Thread: I need a baseball team Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023691
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
I know we are getting towards the end of the season but I'll have some learning to do, but as my opinion of cricket is going down faster than <insert simile of choice> I have decided to follow baseball, which I can watch on TV.

My requirements are like Beeswax Altar's for a Premiership Team. All I know is that the away team's name comes first, there are three outs in an inning (not innings) and if a batter hits the ball (which appears rare) he has to run. I therefore need help too:

My criteria are:

1. Over-supported teams are not options.

2. Johnny-come-latelies are not in contention either. I want a franchise that is settled in a city, has solid support and isn't moving anywhere fast.

3. My team should be an outside shot (in horse racing terms: third favourite) for a title.

4. I'm no fan of sides that are over-reliant on one or two stars. I want a team to follow.

5. I have a preference for Mid-West or Eastern USA.

Any suggestions? I promise I'll find out what ERA is!
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
ERA - thanks to Google - is the Equal Rights Amendment. Though what that has to do with Baseball, I have yet to fathom.

We will miss you on the Cricket thread, Sioni!

[Waterworks]
 
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

4. I'm no fan of sides that are over-reliant on one or two stars. I want a team to follow.
I'm afraid you might be disappointed with major league baseball: players change teams pretty often, including part way through seasons. While there's no equivalent to the British relegation system for teams, there is for players, and they'll frequently be moved up and down the leagues (between majors and different levels of minors) depending on how well they're doing week to week (especially if they're coming off an injury).
 
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :
 
The Cardinals could be an option for you, though. They're just about Midwestern, they're definitely a storied team, they've been in St. Louis since the 19th Century, they last won a World Series in 2006, and I wouldn't call them over-supported. They've managed to not suck since losing Pujols, so they might meet you 'all-round team' criterion too.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
I'd recommend the Atlanta Braves, Sioni.

If you don't know what ERA (earned run average) is, maybe a full explanation of baseball (from someone else) might come in handy.

Baseball is a game played by two teams, one out, the other in. The one that's in sends players out one at a time to see if they can get in before they get out. If they get out before they get in, they come in, but it doesn't count. If they get in before they get out, it does count.

When the ones out get three outs from the ones in before they get in without being out, the team that's out comes in and the team in goes out to get those going in out before they get in without being out.

When both teams have been in and out nine times, the game is over. The team with the most in without being out before coming in wins unless the ones in are equal. In which case, the last ones in go out to get the ones in out before they get in without being out.

The game will end when each team has the same number of ins out but one team has more in without being out before coming in.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
The first hurdle to get over is whether you want to follow an American League (AL) team or a National League (NL) team. You wouldn't think this matters, but as it turns out they play by different rules. In the NL, the pitcher takes his turn in the batting order just like he is a real baseball player. In the AL, they preserve their poor fragile pitchers and use a "designated hitter." This is a so-called player that sits in the dugout resting while his team is playing in the field, but occasionally gets to come up to bat.

In short, NL plays baseball. AL plays something called by the same name but isn't.

So, of course, I am limiting myself to NL teams:

St. Louis Cardinals are a stable franchise with a team approach, but they have been pretty successful of late. While Hart thinks that they last won the World Series in 2006, my memory is that they last won it in 2011 (ahem) and they are in the playoffs again this year.

Atlanta Braves is reasonably stable. They were the Boston Braves and the Milwaukee Braves before they became the Atlanta Braves, but as the franchise has been around for about 130 years, that isn't too bad. They used to be regular playoff participants, but not of late.

Chicago Cubs. Stable-ish. Been bad for years and years. Have not won the World Series for over 100 years. A true outside shot. Very outside.

My team is the Philadelphia Phillies. Of late, they have been successful (won the World Series in 2008 and won their division from 2007 through 2011). But, historically, they have not been contenders. They have the record for most losses by a professional team in any sport (10,373 at last count). The team has been around in Philadelphia since 1883. And not likely to move any time soon.

But if I did not have any prejudices and was just starting and had the requirements you have, I'd go for the Pittsburgh Pirates. They have been around in Pittsburgh since 1882. They last won the World Series in 1979. They have been having a streak of losing seasons. They last had a winning season in 1992, but they came very very close to breaking that this past year (79 wins-83 losses). And they have a beautiful stadium. They are an improving team. Jump on now and cheer them on to greater heights!
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
I'm a Texas Rangers fan.

