|
Post by HoudiniDerek on Oct 24, 2005 22:36:06 GMT -5
You must have had your Wheaties for breakfast.
|
|
|
Post by HoudiniDerek on Oct 25, 2005 15:10:53 GMT -5
I was just reading how everything has gone the way of the White Sox so far in the series. Granted, one call for sure was messed up, but the same has been happening in the games leading up to the Series. People would say the same thing if the Sox were down two. Everybody thinks that the refs are not impartial, etc. Who REALLY cares? Maybe we should not have any competitive sports...or if we do, don't keep score and don't pay them thousands or millions of dollars to play. They can PAY to play if they want to compete that bad. Might make a more interesting game AND keep all this favoritism talk to a minimum.
|
|
|
Post by MelMac on Oct 25, 2005 15:22:43 GMT -5
I was just reading how everything has gone the way of the White Sox so far in the series. Granted, one call for sure was messed up, but the same has been happening in the games leading up to the Series. People would say the same thing if the Sox were down two. Everybody thinks that the refs are not impartial, etc. Who REALLY cares? Maybe we should not have any competitive sports...or if we do, don't keep score and don't pay them thousands or millions of dollars to play. They can PAY to play if they want to compete that bad. Might make a more interesting game AND keep all this favoritism talk to a minimum. Well, I don't entirely blame the Astros' loss on the umpire call, as they left too many men on base against a team that's just as wild card playing (though they were division champs). I do fault the umpires because I feel they aren't paying close enough attention to the game, and I'd say it in defense for other teams. It seems that they care more about their noteriety for playing than for good calls. That's what makes me mad when there's poor officiating. I do agree with you, HD, on the salaries of players. Some players are paid way too much. They need to keep them a reasonable amount, as they are playing a game. Though I like watching the Astros, sometimes, I feel as though we pay their salaries through higher ticket prices, food costs, etc. (though I could tell you how to get out cheaply at a game and get a souviener at the same time.) When I was talking about ticket costs a few posts ago in the Astrodome, the same $5 now will get you a seat in the nosebleed section of the stadium. The outfield, which is down first and third baselines now, is $20. Worth it, but at some salaries, not something you can do every day. Still like the train, though, and will love it when they show the division and NL pennants (at least those two ) next year.
|
|
|
Post by HoudiniDerek on Oct 26, 2005 17:15:08 GMT -5
Go Sox.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGirl on Oct 26, 2005 17:25:32 GMT -5
Baseball is nice... but, since I am inundated with girl's softball 24/7, I like to watch football.
|
|
|
Post by HoudiniDerek on Oct 26, 2005 17:29:10 GMT -5
I don't like to watch many sports...only soccer really and then only World Cup time...especially the women's since they are actually good. Otherwise, I prefer to play.
|
|
|
Post by MelMac on Oct 26, 2005 18:16:06 GMT -5
For me, MLB baseball is the only professional sport I watch (and I watch all teams, HD, though I will always favor the Astros). I will watch the Suprs and the Rockets play if they make the postseason, most of the time, I don't. With the exception of the Texans, I don't follow pro football. I much rather watch my high school alma mater play football. Haven't been to a volleyball game in years, though, but then again coach (even though she's since retired) would probably still find me and make me call lines.
|
|
|
Post by HoudiniDerek on Oct 26, 2005 19:41:56 GMT -5
I still prefer to play.
|
|
|
Post by MelMac on Oct 26, 2005 20:54:33 GMT -5
To show that I'm not biased against umps, there is something else that bugs me, and that's been the sports columnists (some know the irony of this post coming from me ). I read two of them today on the Yahoo Web site and was floored at how condescending they are toward the Astros. They basically say that the Sox should break out the champagne and Astros need to stop whining (they've generally been negative since first game of series). True, the Astros did blow a lot of opportunities yesterday and Garner was mad, but that's no reason to be as harsh as they have been to the Astros in general. They've been done to other teams, but I don't think I've seen any of these type of columns be so harsh and rude as the ones I read today. Ever since the Astros made the playoffs, the majority of the media has been for the other team. And when the Sox made the Series, it didn't matter who was going to be the other team, they leaned toward the Sox and how they haven't won the Series since 1917. Columnists can be biased, and that's why they are called that, but be balanced and don't pick on any team that harshly, whether regular or World Series games. Both these teams have been classy throughout the season, even though they may have had bad days (who wouldn't be angry after losing a 5 hour game? I'm sure the Braves were.), these columnists need to treat them with respect. Both are deserving to be there this year, whoever wins. Like I said, it's at least not the usual suspects this year.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGirl on Oct 26, 2005 21:24:50 GMT -5
I still prefer to play. Me too, but every time I said so, my son gave me a pitiful look. I loved watching him play for four years. I never watched football before, but once he explained it to me, I found I really liked it. I thought it looked like so much fun.
|
|
scenario
Agent
"We all do what makes us feel good."
