|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Feb 12, 2013 11:23:22 GMT -5
Last night after flipping through the channels and not finding anything interesting to watch, I turned it to the MLB Network. Intentional Talk was just starting, and their opening topic was on the Giants. The conversation was basically about why the Giants don't get enough respect. Kevin Millar said the Giants weren't sexy, Chris Rose said besides their starting pitching they don't have any stars. I agree with the topic, the Giants don't get enough respect, they're 100% right about that despite what Rog says. But I don't agree with their reasoning.
Does Chris Rose know who won the MVP award this year? Buster Posey is one of the biggest young stars in the game today.
Kevin Millar thinks the Giants aren't "sexy" but Brian Wilson's beard has started a beard revolution amongst relievers in the game. Tim Lincecum is basically a sex symbol in S.F. Every kid in the bay area wants to be Buser Posey. There's a reason why they picked the Giants for "The Franchise." I'm not really an expert on the sexiness of other males. But as a team I'd say the Giants are an interesting mixture of personalities that garner some attention.
So what's the real reason to me?
The real reason is Kevin Millar and Chris Rose.
The east coast bias, and people who have sports shows who say the Giants have no stars, and have no appeal and spend the rest of the time talking about how great Derek Jeter, Bryce Harper and David Ortiz are.
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Feb 12, 2013 11:39:42 GMT -5
They had the Marlins on "the Franchise" last year. I think you give these media guys too much credit. The reason the Giants don't get ink is because the media guys don't know about them. They don't know about them because they don't do their homework. They talk about what they know, and they know about the east coast teams.
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Feb 12, 2013 16:45:36 GMT -5
and how much do you really know about East Coast teams??? Without the internet, LA is completely void of info except for a FEW local teams.....and an occasional human interest story about an athlete....I don't think the Bookmakers in Vegas have too much lean to any coast and they have had very little respect for the Giants....
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Feb 13, 2013 12:39:31 GMT -5
Quite a bit actually. I follow the Yankees pretty closely. I can say this. I know alot more about the east coast clubs than Kevin Millar knows about the Giants. I can't see how this guy keeps his job. He must have something really bad on his employers. He's abrasive, silly, and not very knowledgable.
When you get the Giants on a national broadcast, the announcers are woefully uninformed.
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Feb 13, 2013 13:32:43 GMT -5
and Vin Scully still wonders why Pablo didn't play 3 straight games against the Dodgers....and then again he wonders why player X's numbers are down.....2 games after coming off the 60 day DL...these announcers make so much money they don't think they have to get off their duff to find out what is going on with the other teams....Dodger Jeff Kent was 100% right when he said that Scully don't know squat about the Dodgers because he never entered the club house...and the LA fans started a lynch mob.....
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Feb 13, 2013 21:14:01 GMT -5
Sometimes people don't like to hear the truth about their idols. Take you and Obama.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 14, 2013 10:34:52 GMT -5