Go with the Detroit Tigers.

If you want to wait untill next year, the Philadelphia Phillies are an option.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
In short, NL plays baseball. AL plays something called by the same name but isn't.
Yes. This. If you need further proof of the evil of the DH, the Yankees are an AL team.

The Phillies would be a decent choice, but they've been doing quite well recently. I'm lumbered with the Giants, thanks to historic personal connections with SF, which would be another reasonable choice (they won the World Series 2 years ago, but that was the first time in living memory), but my recommendation would be the Cubs. They've got history, a loyal local fan base, and despite being the sort of side that in football terms are everyone's second team, they haven't won the WS in over 100 years. The perfect lovable losers.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:

In short, NL plays baseball. AL plays something called by the same name but isn't.
Preach it. The designated hitter was spewed from the gaping maw of hell, no doubt.

quote:
Atlanta Braves is reasonably stable. They were the Boston Braves and the Milwaukee Braves before they became the Atlanta Braves, but as the franchise has been around for about 130 years, that isn't too bad. They used to be regular playoff participants, but not of late.
My beloved Braves made it two out of the last three years and gave the Giants a better series than anyone else.

quote:
My team is the Philadelphia Phillies.
Repent!!!

quote:
But if I did not have any prejudices and was just starting and had the requirements you have, I'd go for the Pittsburgh Pirates.
The Pirates had the playoffs wrapped up until a late season collapse. Too pretty a town and too long a history to suffer like they have.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
My beloved Braves made it two out of the last three years and gave the Giants a better series than anyone else.
My apologies. I was thinking of their impressive string of divisional titles (something like 12 in a row wasn't it?) and how they had not won the division in a few years. You are right that they have been in the playoffs with fair regularity.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
All you need to know about baseball.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
My beloved Braves made it two out of the last three years and gave the Giants a better series than anyone else.
My apologies. I was thinking of their impressive string of divisional titles (something like 12 in a row wasn't it?) and how they had not won the division in a few years. You are right that they have been in the playoffs with fair regularity.
No worries, we're just two folks talking.

The Braves did have a great run but only won it all once. I guess you could say we had our hearts broken eleven times in 12 years.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
With Gumby. The Cubs look to fit your criteria pretty well.

I got attracted to baseball in the 1980s, took a season to pick it up and have been hooked ever since. It is a great game once you "get" it, but it does take a while to "get" it. Like Gumby, I've got a long-term attachment to the Giants. For a fair bit of the last quarter of a century, that's been as frustrating as my long term attachment to Sunderland AFC. But it's fun, fun, fun at present!

A lot depends on learning style I suppose - but I would have thought that the MLB website would be a helpful aid while you're picking things up - and the many video clips of great plays give you some idea of the very high skill levels involved in top-class play.
 
Posted by Oscar P. (# 10412) on :
 
Seconding Hart about the St. Louis Cardinals, my team. They have a long history dating back to the late 19th century with all the traditions that follow. They have won 11 World Series, most recently in 2011, and are in the play-offs again this year after a thrilling come from behind win Friday night. Folks at a game are knowledgeable and appreciate good play, even to the point of applauding an opponent (we mid-westerners are nothing if not polite!).

Check them out!
 
Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :
 
For your own good do not root for the Cubs. I do because I was born outside of Chicago. On those rare occassions when they have a chance they will break your heart worst than the actions of a faithless spouse. All other seasons will induce a level of despair that Dante or the writer of Job could not capture.

If you want to pull for a team with an off chance of victory and does not have a lot of stars or a following I would pull for the Twins. They overcame possible extinction at the hands of the nefarious Bud Selig to go on to the World Series in 2002. The only major problem with them is that they are an AL team and as noted above, don't play real baseball.
 
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :
 
Hedgehog is a Phillies fan, and therefore of the Devil. Do not, I repeat, Do Not become a Phillies fan. They're all evil, drunken louts who kill helpless baby pandas, force feed vegetarians bacon, and set fire to busloads of nuns. Don't be a Phillies fan.

That said, if it comes between the Phillies and the Yankees, I can find you a busload of nuns and a lighter. The Constitution forbids anyone not from certain parts of NYC from being a Yankees fan; I think most thinking people are in favor of an amendment banning the Yankees altogether.

