe me, there was no hype about the Yankee/Bosox rivalry then. The Yanks won 5 consecutive penants while the Bosox ended 32, 33, 19, 28, and 27 games behind.
posted by drevl at 08:59 AM on October 05, 2005
I'm a Jays fan - and same goes for me. When I read that line, it sounded like someone with dual personality or something. Anyways, to the point at hand. True fans of baseball will watch the playoffs and World Series regardless of the teams involved. Many people, though, who have other things they could be doing may choose to do them should the Championship Series pit say, the Angels and White Sox. If it's Yankees-Red Sox, many more individuals will make it a point to be tuned in. That's what matters to FOX. The Yankees-Red Sox delivers the excitement, intensity, and memorable moments practically every single time. That's good for the sport in general. Every professional sport hopes and dreams for rivalries they can count on year in, year out like this. And, as a Yankee fan, I would like the Yankees to win, but I'd also like the Red Sox to lose to the White Sox. That being said, I enjoy the Red Sox-Yanks matchups more than anything, but the Red Sox offense scares me. I don't want to take a chance of suffering through another embarrassing collapse like last season.
posted by dyams at 09:23 AM on October 05, 2005
1960 through 1964. Believe me, there was no hype about the Yankee/Bosox rivalry then. The Yanks won 5 consecutive penants while the Bosox ended 32, 33, 19, 28, and 27 games behind. I guess the same was true from 1904 through 1918. And just as relevant.
posted by yerfatma at 09:38 AM on October 05, 2005
but if the yankees get through to the series without seeing boston it would not be any less satisfying for me. why cheapen it by saying that it would only be truly joyful if they had to beat boston to get there? Using basic math: Sx = satisfaction for getting to World Series L = satisfaction from beating LA C = satisfaction from beating Chicago B = satisfaction from beating Boston S1 = L + C S2 = L + B And from your statement, S1 = S2. Therefore L + C = L + B Therefore B = C I'm not buying that.
posted by grum@work at 10:29 AM on October 05, 2005
With all the TV stations hq'ed in NYC, and all New Yorkers harboring an undeserved superiority complex (the world does revolve around us, but we don't deserve it or know what to do with it), nationwide media coverage is naturally Yankeecentric. Add to that the current sports obsession with money (fueled by and fuelling fantasy leagues) and trades at the expense of fair play and "pastime," and the Yanks and Sox are obvious attention-getters. All season long I've been listening to Yanks fans talk about who Steinbrenner should hire away from other teams before the postseason, or who he should drop -- not a comment about managing or playing, just about owning. Is it a unique New York thing? I don't know. I hope so, because I'd be ashamed to think that the baseball I was raised on has disappeared. Personally, I hate it. I grew up on the O's and followed them until their money-grubbing owner alienated me for good. I've rediscovered baseball through the Mets, working-class losers with fans I can stomach. The Yanks really are America's team, full of entitlements and self-righteous richies, win-at-high-cost elites and hoodwinked normals pretending to play the same game as the high-finance supermen. More's the pity -- MLB would be more fun if all its teams were strivers, but what do you expect? It's America, and people like this shit.
posted by Hugh Janus at 10:50 AM on October 05, 2005
I'm not buying that. whatever grum. you don't know me and you don't know my friends. if it makes you feel better to lump all yankee fans into a stereotype go right ahead. (yeah, i know that it's an easy thing to do given statements like that of the jackass that posted above, but give the rest of us some credit.)
posted by goddam at 11:07 AM on October 05, 2005
As someone who doesn't particularly like the Yanks or the Sox, I still love the hell out of watching them play each other. The thing that irks me, though, is that they get all the sweet network games during the season, and all the sweet time slots in the playoffs. I would like to watch the Cardinals in the post season before they meet an AL team, and I want to watch Biggio in the playoffs (he ended the season of my Phils with the help of a meaty Billy Wagner fastball). Unfortunately these games are played early so we can have the Yanks and Sox crammed down our throats in primetime. In that way, the rivalry is sort of a self-fulfilling thing.