Boagie -- The east coast bias, and people who have sports shows who say the Giants have no stars, and have no appeal and spend the rest of the time talking about how great Derek Jeter, Bryce Harper and David Ortiz are. Rog -- The Giants are going to be chosen by most observers to win the NL West. Where is the bias? I just saw them picked as the #1 team by Bleacher Reports. Where is the bias? With the possible exception of Mike Trout, Buster Posey seems to be the most popular player in the majors. Where is the bias? Oh, yeah, Trout is from the West Coast, too. A couple of years ago, Tim Lincecum was the most popular pitcher in baseball. Where is the bias? Brian Wilson and Pablo Sandoval have become almost cult heroes. Where is the bias? And if there WERE (or IS) bias, who cares? In the past five seasons, the Giants have had two Cy Youngs and one MVP. That "bias" doesn't seem to be hurting anything. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1447#ixzz2Kt6poYcK |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 14, 2013 10:35:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 14, 2013 10:41:36 GMT -5
Don -- I don't think the Bookmakers in Vegas have too much lean to any coast and they have had very little respect for the Giants.... Rog -- If the bookmakers aren't giving the Giants enough respect, they could be a good wager. I wll be the first to say I don't think they're the best team, but come the season, they certainly could be. They have a high percentage shot of making the postseason -- likely as the NL West winner -- and we all know what can happen from there. By the way, why do I think the Nationals are the best team? Bryce Harper had a good rookie season, yet he might become the most improved player in the game this year. His 19-year-old stats compare with Mickey Mantle's, and I believe Mick was the MVP at age 20. The Nationals added Dan Haren, who when healthy is one of the best starters around. Dan is pencilled in as the Nationals' #4 starter. The Nationals will have their top pitcher for the entire season (barring another injury). Like the old Tim Lincecum, Stephen Strasburg is annually a potential Cy Young Award winner. There may be other reasons to like the Nationals, but to be honest, I have been too busy with my West Coast Bias to pay any attention beyond what I have noted. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1447&page=1#ixzz2Kt8HZ5qP |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 14, 2013 10:42:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Feb 14, 2013 12:35:02 GMT -5
Allen -- The reason the Giants don't get ink is because the media guys don't know about them. They don't know about them because they don't do their homework. They talk about what they know, and they know about the east coast teams. Rog -- Pullease. Backup for your opinion? Allen- Watch any national broadcast that involves the Giants. They have no idea about what's going on with the team. For example, they'll say a certain player has been playing well, when in fact they've been out with an injury. Or they'll say they;ve been doing poorly when they've done well. They're just looking at the stats and guessing. They don't know. I can see why. The West coast games start at 10 PM on the east coast. I'm sure the media stationed on the east coast don't watch alot of west coast games. It's fine with me. It's a distraction the Giants don't have to put up with. I think the media attention really hurts the Yankees and Red Sox. Especially the Sox the last few years. The Giants can keep flying under the radar and keep on winning. Most of the media these days are pretty poor at their jobs and hopelessly corrupt. Especially the liberal media. You do better just getting the facts and drawing your own conclusions. |
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Feb 14, 2013 12:38:43 GMT -5
Allen -- When you get the Giants on a national broadcast, the announcers are woefully uninformed. Rog -- Joe Buck isn't well-liked here, but when he has broadcast the Giants, I have gotten the impression he is pretty well-informed. Allen- Really? The more I listen to Buck, the impression I get is that he despises present-day baseball (mostly because of steroids), thinks all the promotions that Fox does are silly, and is only there for the bucks (no pun intended). McCarver is horrible. He's one of the guys I'm referring to who are woefully uninformed about the Giants. |
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Feb 14, 2013 14:10:52 GMT -5
Rog -- If the bookmakers aren't giving the Giants enough respect, they could be a good wager. I wll be the first to say I don't think they're the best team, but come the season, they certainly could be.