Designated hitters are also evil, and I look forward to the day the American League gets rid of them. When that day comes, you might want to think about Dem O's—the Baltimore Orioles have been around since forever, have fans who stick around through good times and (sadly frequent, recently) bad ones, and, every once in a while, like this year, can be good. They've been in a bad place the last several years, but may just be coming back . . .

Much as I hate to say it, being a Nats fan, Washington is a new team and, other than our entirely justified hatred of the Phillies, doesn't have that much in the way of Tradition. Starting next year, they're not going to have an outside shot at winning anything—it's going to be a very much inside one. Thus, two of your qualifications are out.

Really, the Cubs are your best bet. Great and very devoted fans, a long tradition stemming back to before they last won a World Series, and a team that very often does quite well in the regular season. Just have a second team you're willing to follow when the postseason comes around.

Sadly, that team can't be the Cards, who have a historical rivalry with the Cubs. Even though it pains me to say it given what happened last night, St. Louis does meet your criteria fairly well. Give me time to stop mourning, and I probably would tell you they're the team you're looking for. Sure, rooting for the Cubs is its own quixotic tradition, but if you ever want to see your team in a World Series, the Cards may be your team. Then again, if they do well in the playoffs this year, you may be accused of being a bandwagon fan (think Chelsea fans); there are no bandwagon Cubs fans.

[ 13. October 2012, 22:46: Message edited by: Ariston ]
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
I think criteria one knocks out the Cubs. I don't know about other cities, but here, they price the tickets to the Cubs games higher because they know so many people will come out for those games. They haven't been great for a while, but people like the drinking in the bleachers, loveable loser image. It wouldn't be as bad as picking the Yankees or the Red Sox, but I would say it would be number 3 as far as over support. Plus Cubs fans are just annoying with their whining. Sure, Bartman shouldn't have gone after that ball. But if you still give up 7 runs in that inning and then drop game 7, you can't put all of the blame on one guy.

The White Sox were out of the playoffs this season, but they have been good recently. While the young white upper class north siders flock to Cubs games, working class south siders prefer the Sox. They are also the President's favorite team, if that makes you feel one way or the other.

The Braves have a history of performing well in the regular season and then blowing it in the post season. So you would have that to look forward to. The entire old South tends to root for the Braves, so I don't know how you feel about associating yourself with that. I like the South, but lots of people don't.

If it weren't for number 2, I would tell you to start following Tampa Bay. They play in the same division as Boston and New York, and have still managed to compete for the last few years on a smaller budget. They are not over-popular, and you get the thrill of beating the Yankees and Red Sox every once in a while.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
All you need to know about baseball.
That's half. Here's the other half, and really everything you need to know about American sports.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
My heart is for the Blue Jays. Sure, they were a nice expansion team, but then they got into the ALCS in 1992. Then they went to World Series against the Atlanta Braves, they of little talent and even less taste. Joe Carter caught the ball for the final out and won the Series for the Jays.

The Americans were delightfully annoyed about the fact that the World Series title went north of the border.

And then came 1993. The Jays did a repeat appearance, this time against the Phillies. Game six was 2-2. Joe Carter hit a three-run homer out of the park for the title. He did cartwheels as he rounded second base. It was a most perfect game.

I don't care what happened afterwards, nobody will come between me and the Jays.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Hedgehog is a Phillies fan, and therefore of the Devil. Do not, I repeat, Do Not become a Phillies fan. They're all evil, drunken louts who kill helpless baby pandas, force feed vegetarians bacon, and set fire to busloads of nuns. Don't be a Phillies fan.
Just for the record, I ended up endorsing the Pirates. Which cost me a bit of my soul because I grew up hating them. Back in the old days, the Phillies-Pirates rivalry was the most heated in baseball. Yankees-Red Sox couldn't touch it.

But, as I said, putting biases aside, the Pirates have a solid, but not large, fan base; they have a great history (including the great Honus Wagner--one of the first 5 people inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame); most people would rate them behind Cincinnati and St. Louis in the division (thus being a true "third favorite"); and they are improving.

By the way, Sioni Sais, don't worry too much about the "one or two stars" thing. Baseball, by its nature, is truly a team sport. While a team's marketing wing may push one or two stars for public consumption, no team does anything unless they play as a full team.