posted by cl at 11:53 AM on October 05, 2005
I am a Yankee hater, I have four teams I root for, the O's, the A's, the Giants and whoever's playing against the Yankees. Oh yeah, I also like the Red Sox too but that's because I have to or my family will disown me. And I would have to agree that the Yankees would love to roll over the Red Sox on the way to the series. It would make it sweeter though they'd never be comfortable until the final out in their fourth win. That said, I'm rooting for an all red World Series, Red Sox and Cards! cl, you know what bothers me more? When they pre-empt playoff baseball for the latest big college beating the holy tar out of some dinky school in a college football game. This is playoff baseball, as good as it gets and I have to settle for Podunk U getting thrashed? Bah!
posted by fenriq at 12:07 PM on October 05, 2005
Will somebody give me a wake-up call tonight so I can watch the Yanks?
posted by drevl at 12:14 PM on October 05, 2005
I live in Houston, Texas and I don't give a damn about the Yankees or the Red Sux, and it's not fair that the Astros are getting screwed! The season started with yanks vs sox and i got plenty of it in the regular season. It is one of the sorriest rivalries ever because it only involves teams and fans only 203 miles away from each other! Baseball rivalries suck anyway because you play each other so much that their is no atomicity towards the other team unless you get swept. All hail FOOTBALL, America's past time.
posted by AKD2486 at 12:30 PM on October 05, 2005
You know what? All you guys are going on about the Ynkees losing or the Red Sox losing and always rooting against them. I am not a fan of either team and personally, it doesn't matter if they win or lose as long as its a good game, which you can expect from both the Yankees and the Red Sox
posted by sting_time05 at 01:02 PM on October 05, 2005
Here, I put an extra period at the end of this sentence for you to borrow..
posted by Hugh Janus at 01:09 PM on October 05, 2005
their is no atomicity We still maintain the nuclear option.
posted by yerfatma at 01:10 PM on October 05, 2005
The White Sox haven't won the whole thing since Wilson was President. Backing winners is boring. That's not why I follow sports. I want a triumph over adversity someplace, and going-on-90 years of never-won-anything makes for some of that. The Red Sox were a great story last year, and proud we are of all of them. However, I'd like to see all those longtime-loser teams win just so they can do some soul searching and maybe come up with a cool new identity. Also it would mean the Yankees wouldn't be able to win it for a while, the thought of which I must admit makes me very happy.
posted by chicobangs at 01:15 PM on October 05, 2005
There are some failures in both math and logic going on here. First, grum asserts: S1 = L + C S2 = L + B Your assertion is wrong. I don't know why you should think that a fan's satisfaction in winning the pennant would derive exclusively from "beating X" in the league championship, but you're wrong. And chico: Backing winners is boring. That's not why I follow sports. Guess what? That's not why I follow sports, either, but I still back a team that, gosh, happens to be winners. You and jerseygirl can go banana-whackies with the "bandwagon" rubber-stamp if you want, but not everyone who backs a winner is a bandwagon-jumper. In fact, it's highly ironic that people love to toss around that term without knowing thing one about the people they're talking about, except that they back a winning team. If I was a god damned bandwagon-jumper I'd be a god damned Red Sox fan and not loyal to my Yankee roots, so stick that in your pipe and smoke it. God damn it.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 01:39 PM on October 05, 2005
I think I know the difference between a bandwagon Red Sox fan bitch and a regular Red Sox fan. But thanks!
posted by jerseygirl at 02:00 PM on October 05, 2005
Did you ever notice all the REAL good rivalries involve Boston? You got The Yankes/Sox - Celtics/Lakers - Bruins/Canadians - and Patriots/everyone else in the NFL....seems like a trend.....
posted by sinisterfoot at 02:00 PM on October 05, 2005
I don't know why you should think that a fan's satisfaction in winning the pennant would derive exclusively from "beating X" in the league championship, but you're wrong. I like that we're arguing the validity of a logic proof regarding a subjective judgement.
posted by yerfatma at 02:04 PM on October 05, 2005
Guess what? That's not why I follow sports, either, but I still back a team that, gosh, happens to be winners. Yet you can still maintain your image of "Champion for all things not popular". So let's just agree that "simply winning" isn't the same as "simply winning and embarassing the team I loathe". You're kidding yourself if you won't derive any satisfaction from the Yankees exacting revenge and beating the Red Sox this postseason. And while I don't "know" you, I think you've spent enough time here stating your case against the Red Sox and their fans, that I can assume you care.
