|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 10, 2013 14:27:59 GMT -5
Rog is right; Hate is a strong word. But since I'm prone to Hyperbole, it's the word I PREFER to use when discusing the Dodgers. I hate them. I absolutely can't stand to see them do well. That doesn't mean I 'hate' the players, I hate that they win. I hate that the sometimes/too often beat the Giants. I hate it when they do well. Period! I hate it when they finish above us in the standings. I hate when one of their stars is better than our supposedly equal star; Lincecum-Kershaw. I hate living behind the blue curtain, an hour north of LA. Thus, I hate the Dodgers.  boly |
|
sfgdood
Long time member 
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Dec 10, 2013 14:59:05 GMT -5
I'll give you a little story about my hatred for the Dodgers:
When I was in college in San Luis Obispo, I was rushing fraternities in my first year. There were two houses that invited me to their final party/gathering prior to their deciding which rushees were to receive bids. Both houses were filled with fun dudes and I would have enjoyed either one. I had no idea of how good my standing was in either house.
One of the fraternities held a Q&A with each prospective pledge having a turn in which active members fired off questions his way. The questions varied in topic and were basically designed to make the rushee think quickly on his toes in front of a full house of judges. Now, Cal Poly is a school roughly equidistant between LA and the Bay Area and has equal number of students from Socal and Norcal. The final question I got was this..."If it meant receiving a bid to pledge this house or not receiving one, would you switch your allegiance and become a Dodger fan?"
After thinking about it for about a half a second, I cleared my throat and shot back "I'd rather get shot in the face with a double barrel shotgun at point blank range." Thing is, I wasn't just trying to be funny...I sincerely meant it! The entire active membership, Socal and Norcal, gave me a standing O. Needless to say I received a bid to pledge the house, even though I chose the other house in the end.
This is what loyalty and rivalry is all about, IMO.
~Dood
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 10, 2013 17:16:32 GMT -5
Nice story, Randy and I agree, Boly. Except after the Giants are out of the race I don't really care what the Dodgers do. However, beating the Dodgers feels better. We'll all remember Brian Johnson's homerun.
I'll never agree with Rog's take on the rivalry, but for me its diminished slightly due to this era of free agents switching teams so frequently. I can't hate Juan Uribe, I just can't. Baseball has changed in that aspect. When I first became a fan I learned to hate Valenzuela, Sax, Marshall Ect..these days that hatred for players has diminished. I don't hate Kershaw and Kemp. The only player that really rubs me the wrong way is Chase Utley, and he's never worn a Dodgers jersey.
But, the rivalry is still there. Both teams need that rivalry.
I hate Lasorda, but I still remember him on the last game at the stick purposely get ejected and do the walk of shame down the right field line blowing kisses to the Giants fans. I hate the sob but I give him credit, he gets it.
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 10, 2013 17:56:12 GMT -5
Could it be that it isn't free agency, but rather that you've matured over the years?
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 10, 2013 18:01:28 GMT -5
Here's one. I had a group of friends that went to games with when I was in my late teens/early twenties. One of us had behavior issues when he'd had a few pops. After one game (a Giants loss, not to the Dodgers) we were returning to our car when this friend saw someone about a hundred yeards away in a Dodger hat. He ran at the guy and jumped on his back, knocking him down. Luckily, the guy (who was alot bigger than him) realized he was drunk and was cool about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 10, 2013 19:07:45 GMT -5
Allen- Could it be that it isn't free agency, but rather that you've matured over the years?
Boagie- I'm fairly certain that isn't the case. In fact I'd say I let my emotions while I'm watching baseball take over now more than ever before.
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 10, 2013 21:13:57 GMT -5
Just the opposite here. I once threw a phone through a window during a Giant playoff game vs. the Cards in 87. Footnote: The Giants ended up winning the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 12, 2013 22:33:19 GMT -5
I didn't throw a phone, but I did take the '87 Cardinals series hard. Was it game 3 when Atlee Hammaker blew a big lead on Friday night? Not sure which game it was (maybe #2), but that was the night when after the game, Wes Speier -- Chris' dad -- had a heart attack which turned out to be fatal a day after the Giants.
I also remember going to the 3rd (?) playoff game in 2003 with the Marlins. Again, the Giants took a nice lead -- only to have Sir Sidney Ponson pitch less than regally.
I realize I differ from most of the rest of this board in this regard, but when the Giants lose I don't care if it's to the Los Angeles Dodgers or any of the other 28 teams. It's still a Giants loss, which makes me wonder why others take the loss to the Dodgers harder than any other loss.