Posts: 335
|
Post by scenario on Oct 26, 2005 22:21:44 GMT -5
To show that I'm not biased against umps, there is something else that bugs me, and that's been the sports columnists (some know the irony of this post coming from me ). I read two of them today on the Yahoo Web site and was floored at how condescending they are toward the Astros. They basically say that the Sox should break out the champagne and Astros need to stop whining (they've generally been negative since first game of series). True, the Astros did blow a lot of opportunities yesterday and Garner was mad, but that's no reason to be as harsh as they have been to the Astros in general. They've been done to other teams, but I don't think I've seen any of these type of columns be so harsh and rude as the ones I read today. Ever since the Astros made the playoffs, the majority of the media has been for the other team. And when the Sox made the Series, it didn't matter who was going to be the other team, they leaned toward the Sox and how they haven't won the Series since 1917. Columnists can be biased, and that's why they are called that, but be balanced and don't pick on any team that harshly, whether regular or World Series games. Both these teams have been classy throughout the season, even though they may have had bad days (who wouldn't be angry after losing a 5 hour game? I'm sure the Braves were.), these columnists need to treat them with respect. Both are deserving to be there this year, whoever wins. Like I said, it's at least not the usual suspects this year. There has always been an East Coast mentality out there. The East Coast controls so much, and if you are not from the North/East Coast, OR the West Coast (i.e. California), you don't get a whole lot of respect. That's just the way it always has been. That's why they tend to sh*t on Central time zones, the South, and Texas so much. Dallas tends to get a bit more respect because of the Dallas TV show, and the fact that the Cowboys won so many Superbowls in the 70s and 90s. Ever wonder why when national media are in Houston, they refer to the city as "Houston, TX"...."We're here in Houston, TX". It's like, do they REALLY need to let people know where the city of Houston, the 4th largest city in America is? It's a subtle form of disrespect. The Sox really are the better team, but it hurts so much seeing how close the Astros were to winning all these games. -scenario-
|
|
|
Post by MelMac on Oct 26, 2005 23:41:24 GMT -5
There has always been an East Coast mentality out there. The East Coast controls so much, and if you are not from the North/East Coast, OR the West Coast (i.e. California), you don't get a whole lot of respect. That's just the way it always has been. That's why they tend to sh*t on Central time zones, the South, and Texas so much. Dallas tends to get a bit more respect because of the Dallas TV show, and the fact that the Cowboys won so many Superbowls in the 70s and 90s. Ever wonder why when national media are in Houston, they refer to the city as "Houston, TX"...."We're here in Houston, TX". It's like, do they REALLY need to let people know where the city of Houston, the 4th largest city in America is? It's a subtle form of disrespect. The Sox really are the better team, but it hurts so much seeing how close the Astros were to winning all these games. -scenario- Yea, I agree with you there. The Sox were the better team this year, but the Astros gave it a good fight. I mean, come on, the team was 15 under .500 at the beginning and then to beat the Braves in an 18-inning marathon then the team with 100 wins this season isn't something to sneeze at. At least it wasn't a team that either has a lot of titles or been there a lot. And, the Sox were a classy team to lose to. Since you mention the East Coast mentality, I guess the columnists were upset the Red Sox, Mets, Yankees and Nationals (apologies if I missed one, and I do like to watch these teams too) did not make the Series this year. I guess it's pretty obvious that I'm a Texan given my affection for the Astros (I've seen a Rangers game, but don't follow them much.) I'd love to have seen the Series at least go five games, with the Astros receiving a taste of what it feels like to win a Series game. It just wasn't in the cards this year. But, if they keep doing this in steps as they've been, next year, they should win the Series. So, congratulations Astros and White Sox for a great season.
|
|
|
Post by deadzoneleaperhero on Oct 27, 2005 1:11:12 GMT -5
No disrespect to the Astros, but I think the WHite Sox were destined this year with the hot start they had at the beginning of the season. Now for some disrespect (just kidding) but I think Phil Garner looks like Don Fanucci from the Godfather Part II. I am happy for Ozzie Guillen, he got his second ring in a 2 year span (He was Marlins 3rdBase Coach in '03)... Speaking of Marlins, they remain the last National League team to win a World Series game, how weird is that?