posted by YukonGold at 02:31 PM on October 05, 2005
Also, when chico makes that statement I hear it coming from "a fan of the game" not a recent addition to the White Sox bandwagon. To me, being "a fan of the game" is the most difficult thing to be. For most people I think it's difficult to objectively watch a game and find enjoyment not primarily in favor of, or opposed to one of the teams. For myself, I have a hard time watching any game that doesn't involve on of my teams, only golf qualifies. I can watch golf on Saturday and Sunday and get behind any given player each week depending on the back story or the situation. In that light I'd be pissed if Tiger won each week, but I'd probably begin to lean more to wanting anyone other than him to win which isn't the same.
posted by YukonGold at 02:42 PM on October 05, 2005
With my team out, I wanna see the most drama, intensity and idiot commentators spouting off as I can. Boston/Yankees do it everytime - guaranteed. I'm with McSmokey here. As a baseball fan with no team in the postseason you can't beat a Sox/Yankees series. I guarantee I would watch more of that series than an Angels/White Sox LCS.
posted by erkno11 at 02:50 PM on October 05, 2005
I can watch golf on Saturday and Sunday and get behind any given player each week I'll bet you can, slut!
posted by yerfatma at 03:20 PM on October 05, 2005
There are some failures in both math and logic going on here. First, grum asserts: S1 = L + C S2 = L + B Your assertion is wrong. I don't know why you should think that a fan's satisfaction in winning the pennant would derive exclusively from "beating X" in the league championship, but you're wrong. Since I am only measuring satisfaction in winning the pennant, I can only measure it in terms of satisfaction in beating the other teams, plus some extraneous, undocumented satisfaction that l_b_b seems to suggest exists. Let's call it X. Therefore, S1 = L + C + X1 S2 = L + B + X2 We already know that S1 = S2, because winning the pennant is the same either way. Therefore, C + X1 = B + X2 So now I ask l_b_b: what is the difference between X1 and X2? Is there some different, unconnected "satisfaction" that isn't tied to the team you beat in a round? Remember, it can't be associated to the team in any way, otherwise it would be assigned to the other variables (B or C). If there isn't any extraneous, unconnected satisfaction that can be measured (X1 = 0, X2 = 0), or you can't think of a reason why they would be different (X1 = X2), then my original "solution" (C = B) and assertion ("I'm not buying it.") still stands. I like that we're arguing the validity of a logic proof regarding a subjective judgement. You just know I'm barrels of fun at parties...
posted by grum@work at 03:55 PM on October 05, 2005
This whole discussion fills me with atomicity. Especially towards the Yankees. Seriously, to say there's no (enmity? animosity?) between the Sox and Yanks is to say there's nothing but love between Lindsay Lohan and the paparazzi. It just doesn't compute.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 04:18 PM on October 05, 2005
Forget revenge on the Red Sox. I'm still pissed at the Reds for sweeping the Yanks in 76.
posted by drevl at 05:26 PM on October 05, 2005
sinisterfoot: Did you ever notice all the REAL good rivalries involve Boston? You got The Yankes/Sox - Celtics/Lakers - Bruins/Canadians - and Patriots/everyone else in the NFL....seems like a trend.....Wait wait... that's not right. Yes, Yanks/Sox obviously is the top rivalry in all of sports (at least in North America). No question there. And for all the hype, these last few years of BOS/NYY matchups have been insanely dramatic, compelling, and heated. Long term, it wouldn't do to have the Yankees and Sox in a spending war that left everyone else in the dust, but I think this heated matchup is serving the same purpose as Celtics/Lakers in the 80's: a way of getting fans in to watch the unscripted drama of pro sports. And speaking of Celtics/Lakers, they had a similar fire through the 80's, especially with the Celtics being the Yankees of basketball. Historically, they're the two winningest franchises, with the Minneapolis Lakers winning the first championships, then the Auerbach Celtics owning the 60's. That fire has dimmed in the last decade, but since no particularly strong rivalries exist in the NBA that I can think of, that'll have to do as the strongest "rivalry" in the NBA. It is at least the most historic, no doubt. So okay, that's two sports in which the top rivalry involved Boston- that's certainly cool if you're a NE born sports fan like myself. But seriously- Bruins/Canadiens? I think Canadiens/ everyone else, maybe... but the Bruins- while a proud franchise and a surprisingly successful one through the years- are not even half as successful as say the Sens, historically. I've never heard anyone say the Bruins/Canadiens was anything remotely like the rivalry and ferocity of some other matchups. I don't follow hockey closely, though, so maybe I missed this thread of hockey lore, the famed Boston/Montreal matchups. If it happened, it would have been some time ago, back in the Orr days. And holy crap, Patriots/everyone else? The Patriots are very recent winners, so I don't think there's much historic rivalry involving the Patriots. They are the team to beat the last few years, but other team v. team pairings have much stronger and more heated- as well as historic- rivalries in the NFL.
