That's what I didn't understand at the bar last night. Most of the guys were cheering for the Giants. I say who cares if the Angels beat us. They are in our league and deserve to be there.
With the exception of the Packers, you should always pull for the sports team that is representing your teams division. They obviously deserve it because they beat your team in the process. You have no idea how your team would of done against the other division’s team.
Of course there are many other factors that come in to play as well. Such as your personal home team if you've moved, an underdog, or pulling for any team that's against a team that you hate. Hence the Packers, '90's Bulls, '80's Cowboys and the recent Yankees. Of course there's those teams that you always root for no matter where you're from like the Cubs. I wanted to try and explain this to the guys but I was out of beer and forgot what I was even talking about.
"Of course there's those teams that you always root for no matter where you're from like the Cubs."
Not me. I tend to think the Cubs mystique is because they are consistent losers and it doesn't matter to the ownership. I don't respect that.
I'm somewhat pulling for the Giants because of what people say about Barry Bonds. I don't think he deserves all the resentment he gets. I don't have a clear reason for that, but it seems wrong.
He's walked 9 times in the postseason. Five were intentional, the other 4 were probably just because they didn't want to give him a pitch to hit. You gotta respect his ability, but not the opponents' timidity.
I agree it's hard to watch knowing how close we were but the better team or more talented team won. I'm routing for them but it's hard.
As far as pitching around Bonds it makes good sense if you're the manager. The guy is phenomenal. You're trying to win a World Series here not showcase Barry's talents. Look at the few times they did pitch ot him, I think that ball is still going and has just left our solar system. Strategy always plays a role wether it's pitcing around Barry or pitching a certain way to a guy or bringing in a lefty. People want to see Bonds get his at bats except for the Angels fans and the Angels themself. I'd like to see it but I don't have much at stake. I'd do the same thing if I were managing. If the guy hitting behind Bonds starts getting some hits and making them pay for their strategy they'll have to pitch to him. The guy behind hitting behind him (name escapes me) but last I heard he was something like 2 for 14.
The Giants' second baseman, Jeff Kent, probably gets more good pitches than anybody in baseball. He bats before Bonds.
There are times you have to stratigically walk Bonds. But I think one of those times was in the Second Inning with a runner on first. That makes no sense. Makes you think that in the right situation, they'd consider walking Bonds with the bases loaded
I see he doubled tonight. So I guess they will pitch to him, or else it's gotten to the point he's chasing pitches on the outside corner.
I suppose. I don't care what anyone is taking, it doesn't get you 73 home runs in a year.
Sure it does. That extra muscle will give you that extra bit of power you didn't have before. There's tons of people that can hit the ball, not all of them can hit them out of the park on a consistent basis. If it took steroids to do it, does it really count? I don't think so. Without the steroids, they may just be another average player.
You could take steroids for year, JT. and you still couldn't hit a split-finger fastball frrom a AAA pitcher.
You're right, it's not one of my talents, nor would I ever find it important enough to try to work on. It's just not my thing.
I watched the game last night, and after the events of Friday and over the weekend, it was like I was like I was catching up on the World Series after a couple of months had passed.
That's what people say tragic events will do. They place a crack in time.
I was pleased to see the Angels win. Those guys seem like decent fellows. I don't get the same from the likes of Bonds, Lofton and Kent. Of course, if I knew them my opinion might change 180 degrees. Even with that opinion, what hit me was the kids crying, especially Dusty Baker's grand kid. It was just a game but it is still hard to see the kid's take the loss so hard.
I hope that practice of honorary batboys and 3-year-olds in the dugout ends this year. It's getting out of hand. And it's not really safe. Foul balls are whistling around there all the time and a kid can get in the way easy.
I think it's great. If that were the case, would kids be prohibited from the bleachers down the first and third base lines near the dugouts? Foul balls goes screaming into the stands there a lot of times. I don't know the statistics, but there are ball parks with cages over the dugout for protection to the players. I think it's great the kids can share the experience with their fathers. I would have loved that experience. The ballplayers I'm sure take the precautions necessary to ensure the kids' safety as best they can.
" I think it's great the kids can share the experience with their fathers. I would have loved that experience."
At the ages of the kids I saw last night, they'd have more fun playing video games, eating pizza and swimming in the pool at the hotel.
