|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 19, 2013 21:04:09 GMT -5
St. Louis isn't exactly the East Coast, but being in the central time zone, it is closer to the East Coast than to the West.
Why do I mention it? The Sporting News is published in St. Louis, and it picked the Giants #1, the Dodgers #5, the Angels #6, the A's #9, the Rangers #12, and the Royals #14. (Maybe I'm asleep, but that last one surprised me.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Feb 21, 2013 10:55:15 GMT -5
Rog- St. Louis isn't exactly the East Coast, but being in the central time zone, it is closer to the East Coast than to the West.
Why do I mention it? The Sporting News is published in St. Louis, and it picked the Giants #1, the Dodgers #5, the Angels #6, the A's #9, the Rangers #12, and the Royals #14. (Maybe I'm asleep, but that last one surprised me.)
Boagie- The Sporting News says alot of stuff. I just read the Sporting News spring training preview and their bottom line was -"If Lincecum has a major bounce back and Zito remains on the pace he set last season, the Giants will have five legitimate, top-of-the-rotation arms. And that would allow them to surprise the Dodgers. The Giants are a blue-collar, play-the-game-smart, no-fanfare type of team. The pieces fit well together. They may not win the West, but they will be a factor."
That to me sounds like they're picked as the underdogs looking up at the Dodgers. Plus, I'm not sure how "no-fanfare" applies to the Giants unless you're some east coast biased sports writer.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 21, 2013 12:27:05 GMT -5
Boagie- The Sporting News says alot of stuff. I just read the Sporting News spring training preview and their bottom line was -"If Lincecum has a major bounce back and Zito remains on the pace he set last season, the Giants will have five legitimate, top-of-the-rotation arms. And that would allow them to surprise the Dodgers. The Giants are a blue-collar, play-the-game-smart, no-fanfare type of team. The pieces fit well together. They may not win the West, but they will be a factor."
That to me sounds like they're picked as the underdogs looking up at the Dodgers. Plus, I'm not sure how "no-fanfare" applies to the Giants unless you're some east coast biased sports writer.
Rog -- A couple of points here:
First, there are many writers for The Sporting News, and -- is the case with multiple posters here -- there are going to be different opinions among them. But I would say the most illustrative opinion is that expressed in their "Power Rankings," in which the 30 teams are ranked from #1 to #30. The Giants were ranked #1; the Dodgers were ranked #5.
Second, just how would choosing the Dodgers over the Giants show an East Coast Bias, anyway?
By the way, saying a team as a "blue-collar, play-the-game-smart, no-fanfare type of team" is actually rather high praise, isn't it? You would prefer to watch a team described as "afraid to get their hands dirty, lacking in fundamentals, over-hyped"?
It is my feeling that some here are simply looking to nit-pick. It's as if having the Giants ranked #1 isn't enough; no other team should be ranked higher than #3.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 21, 2013 12:35:52 GMT -5
Boagie- The Sporting News says alot of stuff. I just read the Sporting News spring training preview and their bottom line was -"If Lincecum has a major bounce back and Zito remains on the pace he set last season, the Giants will have five legitimate, top-of-the-rotation arms. And that would allow them to surprise the Dodgers. The Giants are a blue-collar, play-the-game-smart, no-fanfare type of team. The pieces fit well together. They may not win the West, but they will be a factor."
That to me sounds like they're picked as the underdogs looking up at the Dodgers. Plus, I'm not sure how "no-fanfare" applies to the Giants unless you're some east coast biased sports writer.
Rog -- A couple of points here:
First, there are many writers for The Sporting News, and -- is the case with multiple posters here -- there are going to be different opinions among them. But I would say the most illustrative opinion is that expressed in their "Power Rankings," in which the 30 teams are ranked from #1 to #30. The Giants were ranked #1; the Dodgers were ranked #5.
Second, just how would choosing the Dodgers over the Giants show an East Coast Bias, anyway?
By the way, saying a team as a "blue-collar, play-the-game-smart, no-fanfare type of team" is actually rather high praise, isn't it? You would prefer to watch a team described as "afraid to get their hands dirty, lacking in fundamentals, over-hyped"?
It is my feeling that some here are simply looking to nit-pick. It's as if having the Giants ranked #1 isn't enough; no other team should be ranked higher than #3.
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Feb 21, 2013 16:21:23 GMT -5
St. Louis isn't exactly the East Coast, but being in the central time zone, it is closer to the East Coast than to the West. Why do I mention it? The Sporting News is published in St. Louis, and it picked the Giants #1, the Dodgers #5, the Angels #6, the A's #9, the Rangers #12, and the Royals #14. (Maybe I'm asleep, but that last one surprised me.) I started to read the Sporting News in 1936...it was a great baseball weekly...it covered every team in every league...47 leagues at one time....they had box scores of every game down to class A...not B,C,or D...they had the averages of all leagues...then they went to the slick magazine and covered all sports, none too well....the worst of the SN is on the web....there is definitely a East Coast bias...all scores are on the EST...and if you look for scores after 9PM, PST..they are gone....I wrote to them to inform them that there were fans on the West Coast and they should keep the scores posted for the day until 12PM, PST...I also said they should hire someone to improve their site who knows sports ....they have a feature on the scores page that says pick another date...and they Ive you a calendar...2 months ahead...I told them we could make a lot of money if they could give me scores 2 months ahead of the day of the game...that cut off our correspondence.. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Feb 21, 2013 17:18:28 GMT -5
You would prefer to watch a team described as "afraid to get their hands dirty, lacking in fundamentals, over-hyped"?
Allen- Wouldn't this be a pretty good description of last year's Dodgers?
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 21, 2013 18:03:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Feb 21, 2013 20:52:27 GMT -5
I'm not. I can't speak for anyone else.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Feb 22, 2013 11:28:17 GMT -5
|
|