posted by hincandenza at 07:50 PM on October 05, 2005
grum: We already know that S1 = S2, because winning the pennant is the same either way. No, in fact, we don't know that. Consider this, grum: different series of ball games. Different things happen. Different things to take pleasure in. How can you say that S1=S2? So now I ask l_b_b: what is the difference between X1 and X2? Is there some different, unconnected "satisfaction" that isn't tied to the team you beat in a round? Yes. Why is that so hard to accept?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:39 PM on October 05, 2005
Yet you can still maintain your image of "Champion for all things not popular". So let's just agree that "simply winning" isn't the same as "simply winning and embarassing the team I loathe". You're kidding yourself if you won't derive any satisfaction from the Yankees exacting revenge and beating the Red Sox this postseason. And while I don't "know" you, I think you've spent enough time here stating your case against the Red Sox and their fans, that I can assume you care. Yukon, please stop telling me what I'm all about. I'm not the "Champion of all things not popular", and if you say I have that "image", that's in your head. If I were the "Champion of all things not popular" I'd be out here endorsing ice dancing. And please, do stop telling me about where I will and will not derive satisfaction during this postseason. For one thing, at this point (Wed 10:42 pm EDT), it's looking increasingly like the Yankees won't even get the chance to beat the Red Sox.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:43 PM on October 05, 2005
No, in fact, we don't know that. Consider this, grum: different series of ball games. Different things happen. Different things to take pleasure in. How can you say that S1=S2? Well, in S1, the Yankees win the AL pennant. In S2, the Yankees win the AL pennant. And according to you, but if the yankees get through to the series without seeing boston it would not be any less satisfying for me. Therefore, the resulting satisfaction of winning the pennant would have to be equal in both cases (S1 = S2). It's not how you got there that determines the value of Sx, but what it equals, and according to you and nyfan, winning the pennant (the final result) would be the same regardless of how the Yankees did it. If that was really true, then the logical breakdown of the components (L, C, B, and according to l_b_b's insistence, X1 and X2) just follows. If you honestly believe that beating Chicago in the 2nd round would bring the equivalent satisfaction as beating Boston in the 2nd round, then there is no problem with what you three are insisting and what I'm "calculating". There would be no reason to continue debating the point since you'd be right and my final result (C = B) would be correct. I obviously can't read your minds, so it's silly for me to say for certainty that you are lying (and I apologize for starting off my discussion with that announcement). However, given the VERY recent history of Boston and NY in the playoffs, it would be very...unusual...for a fan of NY to insist that beating Boston would be the same as beating Chicago. That would almost be like a Boston fan telling me that if they came back from 0-3 to win the AL pennant from the LA Angels instead of the Yankees, it would have had the same satisfaction/enjoyment level.
posted by grum@work at 10:16 PM on October 05, 2005
Sure glad I'm too dumb to follow all that psycho-babble. All I know for sure is that, as a lifelong Yankee fan, I'm enjoying the hell out of the Chisox/Bosox series. To watch the Bosox go down in Boston would be the cherry on top of the sundae. I'm not counting my chickens yet, however. Like Yogi said - It ain't over till it's over.