"The ballplayers I'm sure take the precautions necessary to ensure the kids' safety as best they can. "
"...as best they can."
The operative phrase.
They're not day care workers. One little kid wanders too far onto the field, or gets nailed with a foul ball, wild pitches, throwing errors or a thrown bat and all hell would break loose.
They could maybe have it the same way we do in that you can bring your kids with you during take our kids to work day but not any other time. They get all the opportunities they want to go 'play' on the field after a game if they want to see where daddy works.
It would obviously be a bit more organized than how you are perceiving it. I wouldn't expect a kid to be jumping around the operating room during an open heart surgery either, but maybe sitting next to mom or dad during a throat culture or something. My kid would hate it if she had to actually sit next to me during my regular work day. It's always catered around keeping the kids entertained to show that work can be fun and exciting if you commit yourself with confidence. I agree with you about the 'no kids' rule on some occupations, but even those jobs can be made safe for that one day.
The Twins aren't in it, so who the hell cares? ;)
I usually don't care either but, it's been fun to watch.
They have been fun to watch.
I catch a few innings each game, but not enough to give me much of an opinion on the Series.
I watched more of last years, because it's still tough to see the Angels and not the Twins in the Series.
I know I have no reason not to like them.
That's what I didn't understand at the bar last night. Most of the guys were cheering for the Giants. I say who cares if the Angels beat us. They are in our league and deserve to be there.
With the exception of the Packers, you should always pull for the sports team that is representing your teams division. They obviously deserve it because they beat your team in the process. You have no idea how your team would of done against the other division’s team.
Of course there are many other factors that come in to play as well. Such as your personal home team if you've moved, an underdog, or pulling for any team that's against a team that you hate. Hence the Packers, '90's Bulls, '80's Cowboys and the recent Yankees. Of course there's those teams that you always root for no matter where you're from like the Cubs. I wanted to try and explain this to the guys but I was out of beer and forgot what I was even talking about.
Kind of like now. Never mind.
!~}
"Of course there's those teams that you always root for no matter where you're from like the Cubs."
Not me. I tend to think the Cubs mystique is because they are consistent losers and it doesn't matter to the ownership. I don't respect that.
I'm somewhat pulling for the Giants because of what people say about Barry Bonds. I don't think he deserves all the resentment he gets. I don't have a clear reason for that, but it seems wrong.
He's walked 9 times in the postseason. Five were intentional, the other 4 were probably just because they didn't want to give him a pitch to hit. You gotta respect his ability, but not the opponents' timidity.
Rick,
I agree it's hard to watch knowing how close we were but the better team or more talented team won. I'm routing for them but it's hard.
As far as pitching around Bonds it makes good sense if you're the manager. The guy is phenomenal. You're trying to win a World Series here not showcase Barry's talents. Look at the few times they did pitch ot him, I think that ball is still going and has just left our solar system. Strategy always plays a role wether it's pitcing around Barry or pitching a certain way to a guy or bringing in a lefty. People want to see Bonds get his at bats except for the Angels fans and the Angels themself. I'd like to see it but I don't have much at stake. I'd do the same thing if I were managing. If the guy hitting behind Bonds starts getting some hits and making them pay for their strategy they'll have to pitch to him. The guy behind hitting behind him (name escapes me) but last I heard he was something like 2 for 14.
The Giants' second baseman, Jeff Kent, probably gets more good pitches than anybody in baseball. He bats before Bonds.
There are times you have to stratigically walk Bonds. But I think one of those times was in the Second Inning with a runner on first. That makes no sense. Makes you think that in the right situation, they'd consider walking Bonds with the bases loaded
I see he doubled tonight. So I guess they will pitch to him, or else it's gotten to the point he's chasing pitches on the outside corner.
Does anyone think Bonds doesn't use steroids?
I thought it was a prerequisite for all players?
Especially 'Joe'
It's not like he's the first big, strong guy to play baseball.
But he might be the best big, strong guy to play baseball.
You seldom heard that speculation about Mark McGwire or Sammy Sosa. But Barry Bonds isn't a nice guywho blows kisses the fans.
McGwire took his share of approved strength enhancers. But I don't read snooty comments about him.
I didn't comment on McGwire & Sosa because right not they're not playing in the world series.