Boagie- They've proven they're the best team. Another instance where you put more importance with what's on paper than what happens on the field.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 15, 2013 10:15:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 15, 2013 10:32:22 GMT -5
Rog -- If the bookmakers aren't giving the Giants enough respect, they could be a good wager. I wll be the first to say I don't think they're the best team, but come the season, they certainly could be. Boagie- They've proven they're the best team. Another instance where you put more importance with what's on paper than what happens on the field. Rog -- Man, I hate to disagree with you on so much, Boagie, but lately I've been disagreeing with almost everything you say. First, the Giants didn't prove they were the best team last season. They proved they were the best team in the post-season tournament. I realize how much importance we put in championships, and there is no question the post-season is more exciting than the regular season -- but it is more exciting for the same reason it is less revealing. It isn't a large-sample full season, but rather a short-season tournament. Big samples are almost always more revealing than smaller ones. I love tournaments as much as anyone, but I also realize they are just that -- tournaments. As far as whether I put more importance on paper than what happens in the field, I'm not even seeing any paper here. You remember the old joke about the Giants, don't you? That the Giants should have put paper on the field at Candlestick, since they always looked good on paper? Now, if by paper you mean trying to analyze how a team will be going forward rather than how they played in the past, yeah, I would have to say "paper" is important. The Giants looked really good "on paper" entering 2011, but it didn't quite work out that way. The primary reason they looked good on paper was how well they performed in 2010, particularly in the postseason. I know I myself overestimated them. I could blame it on the loss of Buster Posey, and that was indeed huge, but there was no way I could have predicted the marvelous success of Ryan Vogelsong, which to some degree offset the loss of Buster. Going into 2012 I would say many underestimated the Giants. Perhaps the biggest reason was how Buster would bounce back. Then there was the question of whether Vogelsong was a one-year wonder. I was fairly optimistic about both player, especially Posey, but both had even better seasons than I had expected. Entering this season the primary questions would seem to be if Tim Lincecum can bounce back, and if the rest of the team can hold serve. If both those things happen, the Giants should be as good as anyone. If paper is just that -- paper -- I agree with you that it isn't very important in evaluating a team's chances. But if paper is in fact just that, evaluating a team's chances going forward, by definition it is clearly very important. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1447&page=1#ixzz2KytdyHh4 |
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Feb 15, 2013 12:31:55 GMT -5
Rog -- Man, I hate to disagree with you on so much, Boagie, but lately I've been disagreeing with almost everything you say.
Boagie- I like to think of it as more of a conversation, and less of a dissagreement.
Rog- First, the Giants didn't prove they were the best team last season. They proved they were the best team in the post-season tournament.
Boagie- I used to think this way. I liked to say the Giants were the best team eventhough they got knocked off in the first or second round. After a while I realized the best team doesn't let the other teams expose their weaknesses, because the best teams don't have a glaring weakness.
In 2011 we did have a glaring weakness, we didn't have Buster Posey catching and in the middle of our lineup, and we only had Whiteside and Stewart to replace him. Teams exposed that weakness on a nightly basis.
In 2002 our weakness (over worked bullpen) was exposed by what I believe now to be the better team, the Angels. We may have been better before that point, but we couldn't shut the door.
Last season the Nationals were a good team, no question. But when it came down to the 5th game against the Cardinals, their weakness was exposed. Much like us in 2002, they couldn't finish it off.
Rog- I realize how much importance we put in championships, and there is no question the post-season is more exciting than the regular season -- but it is more exciting for the same reason it is less revealing. It isn't a large-sample full season, but rather a short-season tournament. Big samples are almost always more revealing than smaller ones.
Boagie- One could think that way. Or one could take the regular season AND the post season and say that's really the bigger sample than just the regular season. In that bigger sample, the Giants won more games than the Nationals did. So even with your bigger sample theory, the Giants were the best team.
Did the Nationals win more during the season? Yes. You could claim the Nationals were the best team in the NL during the regular season, but taking away what the Giants did during the post season is like me taking away a small portion of the Nationals season when they won the most. If I did that, it's likely the Giants would have the better record during the regular season. But why do that? that's just hiding the true facts. The fact here is that the Giants won more games overall, and beat the teams when it mattered most, the Nationals didn't.
It's also worth noting that a season series is shorter than a post-season series. Using your larger sample theory, I would think a post-season series would be the better judge of which team is better head to head, opposed to a regular season series. When the cards were down..The Nationals lost. (see what I did there?)
Now, on paper you might be right, especially going into this season. The Nationals might look like the better team on paper. But right now, the Giants are the better team on the field, they've proved it, they have the rings, and trophy to prove it. The Giants are the only team that can say "we're the best team" and people have to just sit back and take it. One team every year earns that right. If the Nationals win it this year (which I believe they have a legitimate shot at doing) then they can claim to be the best team.
It's kind of like rock-paper-scissors, Rog... trophy beats your paper whether you like it or not.