posted by drevl at 10:28 PM on October 05, 2005
grum: Well, in S1, the Yankees win the AL pennant. In S2, the Yankees win the AL pennant. Right. And if you drive north from New York City on I-87, you'll get to Montreal. And if you drive northeast from New York City on the Hutch/Merrit/Wilbur Cross, sneak over to route 7, go up the Housatonic, meander up over the Berkshires to Vermont route 100, follow that until you bump into 89, head toward Lake Champlain, take the ferry across, and then take a hot right, you'll get to Montreal. See my point? And according to you, but if the yankees get through to the series without seeing boston it would not be any less satisfying for me. Last I checked, I'm not goddam. In fact, we've even been seen in the same place at the same time, and there are photos to prove it. I obviously can't read your minds, so it's silly for me to say for certainty that you are lying (and I apologize for starting off my discussion with that announcement). However, given the VERY recent history of Boston and NY in the playoffs, it would be very...unusual...for a fan of NY to insist that beating Boston would be the same as beating Chicago. Not that you or anyone has done a survey, but so what if it'd be very unusual? It's unusual to put ice cubes in your beer, but if someone told you that that's how they liked their beer, would you nag 'em ad infinitum about how unlikely it was that they really liked their beer that way because it was so unusual? Look. I'll say this because you're clearly bent on mathematizing a non-mathematical experience to death -- and I do not want to hear any crap from anyone as a result. Since you insist, no, even after gasp 2004 gasp, it is just not a big deal for me when the Yankees beat the Red Sox. I've been watching the Yankees beat the Red Sox for decades, and in my lifetime, they've done plenty of it. It doesn't give me any special pleasure any more than watching them beat any other team. In fact, I don't care about the "beating" aspect; that's not what I'm thinking when I watch a game: "ooh yeah Yankee are gonna lay a smackdown on these slobs." I want to see some good baseball, and I want to see my team playing better baseball than that other team. I'm sorry if that's totally impenetrable, but there it is.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:42 PM on October 05, 2005
However, given the VERY recent history of Boston and NY in the playoffs, it would be very...unusual...for a fan of NY to insist that beating Boston would be the same as beating Chicago. i guess i can see how someone else would find it unusual, but i have yet to talk to someone who doesn't feel that way. (i have seen plenty of talk on message boards confirming your assertion however. i'm just referring to people that i actually know.) i even asked the guy at the deli counter today. he and everyone in there agreed. the consensus is that we'd rather see the red sox knocked out of the playoffs early. with the start to the season that the yankees had, we're just happy they got their shit together and made the playoffs.
posted by goddam at 10:56 PM on October 05, 2005
Last I checked, I'm not goddam. In fact, we've even been seen in the same place at the same time, and there are photos to prove it. Well, I seem to be having this discussion about comments made by 3 different people (goddam, l_b_b and nyfan), so that's why I provided the underlying link to the comment to which I was referring. Well, in S1, the Yankees win the AL pennant. In S2, the Yankees win the AL pennant. Right. And if you drive north from New York City on I-87, you'll get to Montreal. And if you drive northeast from New York City on the Hutch/Merrit/Wilbur Cross, sneak over to route 7, go up the Housatonic, meander up over the Berkshires to Vermont route 100, follow that until you bump into 89, head toward Lake Champlain, take the ferry across, and then take a hot right, you'll get to Montreal. See my point? Actually, you are proving my point for me. The result (arriving in Montreal) is the same for both routes. The path is similar in the beginning (leaving NY) but where you go from there is different. In one case, you have a direct route. In the other case, you have a meandering route. One of those is better than the other, depending on what you want (speed vs scenery). My math equation is the same. The result (winning the pennant) is the same. The beginning (beating LA) is the same. It's the intermediate step (beating Chicago or beating Boston) that is different. Thought about independently of the other parts, one of those options is going to be better than the other (since we are dealing with personal feelings and it's rare to find a measurement about feelings to be equal on two different subjects*). * It's the equivalent of being asked if you like song A more than song B. You can tell me that "I like them both the same", but if you were told to pick one song to play in the car while driving, you'd probably be able to make a decision at that time. Sure it might be a very minor difference in preference, but it's there. it is just not a big deal for me when the Yankees beat the Red Sox. I've never said it was a big deal. What I've said was that I think it would be a bigger deal than beating Chicago. Not necessarily a monumental difference, but a difference nonetheless. I'll say this because you're clearly bent on mathematizing a non-mathematical experience to death Listen, the whole "equation" point was just a silly/fun way for me to isolate the main component (Boston vs Chicago) outside of the whole "winning the pennant" discussion. If that's the part that seems to bother you, then I apologize for using that method to disect the argument. And just for the record, it's not really a "math" thing. It's more of an extension of "logicization of arithmetic" using axioms and definitions.