I know I'm fighting a losing battle here, but a Giants loss is more or less pure hell -- regardless of to whom they lose. It is the Giants' loss that makes it so horrible -- not which team actually won.
In a way, I'm offended that the purity of a Giants' loss is dependent in part on whom the opponent is.
When the Giants lost the 2002 World Series, it was just plain AWFUL. How could it have been worse if they had lost to the Dodgers? How could it have been worse period?
|
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Dec 12, 2013 23:59:37 GMT -5
The Ponson game was game two, after Jason Schmidt pitched an amazing game one. Ponson was bad, but he actually left with a lead and then Joe Nathan came in and pitched poorly, changing the momentum of the series completely. Then came Jose Cruz Jr. In game three, JT Snow trying to score in game four, and complete heartbreak for the second year in a row.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 13, 2013 0:54:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 13, 2013 1:00:37 GMT -5
I can see you genuinely don't understand the true idea of a rivalry, Rog. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you just enjoy the game of baseball. The history, the friends youve met being a fan, the statistical analysis (of course.) But you dont have unbridled passion. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.
Whether I'm right or wrong I dont see you as less of a fan. I consider myself about as loyal a fan as possible, and if I'm at a spring training game I'm as timid as can be, but I enjoy the game and still am as much of a fan if not more than those who are chanting "let's go Giants" or stand up and cheer.
My cousin who introduced me to Giants baseball has no unbridled passion either. She's been following the Giants much longer than me, but her interest with the Giants is more focused on their off the field lives (somewhat like you). I'm still convinced she had almost zero interest in the Giants winning the world series. But I dont think she's any less of a fan. But I find a strong correlation between her and you.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 13, 2013 1:18:38 GMT -5
Boagie -- But you dont have unbridled passion. Again, correct me if I'm wrong. Rog -- Consider yourself corrected. When I played and lost, it was as if the world had ended. Same when my team lost in the postseason or came close but didn't make them. As I've aged, I've gotten more perspective, but one of the things that makes overtime in a deciding game of the Stanley Cup playoffs so exciting is that in a single instant a fan can go to heaven or to hell. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2129&page=1#17666#ixzz2nKhjrsjm |
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 13, 2013 11:15:20 GMT -5
Fair enough. But I was referring to being a Giants fan, not playing baseball or watching hockey. I was referring to being a Giants fan. After a Giants game that's decided by a blown call by an umpire you tend to downplay it while others are calling for the umpire's head. Both times the Giants won the World Series you said it was largely due to luck. Again, perhaps I'm misreading you, but having these opinions I would find it hard to have unbridled passion when almost all of your comments are very bridled.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 13, 2013 12:40:49 GMT -5
Boagie -- I was referring to being a Giants fan. After a Giants game that's decided by a blown call by an umpire you tend to downplay it while others are calling for the umpire's head. Both times the Giants won the World Series you said it was largely due to luck. Again, perhaps I'm misreading you, but having these opinions I would find it hard to have unbridled passion when almost all of your comments are very bridled. Rog -- My fiancee would like my comments to be very brided. Here's the thing though. When I watch a game, I see as many layers as anyone here. I love to guess the pitches, both as to what the pitcher WILL throw and what I would have him throw. As we know, they are sometimes two completely different things. I like to look at situations in which I would steal and those in which I wouldn't. I like to determine when I would take the pitcher out and how I would handle lefty-righty juggling on both sides of the ball. I like to watch which players hustle and which don't and when they do and don't do so. I like to see and dream up different strategies and different ways of handling strategies and plays. I like to watch how my favorite players are doing and how players are developing. I love to look at close plays and see if the umps got the call right. If they miss the call, I like to see if I myself would have been in a different position. We all look at many facets of the game, but since I am perhaps the only one here who has officiated thousands of games, I look at that one from a different perspective than others. Keep in mind that how I react here after contemplation can be far different from how I feel when actually watching the game. More and more I have realized that the game is a marathon, not a sprint, so a particular game may not bother me as much as some. I have realized that almost no strategy is dead wrong and almost none is completetely right. When a manager makes a decision I don't agree with, I try to examine WHY he made the decision he made. I try to fight the urge to think my team is worse than it truly is when it loses and better than it truly is when it wins. I try to learn things from a game that might somehow relate to a game in the future. I try to predict how players will perform based on facts, not simply on my gut. I do take a more analytical approach to games than most. But that doesn't mean I hurt any less when the season ends unfavorably. I may not react as much to losing a single game, because I realize that one game likely won't be the difference. But I HATE to lose. If there is anything I lack as a fan it is the ability to celebrate