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Feb 15, 2013 13:24:37 GMT -5
Allen -- When you get the Giants on a national broadcast, the announcers are woefully uninformed. Rog -- Joe Buck isn't well-liked here, but when he has broadcast the Giants, I have gotten the impression he is pretty well-informed. Allen- Really? The more I listen to Buck, the impression I get is that he despises present-day baseball (mostly because of steroids), thinks all the promotions that Fox does are silly, and is only there for the bucks (no pun intended). McCarver is horrible. He's one of the guys I'm referring to who are woefully uninformed about the Giants. dk..I just wonder if the out of town announcers degree of being informed relates to the info departments of the teams...I don't think any announcer can keep up with every thing going on with all teams that he broadcast...I do think they should get a good briefing before a game...they are only as good as what people tell him...I don't like Buck, but I do think McCarver has a lot to offer...not always good, but usually informative.....the best call I can remember when Tim said they should not play the infield in against Luis Gonzalez in the 2001 WS's 7th game...they played the infield in and Gonzo hit the ball to where the infielder should have been playing and the winning run scored... |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 15, 2013 17:25:15 GMT -5
Rog- First, the Giants didn't prove they were the best team last season. They proved they were the best team in the post-season tournament. Boagie- I used to think this way. I liked to say the Giants were the best team eventhough they got knocked off in the first or second round. After a while I realized the best team doesn't let the other teams expose their weaknesses, because the best teams don't have a glaring weakness. Rog -- The regular season is a much larger sample, and thus the better measure of a team overall. The posteason can be affected by: . Luck. In a 5-game of 7-game series, it isn't uncommon to see at least one of the game heavily influenced by luck. . Hot streaks. All teams have hot and cold streaks. Run into a team on a hot streak, and you are likely soon out of the tournament. . Matchups. Sometimes a team just won't match up with another team. Maybe they don't hit the other teams' pitching, or the other team hits theirs. Run into a team you don't match up with, and you could soon leave the tournament. . Depth. In the long season, depth is an important factor. All 25 players will be tested to at least some degree, and usually with injuries the number rises even higher. In the postseason, teams can get by with four starters and/or 11 pitchers. . The designated hitter. The designated hitter comes into play for both leagues in the World Series. A National League team may have a top hitter on the bench to fill that spot in the order, or their strengths may lie in other areas. . Weather. Probably not a big factor too often, but whereas in the regular season, teams are tested primarily in the heat of summer, post-season games can be played in far different conditions. . Rest. During the regular season, teams have long streaks of playing every day, and other times when they get plenty of rest. During the post-season, rest is plentiful. . Injuries. If a key player is out of the lineup for a month during the regular season, his team has another 135 or so games to overcome the loss. If a key player is out of the lineup for a month in the postseason, the impact can be huge and immediate. . Trades and callups. In the regular season, teams' records are affected by their original lineups as well as their midseason trades and callups. In the postseason, the early-season roster makes a difference only as it contributes to the post-season roster -- which can be considerably different. To be honest, there are more factors that change the balance between the regular season and the post-season than I realized when I began writing this post. The post-season is tremendously exciting. But it doesn't necessarily produce the best team overall. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1447#ixzz2L0am0exb |
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Feb 17, 2013 19:37:07 GMT -5
You still think the reg season is a larger sample than the reg season and post-season combined? I don't see your logic here.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 17, 2013 20:43:32 GMT -5
Boagie -- You still think the reg season is a larger sample than the reg season and post-season combined? I don't see your logic here. Rog -- You really thought I believed a smaller sample was bigger than a larger sample? By definition, the regular season and post-season are a larger sample than the regular season alone. But the combination is also an unequal sample, since different teams play very different numbers of games in the post-season -- all the way from none to a potential of 19. As I have pointed out in more ways than I thought possible, the post-season is FAR different from the regular season. By the way, if you want to combine the season and post-season, the team with the best winning percentage was the Washington Nationals. The Giants wound up with five more wins -- but also six more losses. The Nationals sat their best starter for more than the last month that they played -- and still put up the best record. It would be hard to argue that they weren't the best team in baseball. And I suspect they'll be even better in 2013. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1447&page=1#8920#ixzz2LD6JqpiY |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 17, 2013 20:44:45 GMT -5
Actually, teams can now play a potential of 20 games in the postseason, up from 19 prior to 2012.