posted by grum@work at 01:40 AM on October 06, 2005
You'd think I would have learned to spell dissect by now...
posted by grum@work at 01:42 AM on October 06, 2005
I can understand lbb's point. It's harder to enjoy beating a team you've dominated for years than the other way around. And the fans, on both sides, who enjoy the other team losing more than their team winning are often the loudest. You can find proof on sportsfilter. But I have a feeling some things are going to change. Give it another decade or two and I think you're going to find the sox very competitive with the yankees. Eventually, saying "we've spent decades beating you" is going to sound like you're talking about the distant past. A boy can dream... I personally enjoy the rivalry because of one, the history involved, and two, they've played some great games the last few years. So I like to see the yankees roll into town, and because of everything involved, it is sweeter to beat them than say, the mariners. I don't have a problem admitting that. But I don't hate the yankees (except for Arod...seriously, I think he's satan in disguise). And just for the record, it's not really a "math" thing. It's more of an extension of "logicization of arithmetic" using axioms and definitions. Thanks for clearing that up grum. I was a little loss, but it's much clearer now ;)
posted by justgary at 02:19 AM on October 06, 2005
If I were the "Champion of all things not popular" I'd be out here endorsing ice dancing But ice dancing is seriously popular. Maybe not for SpoFites, but in the right demographic, e.g. the same ones who like lawn bowls. Completely irrelevant. I'll go now....
posted by owlhouse at 02:24 AM on October 06, 2005
I'm not the "Champion of all things not popular", and if you say I have that "image", that's in your head. Well, mine too. Seems like you work pretty hard to never be what people see you as. No one can ever know you. You're a magical loner who won't never be broken.
posted by yerfatma at 06:13 AM on October 06, 2005
You're a magical loner who won't never be broken. Oh man, was that from an REO Speedwagon song? Well it should have been.
posted by jerseygirl at 07:23 AM on October 06, 2005
Well, mine too. Seems like you work pretty hard to never be what people see you as. No one can ever know you. You're a magical loner who won't never be broken. yerfatma, I'm sorry if it troubles you that I don't fit neatly into your categories or that I reject the labels that you're constantly trying to affix to me. It always seems to upset you to the point of rage when I do so (or at least to the point of wanton verbal abuse), and while I'm sorry that you get so worked up about it, I think that my right to disavow mischaracterizations of myself has to take precedence over your mental comfort. Nor do I understand why, when faced with my refusal to wear your labels, you have to come up with yet another snark over that ("No one can ever know you."). I really don't see why it should be such a deeply upsetting contradiction to you for someone else to be a fan of both the New York Yankees and the Connecticut Sun. I do wonder at your choice of the phrase, "work pretty hard", however. Do you "work pretty hard" at trying to craft some kind of SpoFi image, that you assume others are doing the same?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:04 AM on October 06, 2005
I'm sorry if it troubles you that I don't fit neatly into your categories or that I reject the labels that you're constantly trying to affix to me No, it troubles me how well you fit. As Oliver Wendell Jones, Jr.'s teacher so eloquently put it, "There are no original ideas."
posted by yerfatma at 08:13 AM on October 06, 2005
I watched Tuesday's Sox game in a bar packed with Yankee fans. The cheering everytime a White Sox player got a hit was deafening. Therefore, I conclude that Yankee fans want the Yankees to win and the Red Sox to lose - period. Put your mathmatical bullshit where the sun don't shine. I've enjoyed every Yankee championship and world series victory, no matter who the opponent. The sweep by the Reds, Mazeroski's homer etc. hurt just as much as last year's loss to Boston.
posted by drevl at 08:32 AM on October 06, 2005
lbb, spare me your lecture. If you don't want to hear what people think about your comments try not to come off like such an eliteist. For one thing, at this point (Wed 10:42 pm EDT), it's looking increasingly like the Yankees won't even get the chance to beat the Red Sox. Yeah, you don't care. So much so that you waited until postgame to get that little gem in.