winning. It's kind of like the advice that is sometimes given to players as to how to react to success: Act like you've been there before. When I watch a game, I watch it from so many different angles and perspectives. I can enjoy a game in many ways. But when the season ends, I take it pretty hard. And then I can't wait for this time of year so we can see how our team reacts to its weaknesses and tries to increase its strengths. In a lot of ways, I find this time of year as exciting as the season. This is the time of HOPE. Sometimes the season itself can be a time of despair. I don't hate the Dodgers, but I do hate to LOSE. I love wins, and it doesn't make any difference if the win is over the Dodgers or another team. I DO enjoy wins against top competitors, since despite what Allen says, those are two-win games. But, frankly, I'd just as soon the competitor NOT be the Dodgers, since that means they're doing well. I do get a little more enjoyment from Dodger games, just because there is a higher level of excitement around the game. I remember how exciting it was to me when I worked a Friday night to be able to come home and watch the end of a Giants/Dodgers game. Back then, the Giants/Dodgers games were almost all televised, whereas the games against other opponents usually weren't. I remember a Friday night Dodgers game in which Willie Mays scored from first on a Frank Johnson single to win the game in the 12th inning or so. The throw beat Willie to the plate, but he knocked the ball out of John Roseboro's glove IIRC. But if it's a Giants game, I don't really care who the opposition is. And if the Giants aren't involved in the game, I hardly ever watch. I have attended well over 500 major league, minor league and spring training games in my lifetime. Unless I'm missing one, only two of those games didn't involve the Giants. One came when I went to the old Busch Stadium with a group of Boy Scouts to watch a Cardinals/Pirates game. The other came when I wanted to meet with a friend of mine who is an attorney, and he suggested I meet him at an A's game. I have watched the Giants and their minor league teams play live in over 20 parks, including Casa Grande. I would bet a lot of money I am the only person here who saw Jack Clark playing third base alongside Johnny LeMaster's shortstop, which I did at Casa Grande. As for luck in winning the World Series, pretty much ANY team that wins the World Series does so in part because of luck. They have good luck in the games themselves, they get hot at the right time, and/or they avoid the bad luck or injuries which strike teams as often as good luck does. If we look at the team that wins the World Series, more often than not it isn't the team that won the most games during the regular season. More often than not it isn't the team that was favored when the playoffs began. How often do we see a team that at the beginning of the playoffs is odds-on to win it all? Remember, when it comes to odds, we're talking about those who put their money where their mouths are. Often it is money they can't really afford to lose. If more than half the money isn't on my team to win, we'll likely need a little luck along the way. Even if we ARE odds-on, we at least have to avoid having really bad luck. And we probably need to avoid the really hot team or teams. In the 14 World Series this century, the World Series champion has won a total of 86 fewer games than the team with the best record. That's over six wins per season. The team with the best regular season record has won only three of the 14 World Series. In half the seasons, the difference in wins between the World Champion and the team with the best regular-season record was seven wins or more, with a high of 24 (!) wins in 2001. In almost any low-scoring game, luck plays a decent part. In a short series, that can make all the difference. You show me a World Champion, and I'll usually show you a team that got some breaks along the way. Think of all the games in a season where we feel the Giants beat themselves. From the Giants' standpoint, that was poor play. From their opponent's standpoint, that was good luck. The more control a team has over a game, the lesser part luck plays. In a game where a swing and a miss with fewer than two strikes has a better result 70% of the time than putting a ball in play, we can be sure luck plays a big part in lots of games. In a game where if a team gets three singles followed by a home run, it scores four runs, but yet if it gets the home run followed by three singles, it may score just one, we can be sure luck plays a fair share. In a game where a 50-foot squib can provide a better result than the hardest-hit line drive, we can be sure luck plays a part. In a game where plenty of calls are missed, we can be sure luck plays a part. In a game where injuries can be common, we can be sure luck plays a part. In a game where the playing field can have different dimensions from park to park, we can be sure luck plays a part. Just how big a part luck plays varies from game to game. But if we look at a LOT of games, one or two breaks could have turned the game the other way. If being a true fan means ignoring truths, I plead guilty. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2129&page=1#17685#ixzz2nNE5kAVq |
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Dec 13, 2013 13:07:26 GMT -5
Most of that long-winded diatribe made me want to PUKE! This whole thing about needing luck to win is an absolute joke and I'm getting sick of it. Just like I get sick of Kruk and Kuip counting up all the "breaks" they see happening in a game. Guys who played as long as they did should know better. And they also shouldnt be saying "unbelievable" so much...anybody would think they haven't really been around the game as long as they actually have.
Go ahead and believe it's all about luck if you want and use as many stats as you want to back up your cockamamie theories. That's not what a real fan of the game would do.