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Feb 18, 2013 12:49:54 GMT -5
Rog- With the possible exception of Mike Trout, Buster Posey seems to be the most popular player in the majors. Where is the bias? Oh, yeah, Trout is from the West Coast, too.
Boagie- You honestly believe Posey is a bigger household name than Derek Jeter? How about Alex Rodriguez?
How many average fans today would have a better idea of who Willie McCovey is opposed to Mickey Mantle? They're both in the HoF and have about the same amount of homeruns.. Shouldn't their fame be the same? How many non-Giants fans would even be able to tell you McCovery's number?
Let's do the same with Mel Ott and Joe Dimaggio? Both teams were in New York at the time, but now that the Giants franchise is on the West Coast is there a chance that a large percentage of baseball fans polled would even know who Ott is?
If you were to poll baseball fans around the country what baseball rivalry would come up #1? Is there much of a chance the Yankees/Redsox rivalry wouldn't make #1 eventhough the Giants/Dodgers rivalry has been more extensive?
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Feb 18, 2013 23:04:00 GMT -5
Rog- With the possible exception of Mike Trout, Buster Posey seems to be the most popular player in the majors. Where is the bias? Oh, yeah, Trout is from the West Coast, too. Boagie- You honestly believe Posey is a bigger household name than Derek Jeter? How about Alex Rodriguez? How many average fans today would have a better idea of who Willie McCovey is opposed to Mickey Mantle? They're both in the HoF and have about the same amount of homeruns.. Shouldn't their fame be the same? How many non-Giants fans would even be able to tell you McCovery's number? Let's do the same with Mel Ott and Joe Dimaggio? Both teams were in New York at the time, but now that the Giants franchise is on the West Coast is there a chance that a large percentage of baseball fans polled would even know who Ott is? dk..I wrote to the Giants last year that they should have games honoring each retired guy whose numbers are on the wall...they wrote back and said they were going to have one game to honor all of them...I never heard whether this happened or not...I was pissed last year when some posters on another board were saying some untrue info on Mel Ott....I think the Giants could put a little effort into keeping the stories behind these guys into the modern fan base... |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 19, 2013 12:04:55 GMT -5
Rog- With the possible exception of Mike Trout, Buster Posey seems to be the most popular player in the majors. Where is the bias? Oh, yeah, Trout is from the West Coast, too. Boagie- You honestly believe Posey is a bigger household name than Derek Jeter? How about Alex Rodriguez? Rog -- I forgot about Derek, who has been tremendously popular for a long time. I have to agree with you that he is more popular than Buster. But I do think Buster is more popular now than Rodriguez -- or just about any other player as well. Three years ago Tim Lincecum was one of the most popular players in baseball, particularly among the younger fans. Pablo Sandoval and Brian Wilson are far more popular than most players. Matt Cain isn't as popular as he should be, but I think that is mostly because of his non-meteoric personality, his workmanlike rather than spectacular performances (aside from his perfect game, of course), his having been in the shadow of Tim Lincecum until recently, and his won-loss record having been below .500 until last season. Boagie -- How many average fans today would have a better idea of who Willie McCovey is opposed to Mickey Mantle? They're both in the HoF and have about the same amount of homeruns.. Shouldn't their fame be the same? How many non-Giants fans would even be able to tell you McCovery's number? Rog -- The better comparison is between Mays and Mantle, who have indeed been compared since their rookie seasons and who were immortalized along with Duke Snider as Willie, Mickey and the Duke. In this case, Mays is the more famous -- as well as the better ballplayer. Part of the reason Mantle is far more famous than McCovey is that he was a much better player. You're comparing a five-tool player to a two-tool