|
|
|
Post by MelMac on Oct 27, 2005 1:28:55 GMT -5
No disrespect to the Astros, but I think the WHite Sox were destined this year with the hot start they had at the beginning of the season. Now for some disrespect (just kidding) but I think Phil Garner looks like Don Fanucci from the Godfather Part II. I am happy for Ozzie Guillen, he got his second ring in a 2 year span (He was Marlins 3rdBase Coach in '03)... Speaking of Marlins, they remain the last National League team to win a World Series game, how weird is that? Not too weird. IMHO, the Marlins had a good team that year and deserved to be there. I think they had wised up then and didn't disassemble the team as bad as they did the first year they won the Series. That's how the Astros got Alou. I don't get the joke on the resemblance (never seen "The Godfather" series), but hope it doesn't refer to his demeanor. He's part of the reason why the Astros have made it so far these past two years. His immediate predecesor was not as good, and it showed in the team's play. The Sox were the team that was supposed to win this year, but I'm glad that the Astros kept the games close. They didn't roll over and die during tonight's game. Last year, the Cards I think lost by a score of 8-2 or some other far apart number that final night, and the others I think weren't close either. Both teams really were fairly matched. The Astros fought hard and overall don't have any other reasons to be disappointed (other than not winning the Series), mostly for reasons I said in my previous post. I think they'll do even better next year, and I'll be rooting for them come good, bad or curly-cue.
|
|
|
Post by HoudiniDerek on Oct 27, 2005 13:28:54 GMT -5
I think it is funny how two great teams like the Cardinals and the Astros can be neck-in-neck with each other AGAIN this year in the post-season and then they BOTH went on to help break curses for teams with SOX in their name. Guess everyone will be rooting for the Cubs next year.
|
|
|
Post by MelMac on Oct 27, 2005 15:19:45 GMT -5
I think it is funny how two great teams like the Cardinals and the Astros can be neck-in-neck with each other AGAIN this year in the post-season and then they BOTH went on to help break curses for teams with SOX in their name. Guess everyone will be rooting for the Cubs next year. Not me, not one of my favorites, mostly because they are (unfortunately, somewhat unfriendly) rivals to the Astros. (I will watch them play though) Have to admit though, it was kind of interesting to see history repeat itself with two Sox teams winning the series in a row. Still rather had the Astros win. So, you think the Astros were a great team as well, HD?
|
|
|
Post by HoudiniDerek on Oct 27, 2005 22:25:37 GMT -5
This year...I think they deserved the Series. Last year, they sucked.
|
|
scenario
Agent
"We all do what makes us feel good."
Posts: 335
|
Post by scenario on Oct 29, 2005 10:40:02 GMT -5
The Texas Rangers are such a boring baseball team, and I don't mean recent teams, I mean their whole franchise. They've been to what like 2 or 3 playoff apperances in their whole 45 year history? They're 1 year older then the Astros. At least the 'Stros have a solid franchise history to muse about. I think the Astros are probably the more favorite team in Texas anyway, just because of the Nolan Ryan, Roger Clemen and Andy Pettite connection. Brandon Backe too. Texas pitchers and players usually always dream about playing for the Astros. Unless you're from the Dallas area, the Rangers don't have that same appeal.
Now the Dallas Cowboys are a totally different story. They own the majority fans in Texas, and always will.
-scenario-
|
|
|
Post by MelMac on Oct 30, 2005 1:29:33 GMT -5
I agree with you on that scenario, as I've only been to the one Rangers game many years ago (I think I was 6 at the time, and were given tickets to the game). Later, when we moved, we went to a game at the Astrodome. When I saw the million dollar sign light up the first time when an Astro hit a home run, I was hooked. I still follow the team no matter where I live. Funny thing is, I remember watching Mike Scott pitch games better than I do Nolan Ryan, but I saw both pitch.
Problem with the Rangers, at least of what I see, is they start out with a lot of potential and just seem to fade away. With the Astros going to the Series, though they lost, it seems the Rangers will be even more second banana. I seem to read more about the Round Rock Express, San Antonio Missions and Corpus Christi Hooks (minor league teams, and good ones too), than I do about the Rangers.
In fact, the only time I heard about the Rangers this year was when the pitcher decided to get angry at the cameramen for doing their job. It also disappointed me that they let him play in the All-Star game afterward. The fine he had to pay was basically negated when he made it to the All-Stars. He should have been denied the bonus and the All-Stars game.
I also agree with you on the Cowboys. They will always be Texas' team, come rain or shine. I don't miss the Oilers, though, because Houston catered to them and the Oilers bail out of their contract and go to Tennessee.
|
|
|
Post by HoudiniDerek on Oct 30, 2005 13:24:07 GMT -5
Football....are you kidding me? Who cares?
|
|