posted by YukonGold at 08:33 AM on October 06, 2005
No, it troubles me how well you fit. As Oliver Wendell Jones, Jr.'s teacher so eloquently put it, "There are no original ideas." Right, well, you know everything about everything, son. Can we just award you the "Expert" trophy and move on?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:51 AM on October 06, 2005
Yukon: For one thing, at this point (Wed 10:42 pm EDT), it's looking increasingly like the Yankees won't even get the chance to beat the Red Sox. Yeah, you don't care. So much so that you waited until postgame to get that little gem in. If you'd checked the tapes on the surveillance cam you've got outside my house to monitor all my comings and goings, you would have known that I got home from work shortly before I posted that. I heard the end of the game on the ride home, and I listened to it because the Yankee game hadn't started yet. So much for "waiting for the postgame". You also said: lbb, spare me your lecture. If you don't want to hear what people think about your comments try not to come off like such an eliteist. But you weren't expressing your opinion of my comments. You were expressing your opinion of whether I would "derive any satisfaction from the Yankees exacting revenge and beating the Red Sox this postseason." Why can't I tell you that no, that's not how I feel, without you laying this "eliteist" tag on me? You tell me that I feel one way, I tell you that I feel another way instead, and you get all exercised. Then you got all hot when I told you that I really didn't care and that it looked more and more likely that the Yankees weren't even going to get a chance to "beat the Red Sox". Based on the odds, that's a statement of fact at this point, not opinion, but that set you off too. What do you want from me? Sheesh.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:07 AM on October 06, 2005
I'm overmatched. This you're original response to me: And please, do stop telling me about where I will and will not derive satisfaction during this postseason. I don't know why anyone would get "exercised", I'm sorry that I cut so deeply that you couldn't provide something that sounds less like a finger-snapping "you don't know me, bitch". You didn't tell me you felt another way, you just said I didn't know. I also realize this is an arguement that doesn't have a resolution. And those are tommysands cameras, not mine.
posted by YukonGold at 09:24 AM on October 06, 2005
And those are tommysands cameras, not mine. I was wondering what happened to him. Thanks for the info!
posted by qbert72 at 09:56 AM on October 06, 2005
ok I'm new here but as a Yankees fan I have to say I derive pleasure from Boston losing to anyone. Also I think it would be especially sweet for them to lose to chi. since everybody had already decided rematch was a forgone conclusion. Just an opinion>
posted by fade2244 at 10:02 AM on October 06, 2005
You three (four, five?) need to get a room and work off all this tension.
posted by dusted at 10:46 AM on October 06, 2005
I love lamp. And elitist sports fans. And I think Oliver Wendel Holmes Jr. was a great fighter who moved through multiple weight classes with ease before suffering that 4th round TKO against John Qunicy "Fists of Representative Democratic Impunity" Adams. But he was pound-for-pound the best judicial ring tactician for a long time. Yep, I think he could take on Scalia and get the decision.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 11:04 AM on October 06, 2005
And those are tommysands cameras, not mine. Hahahaha. Now that's funny. Pax, Yukon, okay? I said it doesn't give me any special thrill for the Yankees to beat the Red Sox, that's all. I'll get my enjoyment if I get to see some good baseball.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:07 AM on October 06, 2005
Ok, now hug.
posted by jerseygirl at 11:19 AM on October 06, 2005
Let's go Angels and White Sox...
posted by ajaffe at 12:02 PM on October 06, 2005
...Let's go Astros and Padres.
posted by cl at 12:09 PM on October 06, 2005
If it ends up White Sox-Padres, that'd be the same matchup as in that late-'70s/early-'80s movie where Gary Coleman managed in the World Series. Does anyone remember this? It had Robert Guillaume and (I think) Tab Hunter in it as well...
posted by ajaffe at 12:12 PM on October 06, 2005
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079399/
posted by ajaffe at 12:14 PM on October 06, 2005
I was hoping for The Bingo Long Traveling All-Stars & Motor Kings.
posted by yerfatma at 12:24 PM on October 06, 2005
Pax? Isn't that the tv station with that horrible Billy Ray Cyrus doctor show?
posted by YukonGold at 12:24 PM on October 06, 2005
Yeah, go ahead, act like you don't know the name of the show. I'll just bet if we check your TiVo, you'd sing a different tune...
posted by The_Black_Hand at 02:41 PM on October 06, 2005
OK, OK, OK. I could just about stand this thread when it was Yankees and Red Sox fans abusing each other. But the Billy Ray Cyrus reference is way over the line. Time, ladies and gentlemen, please.