player or even a one-tooler (McCovey's career average was only .270). Boagie -- Let's do the same with Mel Ott and Joe Dimaggio? Both teams were in New York at the time, but now that the Giants franchise is on the West Coast is there a chance that a large percentage of baseball fans polled would even know who Ott is? Rog -- Don is in far better position to answer this than I am, but here are some of the reasons I think they are remembered differently: . DiMaggio was once married to Marliyn Monroe, so clearly he was the far more visible of the two. . At 6-foot-2, 190 pounds of grace, Joe was one of the most elegant players to play the game, whereas Ott was a stumpy 5-foot-7, 170. . DiMaggio continued the tradition of Ruth and Gehrig (which was then continued by Mantle, by the way), whereas the tradition of Christy Mathewson (probably the most popular player in the game during his time in the majors) was long gone. . Joe was known as Joltin' Joe or The Yankee Clipper, whereas most now don't even know Mel's nickname (which was Master Melvin). Had Mel been known as Monster Melvin, perhaps his image today would be better remembered. The Yankee Clipper, the Babe, the Iron Horse, the Say Hey Kid, Master Melvin. Which is the outlier? The Mick. The Hammer (or Hammerin' Hank). Perhaps if Melvin had simply been known as the Master. Boagie -- If you were to poll baseball fans around the country what baseball rivalry would come up #1? Is there much of a chance the Yankees/Redsox rivalry wouldn't make #1 eventhough the Giants/Dodgers rivalry has been more extensive? Rog -- I agree with you here. Probably the Giants/Dodgers rivalry was originally bigger, but in truth, as clear as it is now, it isn't nearly as fierce as it once was. Don't know whether it truly makes a difference or not, but in part the Yankees/Red Sox rivalry is based on the Red Sox having once traded the greatest player in the game to the Yankees -- for money! As the Red Sox fans should have been saying at the time of the trade, No, No, Nanette. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1447&page=1#8979#ixzz2LMbllPZI |
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Feb 19, 2013 13:33:10 GMT -5
Boagie -- Let's do the same with Mel Ott and Joe Dimaggio? Both teams were in New York at the time, but now that the Giants franchise is on the West Coast is there a chance that a large percentage of baseball fans polled would even know who Ott is?
Rog -- Don is in far better position to answer this than I am, but here are some of the reasons I think they are remembered differently:
. DiMaggio was once married to Marliyn Monroe, so clearly he was the far more visible of the two.
. At 6-foot-2, 190 pounds of grace, Joe was one of the most elegant players to play the game, whereas Ott was a stumpy 5-foot-7, 170.
dk...Mel was 5'-9", 170#..hardly stumpy, I was the same size when I met Mel in 1943....Mel was well known in the cities he played in...however, with no interleague play or national radio or television fame was limited some what...and no one could outdo the Babe...The biggest crowd I was ever in at the Polo Grounds was Mel Ott Night..August, 1940....one of my unexpected thrills was the standing ovation Mel got in Ebbets Field....I don't think size worked against Mel, he was average size for men....Mel was a "giant" compared to Hack Wilson, Cub slugger at 5'-6", 190#...and I think Hack still has the single season RBI record(191) set in 1930....the one thing that people knew about Mel, besides his stats, was the high kick as he stepped into the pitch...many batters approach this kick but not quite...Mel also dropped his hands down below his waist...but when he swung he was grounded and his hands higher...
. DiMaggio continued the tradition of Ruth and Gehrig (which was then continued by Mantle, by the way), whereas the tradition of Christy Mathewson (probably the most popular player in the game during his time in the majors) was long gone.
. Joe was known as Joltin' Joe or The Yankee Clipper, whereas most now don't even know Mel's nickname (which was Master Melvin). Had Mel been known as Monster Melvin, perhaps his image today would be better remembered. The Yankee Clipper, the Babe, the Iron Horse, the Say Hey Kid, Master Melvin. Which is the outlier?