~Dood
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 13, 2013 15:25:07 GMT -5
Randy -- Most of that long-winded diatribe made me want to PUKE! This whole thing about needing luck to win is an absolute joke and I'm getting sick of it. Rog -- If luck weren't involved, the better team would win every game. Yet few teams win more than three out of five games, and few teams lose more than three out of five. Puke all you want, and get sick all you want. But if there were no luck involved, the better team would win all the time, and the worse team would lose them all. Sometimes a team hits the heck out of the ball, but they get caught and the team loses to a team that squibs out a few runs. Sometimes a pitcher gets away with his mistakes, and other times he makes good pitches only to have them get hit. Sometimes the ball takes a good bounce; other times it doesn't. Sometimes the weather influences the game. Sometimes it is injuries. Sometimes you catch a good pitcher on an off day; other times you catch a poor pitcher when he's hot. Sometimes the ump misses a call or two in your favor; sometimes they go against you. Did Tim Lincecum outpitch Yusmerio Petit, or did the difference between a no-hitter and a possible perfect game hinge on luck? If you can repeat an action a high percentage of the time, it probably isn't luck when you do so. If you can't repeat it a high percentage of the time, it may well be luck when you accomplish it. Remember, once the ball leaves a pitcher's hand, he loses control. That's where the luck comes in. Once a batter hits a ball, he loses control. Another area for luck to enter the picture. Once an umpire is forced to make a call, luck can enter his decision. Baseball players and teams control a lot of a game. There is also quite a bit they don't. When you don't control something, luck can -- and often does -- become involved. If the better team won every time, winning percentages would be much closer to 1.000 or .000 than to .500, but that is almost never the case. Clearly an element of luck exists. Wikipedia defines luck as that which happens to a person beyond that person's control. The pitcher loses control when the pitch leaves his hand. The batter loses control when the ball leaves his bat. Of course they have control UNTIL those things happen, but the game doesn't stop when their actions do. That is when luck begins. A pitcher can control his PITCH. He just can't control how the batter hits it. The luck of the game begins the moment the pitcher releases the first pitch. It turns off and on from there until the game is over. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2129&page=1#17695#ixzz2nNjrB8M1 |
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Dec 13, 2013 15:47:21 GMT -5
Puke all you want, and get sick all you want. But if there were no luck involved, the better team would win all the time, and the worse team would lose them all.
Dood - this statement right here is all the proof anyone needs to prove you don't know SQUAT about this game outside of what stats might show...and they tell a very low percentage of the whole.
~Dood
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 13, 2013 16:02:30 GMT -5
Rog- Puke all you want, and get sick all you want. But if there were no luck involved, the better team would win all the time, and the worse team would lose them all.
Boagie- So if a last place team beats a first place team it's only luck that's the deciding factor? Not the way the last place team played that game?
That's an ignorant outlook regarding any sport.
|
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Dec 14, 2013 7:56:20 GMT -5
I agree with Rog that luck plays a large component in winning the World Series. Kinsler's ball that hit the top of the wall and bounced back? Pence's broken bat hit where the ball hit his bat three times? Timing plays a large part too. Struggling pitchers (Zito, Vogey) get hot at the time time, Juan Uribe gets hot, Cody Ross gets hot, etc. Instead of getting angry that this is a fact, understand that while luck was on our side in 2010 and 2012, it was against us in other years. In 2003 I thought we were the best team in baseball and we lost mostly because a Gold Glove outfielder dropped a routine fly ball. You don't think the Angels were lucky to beat us in 2002? An earthquake in 1989 that allowed the A's to use their number one and two starters all four games? We were probably going to lose that series anyway, but that didn't help. So if luck played a component in our winning the World Series, it has also played at least an equal amount in our losing other years. We might have even had more than two championships!
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Dec 14, 2013 11:54:28 GMT -5
to say a team wins out of sheer luck is severely disrespecting the players and the game. In order to win you have to get the key hits and make the defensive plays that the other team wasn't able to, if only at the key moments. If a team my team beats plays the "we were unlucky" card, it sounds just like sour grapes to me. If the game is all about luck why get all worked up what players the Giants sign or trade for in the offseason? It's all a crapshoot anyway so why do you care so much? They'll either get lucky or they wont, right?
~Dood
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 14, 2013 12:02:22 GMT -5
You really think the group of guys we have now would let themselves lose to the Angels in a playoff series? We lost in 2002 because Baker's managing of the pitching staff, that was within his control, so according to the definition of luck, 2002 wasn't luck.
Cruz dropping the ball in 2003 also wasn't luck, Cruz COULD have made that catch, it was within his control to make that catch, he just choked and dropped it. If it was some unseen entity that made him drop that ball I dont think the Giants would be so quick to cut ties with him.