When players take steroids and "enhancers", you gotta question their true ability.
I'm somewhat pulling for the Giants because of what people say about Barry Bonds. I don't think he deserves all the resentment he gets.
Yes he does.
You seldom heard that speculation about Mark McGwire or Sammy Sosa. But Barry Bonds isn't a nice guy who blows kisses the fans.
You must not have been listening.
jethro:
Something tells me you lug around quite a cache of resentment.
what makes you think so?
"When players take steroids and "enhancers", you gotta question their true ability."
I suppose. I don't care what anyone is taking, it doesn't get you 73 home runs in a year.
You could take steroids for year, JT. and you still couldn't hit a split-finger fastball frrom a AAA pitcher.
"what makes you think so?"
A hunch
A hunch
It is probably better to base conclusions on evidence.
But not always necessary.
Doesn't all that nasty talk you hear about Bonds just kind of rub you the wrong way, jethro?
I tend to side with someone who gets that kind of treatment. I guess it's the contrarian in me.
I suppose. I don't care what anyone is taking, it doesn't get you 73 home runs in a year.
Sure it does. That extra muscle will give you that extra bit of power you didn't have before. There's tons of people that can hit the ball, not all of them can hit them out of the park on a consistent basis. If it took steroids to do it, does it really count? I don't think so. Without the steroids, they may just be another average player.
You could take steroids for year, JT. and you still couldn't hit a split-finger fastball frrom a AAA pitcher.
You're right, it's not one of my talents, nor would I ever find it important enough to try to work on. It's just not my thing.
It's also irrelevant.
4-0 in the 6th! Woooohoooo!
And it goes to the 7th game!! Whooo Hooo right back at ya!
Go Angels!
4 - 1 in the 3rd
Screw the Angels! ; )
Hehehehehehehe
:-)
I watched the game last night, and after the events of Friday and over the weekend, it was like I was like I was catching up on the World Series after a couple of months had passed.
That's what people say tragic events will do. They place a crack in time.
I was pleased to see the Angels win. Those guys seem like decent fellows. I don't get the same from the likes of Bonds, Lofton and Kent. Of course, if I knew them my opinion might change 180 degrees. Even with that opinion, what hit me was the kids crying, especially Dusty Baker's grand kid. It was just a game but it is still hard to see the kid's take the loss so hard.
Oh, the kids was heartbreaking to watch.
Poor little guys!
They should have been at home.
I hope that practice of honorary batboys and 3-year-olds in the dugout ends this year. It's getting out of hand. And it's not really safe. Foul balls are whistling around there all the time and a kid can get in the way easy.
You just have to try to take the fun out of everything, don't you rick.
I think it's great. If that were the case, would kids be prohibited from the bleachers down the first and third base lines near the dugouts? Foul balls goes screaming into the stands there a lot of times. I don't know the statistics, but there are ball parks with cages over the dugout for protection to the players. I think it's great the kids can share the experience with their fathers. I would have loved that experience. The ballplayers I'm sure take the precautions necessary to ensure the kids' safety as best they can.
I have to agree with Rick.
No 3 year old belongs down there on the field of a supposed professional baseball game..
Try that with football or hockey
" I think it's great the kids can share the experience with their fathers. I would have loved that experience."
At the ages of the kids I saw last night, they'd have more fun playing video games, eating pizza and swimming in the pool at the hotel.
"The ballplayers I'm sure take the precautions necessary to ensure the kids' safety as best they can. "
"...as best they can."
The operative phrase.
They're not day care workers. One little kid wanders too far onto the field, or gets nailed with a foul ball, wild pitches, throwing errors or a thrown bat and all hell would break loose.
They could maybe have it the same way we do in that you can bring your kids with you during take our kids to work day but not any other time. They get all the opportunities they want to go 'play' on the field after a game if they want to see where daddy works.
It would obviously be a bit more organized than how you are perceiving it. I wouldn't expect a kid to be jumping around the operating room during an open heart surgery either, but maybe sitting next to mom or dad during a throat culture or something. My kid would hate it if she had to actually sit next to me during my regular work day. It's always catered around keeping the kids entertained to show that work can be fun and exciting if you commit yourself with confidence. I agree with you about the 'no kids' rule on some occupations, but even those jobs can be made safe for that one day.