The Mick. The Hammer (or Hammerin' Hank). Perhaps if Melvin had simply been known as the Master.
dk...when you start to play in the majors when you are 17, Master is closer to discribing him than Mister...Joe, Mel and Lou were quiet guys who didn't make many waves and got little print..until they marry or get a deadly disease named after them Fickle fans remember the front runners...like Babe...how many fans remember Jimmy Foxx....second to the Babe....there are many old ball players who were great in their time and will remain that way until some guy trying to make a quick buck will write a book or flood the blogs with stats to diss their records....the one thing about Mel was the guys who are quick to belittle Mel for hitting a high % of his homers in the Polo Grounds and point to the short fences....of course they never research to see how many homers were hit for long distance and not down the foul lines...and the big secrete that Mel had more NL career homers on the road than any other hitter of his era...
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 19, 2013 21:01:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Feb 19, 2013 23:45:01 GMT -5
Rog -- The better comparison is between Mays and Mantle, who have indeed been compared since their rookie seasons and who were immortalized along with Duke Snider as Willie, Mickey and the Duke.
Boagie- Another good example, Mantle is still the more famous of the two eventhough Mays had better numbers, was faster and better defensively.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 20, 2013 10:20:55 GMT -5
Rog -- The better comparison is between Mays and Mantle, who have indeed been compared since their rookie seasons and who were immortalized along with Duke Snider as Willie, Mickey and the Duke. Boagie- Another good example, Mantle is still the more famous of the two eventhough Mays had better numbers, was faster and better defensively. Rog -- Where did you get the idea Mantle is more famous? Every single rating I have seen has had Willie above Mickey. The one thing you are probably wrong about here is when you say that Willie was faster. Despite a knee injury, ironically suffered against the Giants in the 1951 World Series,Mantle was likely the fastest player in the game when he was young. He had incredible splits to first base from both the right and left sides. The Mick was plenty good. I remember being jealous for Willie after Mantle's spectacular 1956 Triple Crown season. That season Mickey batted .353 with 52 homers and 130 RBI's. Even more spectacular were his .464 OBP, his .705 SLG and his 1.169 OPS. As great as Willie was, his 1.078 peak fell nearly 100 points behind Mickey's OPS that season. The Mick himself had one season with an even higher OPS though, following the 1.169 with 1.177 the following year. Mantle had a 1.000+ OPS no fewer than eight seasons. Now, if you want a bias here, let's talk about the San Francisco bias. As great as Mays was, some felt Willie McCovey was more popular than his namesake Mays. The San Francisco fans were said to have felt that Willie was a New York creation and thus took even to Orlando Cepeda even more in the Giants' first season in SF. Orlando was deemed to be THEIRS, while Willie was still an outsider. Willie had a brick thrown through the window of his house back then. Which brings us to another point. Willie is considered the better ballplayer of the two even though Willie is BLACK. Clearly that shouldn't matter, but it "mattered" more back then than now. Again, Boagie, I hate to continue to disagree with you seemingly all the time. I do respect your knowledge and opinions. But here I think you are way off base -- starting when you compared Mantle with McCovey. Mantle was quite a bit better than even Willie Mac. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1447&page=1#9013#ixzz2LS4yM3hC |
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Feb 20, 2013 12:04:56 GMT -5
Rog -- Where did you get the idea Mantle is more famous? Every single rating I have seen has had Willie above Mickey.
Boagie- Fame isn't really based on playing ability. Mickey Mantle and references to him find their way onto the big screen and television more so than Mays. Bob Costas and Billy Crystal can't go a sentence without mentioning "The Mick." Again, this is not about who was better, it's about an east coast bias that has created a perception. You ask young baseball fans today and I believe overwhelmingly they would know more about Mantle than they would about Mays. Just my opinion.
Rog- Now, if you want a bias here, let's talk about the San Francisco bias. As great as Mays was, some felt Willie McCovey was more popular than his namesake Mays. The San Francisco fans were said to have felt that Willie was a New York creation and thus took even to Orlando Cepeda even more in the Giants' first season in SF. Orlando was deemed to be THEIRS, while Willie was still an outsider.