Also, I meant to say this before, if you have any questions about Baseball Basics (such as ERA), feel free to ask them on the regular Baseball Thread. We'd all be happy to give what guidance we can.

Now, if you'll excuse me, a busload of nuns carrying baby pandas just pulled up outside and I can't seem to find my matches...
 
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 
There are two basic types of baseball fans: Those who love to attach themselves to success and so choose a team because it is consistently good and can be counted upon to win more often than it loses. These are called Yankees fans, and they, along with their team, are hated by all right-thinking people outside New York (and by a fair number inside, who are known as Mets fans). The Yankees are to baseball as Man U is to English football. The other type has a loyalty forged in adversity, and Cubs fans are the archetype (Red Sox fans used to be, but now they're nearly as obnoxious as Yankees fans).

Then there are those in the middle. I am a Giants fan, for historical reasons--I went to my first baseball game in San Francisco in 1958 and saw Willie Mays hit a home run, and that was it. I was imprinted like a gosling. The Giants fall somewhere in between--they have a glorious past (as the Yankees' hometown rivals in the old days), with desperate come-from-behind victories and tragic near-misses. Many of the greatest players in history have worn the uniform, but they have surprisingly few pennants to show for it.

The Braves, the Pirates, and the Cardinals have similar histories (the Braves went through their own annoying period when Ted Turner tried to use his television network to make them "America's Team," but that's in the past). All would be worthy choices. You might also consider the Mets, who are comparative newcomers (only been around for 51 years), but they have a colorful history, with plenty of low comedy as well as heroics.

In the American League (if you must consider it, and most baseball fans have a team in each league, though most have a strong league preference as well) I would direct your attention to the Detroit Tigers, the Milwaukee Brewers, and the Minnesota Twins. Maybe the Cleveland Indians (who are always threatening to break out, though they haven't actually done so since 1954, IIRC) or the Chicago White Sox, who were contenders this year, though beaten out by my AL team, the Tigers.

There is more to being a baseball fan than having a team. You also have to study the history. It's not enough to know the current players--if you're a Giants fan you have to be able to talk about Mays, McCovey, Marichal (and why Marichal was a better pitcher than Gibson or Koufax), Clark, Mitchell, Cepeda... maybe even Christy Mathewson. You have to know about Bobby Thompson's famous home run and how Mays caught Vic Wertz's line drive and the tragic end of the 1962 series and the 1989 Earthquake Series, and Marichal's fight with John Roseboro of the Dodgers.

You also have to get a little obsessed with statistics, and at least try (or pretend) to know what they mean. Baseball is loaded with stats, some so obscure you wonder why anybody ever bothered to calculate them. I have heard announcers say things like (as a batter steps up to the plate): "Jones has only hit .173 against left-handed pitchers with two out and men in scoring position..." You have to nod and act as if you think this means something.
 
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
You also have to get a little obsessed with statistics, and at least try (or pretend) to know what they mean. Baseball is loaded with stats, some so obscure you wonder why anybody ever bothered to calculate them. I have heard announcers say things like (as a batter steps up to the plate): "Jones has only hit .173 against left-handed pitchers with two out and men in scoring position..." You have to nod and act as if you think this means something.
Isn't there some quote about baseball just being a way to generate statistics? I don't think it has to be true, but there certainly are people who enjoy the numbers more than the actual game. They, of course, think this whole discussion could be settled by looking over the stats list and picking the #3 team.

According to them, you're now a Giants fan.*

*#3 postseason ERA in the National League.
 
Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:

Then there are those in the middle. I am a Giants fan, for historical reasons--I went to my first baseball game in San Francisco in 1958 and saw Willie Mays hit a home run, and that was it. I was imprinted like a gosling. The Giants fall somewhere in between--they have a glorious past (as the Yankees' hometown rivals in the old days), with desperate come-from-behind victories and tragic near-misses. Many of the greatest players in history have worn the uniform, but they have surprisingly few pennants to show for it.
The Brooklyn Dodgers were their arch-rival from way back. They continued it when both teams moved out west.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
In the American League (if you must consider it, and most baseball fans have a team in each league, though most have a strong league preference as well) I would direct your attention to the Detroit Tigers, the Milwaukee Brewers, and the Minnesota Twins.
The Brewers moved back to the NL 10 years or so ago. Come to think of it, the Brewers not only have the best name in professional sports, but also have had a few good teams as of late, and lack a huge out of town fan base. The also have people in four different sausage suits race around the warning track at every game (Bratwurst, Kilbasa, Italian, and Chorizo). If I was picking from a distance and wasn't cursed with the Rockies, I might go with the Brewers.
 