The earthquake was the one thing you mentioned that COULD fit the definition of luck, but I'm fairly certain most seismologists would disagree that earthquakes are caused by luck.
Just because there's a definition of luck doesn't mean it actually exists. There's a definition for fate too. There's also definitions for ghost, unicorn and alien. The word does exist in the English language, but that doesn't mean it actually exists in reality.
The Giants won in 2010 and 2012 because they Didnt choke. They won because they pitched beautifully and played great defense. They didn't allow this unseen entity called luck decide the games for them. They outplayed every team they faced, period.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 14, 2013 12:15:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 14, 2013 12:19:22 GMT -5
Ramdy -- Puke all you want, and get sick all you want. But if there were no luck involved, the better team would win all the time, and the worse team would lose them all. Dood - this statement right here is all the proof anyone needs to prove you don't know SQUAT about this game outside of what stats might show...and they tell a very low percentage of the whole. Rog -- What do stats directly have to do with whether the better team would win or not? With no luck involved, is anyone who plays craps long enough going to win? The smaller the sample, the more of a role luck can play. And the postseason is a pretty small sample. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2129&page=1#ixzz2nTEVlFL0 |
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Dec 14, 2013 12:21:44 GMT -5
Randy -- to say a team wins out of sheer luck is severely disrespecting the players and the game
Rog -- Of course. Which is why no one here has said that. I'm shocked that you even think that someone would.
Dood - I'm shocked that you could so shamelessly lie like that. You said that if a better team loses to a worse one, it's due to luck. It's up there^^ for all to see.
~Dood
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 14, 2013 12:21:59 GMT -5
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Dec 14, 2013 12:25:42 GMT -5
Rog -- What do stats directly have to do with whether the better team would win or not? With no luck involved, is anyone who plays craps long enough going to win? The smaller the sample, the more of a role luck can play.
Dood - do you even hear yourself? Comparing luck in baseball to a true game of chance like Craps? Wow
~Dood
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 14, 2013 12:32:35 GMT -5
Randy -- If the game is all about luck why get all worked up what players the Giants sign or trade for in the offseason? Rog -- Because it isn't. Randy -- It's all a crapshoot anyway so why do you care so much? Rog -- That is indeed amazing, considering I'm not a true fan. Randy -- They'll either get lucky or they wont, right? Rog -- That is a true statement. It doesn't mean, of course, that a team wins or loses ONLY because it gets lucky or unlucky. But no logical person -- not even you -- will say luck doesn't play a part. I would be surprised if you hadn't watched a poker tournament. When a guy goes all in, skill no longer plays a part of whether he wins or loses. Right on the screen we see the odds he will win. Sometimes the odds are slim, yet he stays alive. Other times the odds are good, yet he loses anyway. Once a pitcher throws a pitch, he's like the poker player who has gone all in. He no longer has control. Like the poker player, he has shown his skill or lack thereof in how he releases the ball. But once it leaves his hand, he's "all in" on that pitch -- and aside from his fielding, at that point he has no control whatsoever on how the play will turn out. Same thing after a batter hits the ball. Aside from his base running, he has no control. When control is gone, luck becomes involved. And control is lost a few hundred times a game. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2129&page=1#ixzz2nTGFu141 |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 14, 2013 12:37:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 14, 2013 12:42:46 GMT -5
I'm sorry, I misspoke earlier. I had said that the Giants lost in 2002 because Baker mismanaged his pitching staff. I have come to my senses now. Clearly we lost because they were repainting the tunnel between the visiting clubhouse and dugout and the entire Giants team was forced to walk under a ladder, sealing their fate.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 14, 2013 12:47:41 GMT -5
Boagie -- You really think the group of guys we have now would let themselves lose to the Angels in a playoff series? Rog -- If this year's played the 2002 Angels in 100 series, my guess is that they would "let" themselves lose about 55%-60% of them. Boagie -- We lost in 2002 because Baker's managing of the pitching staff, that was within his control, so according to the definition of luck, 2002 wasn't luck. Rog -- Luck did play a part. It's been 11 years, but I didn't think Dusty mismanaged the pitching staff in that last game. What was it that you thought he did wrong? How many times before during the season and playoffs do you think Felix Rodriguez, Scott Eyre, Tim Worrell and Robb Nen ALL let him down in the same game? I'd have to take a strong look back to see if I would even have made different moves, but nothing stuck out at the time. Which were the wrong moves you felt he made in game six? If the Giants don't blow a 5-run lead in that game, they win the World Series. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2129&page=1#ixzz2nTK7se19 |
|