Boagie- I understand this, I would feel the same, infact I do. I have more of a connection to Lincecum and Cain than I do Barry Zito because Barry wasn't home grown and I didn't follow him in our system. But I'm allowed to be biased, I'm a fan, I'm not a professional analyst, writer, or announcer.
I am fully aware that fans on the east coast don't think west coast baseball lives up to east coast baseball. I have no problem with them thinking that, they're fans, there's supposed to be a bias among fans of teams.
However, the national media is not supposed to be biased. That's what we're talking about here. There IS a bias amongst professional sports writers, annoucers and analysts. There's too many instances of this being evident for you to completely discount it. You could say "it's not as widespread as you think" or "it doesn't really bother me" and I'd take that. Heck, I'd probably agree with you, because it doesn't bother me that much either, and some people exaggerate it. But, to say there is no bias in all of sports media, is just 100% false.
An example of me thinking people exaggerate it is all this talk recently about Buck and McCarver. I agree that having Buck and McCarver announce the NLCS was a tad bias because they both have ties with the Cardinals, but I thought they did a great job in the NLCS and World Series. They may not be the best announcers in the game, but I thought they made some good observations and comments that actually favored the Giants.
#1 they both commented on Holliday's slide getting down way too late on Scutaro, and they were right. He may not have intended it to be a dirty slide, but it was a dirty slide.
#2 Right when Matt Cain hit Holliday in the 7th game, McCarver said that you don't wake the beast in a playoff series. While I think Holliday was deserving of being hit and appreciate Cain's guts in doing so, McCarver is 100% correct. They didn;'t say it was dirty of Cain to hit him, they knew he had it coming, but in the seventh game of the NLCS you don't look for revenge.
#3 Buck actually sounded excited when Pablo hit the 3rd homerun. He also said "Crawford is playing the HECK out of shortstop" and both went into some detail about how great the defense was, especially Blanco, Belt and Crawford.
#4 They caught the 3-hit broken bat from Pence almost instantly. Although they did replay it like 20 times too many.
Overall, I think they did a good job, it's probably the best I've heard those two together, ever.
So, I'm not all about the bias, Rog. I give announcers, writers and analysts a fair shake. But sometimes the bias against the Giants hits a ridiculous level, where I feel a comment is warranted. Like having AJ Pierzynski and Eric Karros doing the pre-game show during the post season. Karros even said "it's nice to have someone here that's more hated by Giants fans than I am."
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 20, 2013 13:27:25 GMT -5
Boagie -- I am fully aware that fans on the east coast don't think west coast baseball lives up to east coast baseball. Rog -- Really? Why would they feel that way? When the Giants and Dodgers moved to San Francisco and LA, they both put up very good teams almost immediately. Most of the other West Coast teams have had success at one time or another. I mentioned yesterday that The Sporting News -- also known as the Bible of Baseball -- rate the Giants #1, the Dodgers #5, the Angels #6, the A's #9, the Rangers #12 and the Royals #14 this winter. The Sporting News is in St. Louis, but I don't think anyone would consider that to be the West Coast or even the West. I remember living in areas where the fans were Cubs fans and later Cardinals fans. Once the Giants and Dodgers moved west, I never got the idea the fans thought either team was the lesser for having made the move. As an aside, I have found it intriguing that when I lived in the Midwest, we called Texas, California, etc. "out West." Living on the West Coast now, we refer to the Midwest and East Coast as "back East." I guess it's something akin to how one can tell if a Californian is from NorCal or SoCal. If the person calls Highway 5 "Highway 5" or simply "5," he's likely from NorCal. If he calls it "the 5," he's probably from SoCal. Of course, I was a Giants fan when I lived in the Midwest, and for most of the time I lived there, they were clearly an East Coast team. But whether they were in New York or in San Francisco, I never got the opinion anyone I was around thought they were a lesser team. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1447&page=1#9025#ixzz2LSqFCEFc |
|