posted by owlhouse at 03:44 PM on October 06, 2005
Hey thought I would jump into this comment- I personallly dont want to see a Yanks/ Sox series. I want to see Boston knocked out ASAP. They are a dangerous team- who won last year, and the Yanks dont need to see them this year. Anyway, hopefully Boston will get knocked out, and the Yanks will go all the way- current odds- 25:1.
posted by redsoxrgay at 07:51 PM on October 06, 2005
Huge Anus, "The Yanks really are America's team, full of entitlements and self-righteous richies, win-at-high-cost elites and hoodwinked normals pretending to play the same game as the high-finance supermen." If you knew ANYTHING about baseball you would know that the 95-05 Yankees for the most part are some of the most respected players out there, curiously devoid of a-holes and slackers. When's the last time you saw a Yank stand around and study a HR like ManRam or Bonds. Doesn't happen. They are pros and classy players, as classy as any in the league and more. Last thought, if I had a $ for every time someone brings up the Yanks payroll, I'd buy Bill Gates. Come on, have you ever lived in NYC? Its MUCH more expensive to live and work in NY than ANYWHERE else in the US, thus their payroll is much higher. I work in NYC and if I didn't I would take a 30-40% pay cut.
posted by sfts2 at 04:15 PM on October 07, 2005
Sheffield definitely isn't an a-hole. Good call.
posted by jerseygirl at 06:13 PM on October 07, 2005
If you knew ANYTHING about baseball you would know that the 95-05 Yankees for the most part are some of the most respected players out there, curiously devoid of a-holes and slackers. Except for Sheffield. And O'Neill, the whiniest sonofabitch I've ever seen on the field. EVERY single call against him (strike, close play at a base) was followed up with a cry-baby tantrum that would embarrass Lou Pinnella. And drug addicts like Dwight Gooden and Darryl Strawberry. And Wade Boggs, the most embarrassed adulterer of recent baseball memory. And Reuben Rivera, who stole a teammate's glove so he could sell it to a memorabilia store. And Jose Canseco, who has actually documented in his book about what an asshole he was. And Jason Grimsley, who broke into the umpires room to switch out a confiscated illegal bat with a regular one. And Steve Howe, who was suspended 8 times for cocaine use. And Denny Neagle, who was recently caught soliciting a prostitute. And David Wells...nuff said. But you are right...the Yankees are just paragons of virtue and righteousness.
posted by grum@work at 07:25 PM on October 07, 2005
Grum, First off, I didn't say anything about them being 'perfect' off the field or 'paragons of virute and righteousness.' I am talking about ON THE FIELD demeanor, and by the way, off field problems are a RARITY for the Yankees. Secondly, you just prove you have no clue with statements about Sheffield. Ask ANY player if they would want him on their team. He plays his ass off and produces at an MVP level, and does a good job in the club house, the only people who do not like him are GMs, because he doesn't take shit. Same with Paul O'Neill Drug addicts Dwight Gooden and Strawberry were helped by Yankee managament, and when no longer worthy, were basically cut loose, and with them you are probably the closest to weakly refuting my point. There problems were for the most part not when they played for the team, at all. Weak, but I'll give it to you. Wade Boggs - Hall of Famer, played his ass off. What he left his wife? Your point is ridiclulous, 50% or marriages end in divorce. Reuben Rivera was immediately cut when this happened. Jose Canseco? Released. Do you think of Jose Canseco when you think of the Yankees? A pathetic reach. Jason Grimsley, who? Steve Howe not in 95-05 Denny Neagle, solicits a prostitute. I bet he's the only MLB player who has ever done that. Fucking pathetic hypocrisy on your part. Stop reaching, if your point was valid, you would certainly come up with better examples. David Wells, plays his ass off and produces big time, by the way, he's plays for the Red Sox. What, he got in a bar fight? Any point you make can be applied to most other teams to a MUCH greater extent. Get a clue, ask ANYONE in MLB what they think of the Club House demeanor and professionalism of the Yankees of the last 10 years.
posted by sfts2 at 11:19 AM on October 10, 2005
what you said, sfts2
posted by nyfan at 05:22 PM on October 12, 2005
I agree nyfan, well sort of. I, along with most sane, rational people, want the yankees to lose and don't really care who the opponent is, as long as they beat the yankees. And quite frankly it would,nt take much for me to get sick of the redsxo, too. Let's go angels.