11/05/24
October 07, 2002
Good loser,: bad loser. The Diamondbacks' Bob Brenly has praise and hope for the Cardinals who defeated him, while George Steinbrenner passes the buck and prognosticates poor ratings for a World Series that doesn't include the Yankees. Go Angels.
Well, I hate to be in support of the Big Boss, but Steinbrenner is right...the ratings will be down because the Yankees aren't in the World Series. When the home team of the largest city in the U.S. is elimnated, a lot of people in that city don't bother watching anymore. Not watching = lower ratings Sure other teams fans might watch now, but if it's a Minnesota-St. Louis series, it's going to be some seriously dismal ratings.
posted by grum@work at 08:56 PM on October 07, 2002
grum: you and the Boss both seem to conveniently forget that (IIRC) the NYY-NYM World Series had the worst TV ratings of any world series, ever.
posted by tieguy at 09:01 AM on October 08, 2002
Since when are the World Series ratings as important as (more important than) the Series itself? As a baseball fan I want others to share in my enjoyment of the game, but I don't really care if 40 million or 4 million people tune in. I guess it's important in the sense that more viewers = more advertising dollars distributed to teams = more competitive balance, but that an awful long stretch. Tieguy, nice to see you back. And nice photo too.
posted by mbd1 at 09:27 AM on October 08, 2002
Oh, wow... maybe I need to put up a smaller version of that picture ;) [for those who care...]
posted by tieguy at 10:23 AM on October 08, 2002
tieguy: Well, that's obviously a case of TOO MUCH New York. Nobody else outside the New York area was interested. The same thing would happen if it was a (now don't laugh) Cubs/White Sox World Series. And I'm sure the A's/Giants World Series of 1989 was probably one of the smaller ones at the time (except for the whole earthquake thing). Two teams from the same general area is going to produce lower ratings everywhere else. Be honest though. Which would have a bigger rating vs an NL team: Yankees, Twins, Angels, A's?
posted by grum@work at 11:22 AM on October 08, 2002
I'd personally be more likely to watch any of the other three, except for maybe a game where the Yanks were in danger of losing ;) And yes, overall, I think the country really is that sick of the Yankees that I'm not that much of an aberration. We'll see, I guess.
posted by tieguy at 01:57 PM on October 08, 2002
But isn't that a reason to watch the Yankees? To cheer for the other team? Is there anyone other there that is actively cheering against any of the remaining teams instead of actively cheering for their opposition? The only one that I can think of that might draw some heat are the Giants. And that would be strictly because of any ire directed at Barry Bonds, however unfounded it might be. :)
- Angels - beat the Yankees and everyone (seems) to like that
- Twins - purest underdog of the bunch
- Cardinals - overcoming tragedy plus a generally likeable team
- Giants - best player in the game trying to finally win the big one
posted by grum@work at 03:10 PM on October 08, 2002
I'm gonna watch, and grum you are right, this feels like a pure baseball series with likeable fellows playing. Got to say I'm pulling for the Cards, in the absence of a true loyalty I revert to them because, what a baseball town, great fans and great history. Be interesting to see what the hot stove league has in store for the Yankees. Who's the biggest gamer out there pitching that's leaving their team in the off-season?
posted by vito90 at 11:32 PM on October 08, 2002
Comparing owners and managers is apples and oranges, really, since Torre was remarkably sanguine and magnanimous in defeat. Brenly, though? I can't find the link, but you have to find some truth in the ESPN column which suggested he'd rolled over when confronted by one of his own primadonna players. He's probably just glad to not have to deal with that for another few weeks.