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:

Then there are those in the middle. I am a Giants fan, for historical reasons--I went to my first baseball game in San Francisco in 1958 and saw Willie Mays hit a home run, and that was it. I was imprinted like a gosling. The Giants fall somewhere in between--they have a glorious past (as the Yankees' hometown rivals in the old days), with desperate come-from-behind victories and tragic near-misses. Many of the greatest players in history have worn the uniform, but they have surprisingly few pennants to show for it.
The Brooklyn Dodgers were their arch-rival from way back. They continued it when both teams moved out west.
That too, but I was trying not to mention the Dodgers.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
All this antipathy for my beloved American League.

The National League featured the former Montreal Expos. Montreal and Toronto don't agree on anything when it comes to sports. Anything associated with the Expos need not be considered.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
Many thanks for your considerable efforts and advocacy. The use of statistics isn't a problem, as cricket is loaded with these and I'm not averse to them. One corrolary is that a cricketer with a batting average of 30 (runs per out) or more is reckoned a decent player while a baseball player with an average of 0.300 (whatevers) is doing well too. OK, he's probably doing as well as a cricketer with an average of about 45!

Back to the teams. I'm very inclined to the Pirates. I'm conidering the Cardinals but they look almost too hot at the moment. The Twins and Orioles have a shout so you get an idea of my preferences. I'm not too keen on the Cubs: isn't there some legend about why they will never win the World Series?

I should mention that one reason to follow baseball is that Eldest Son is an American Football fan, plays the game (yes, even here in Britain) and reckons baseball is a cr@p game. My view is that anyone, even your granny, can participate in baseball, so it's the people's game and every little ol'town has a ballpark or two.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
Sioni, my eldest has just started University and is playing American Football too. He, however, is as keen on baseball as his Dad. We are members of that frequently disappointed (this year particularly) and often despised Red Sox Nation - but at least we aren't Yankees. Go Tigers! Can't feel sympathetic with Jeter.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
I went to my first baseball game in San Francisco in 1958 and saw Willie Mays hit a home run, and that was it.
He was the best that ever was.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
You also have to get a little obsessed with statistics, and at least try (or pretend) to know what they mean. Baseball is loaded with stats, some so obscure you wonder why anybody ever bothered to calculate them. I have heard announcers say things like (as a batter steps up to the plate): "Jones has only hit .173 against left-handed pitchers with two out and men in scoring position..." You have to nod and act as if you think this means something.
Isn't there some quote about baseball just being a way to generate statistics?
As ever, there's an xkcd for that.

I think the important thing to realise is that "winning things" in baseball is a rather different proposition from football or cricket. There's no promotion or relegation and everything's designed to ensure that no side will ever be excessively dominant. Although there are persistent inequalities, they're trivial compared to most sports.

Some struggling sides consider winning to be a .500 record over the season (winning as often as they lose). With no threat of relegation, it's even possible to view success or failure entirely through the lens of results against your local rivals. For other sides, the play-offs are the target, along with divisional and league championship pennants and finally the World Series. But any of these can be a major achievement for a given club.
 
Posted by monkeylizard (# 952) on :
 
For this post-season, watch the Cardinals.

If you want a team that has a decent chance of making it to the playoffs in any given year, and are east of the Rocky Mountains your choices are:

New York Yankees
Atlanta Braves
Boston Red Socks (bad this year)
St. Louis Cardinals
Texas Rangers

You also have the Philadelphia Phillies of late, but I think that's a fluke.

If playoffs don't matter and you want one that's not over-supported, choose a team from a smaller city. For example:

Milwaukee Brewers
Cincinnati Reds
Baltimore Orioles

I agree with Hedgehog about the Pirates. They were a powerhouse, but have been down for a long time. Maybe they'll get things working and start something good.

Personally, I like the Cubs. I have low expectations and they never let me down.
 
Posted by Kyzyl (# 374) on :
 
What, no love for the Houston Astros?
{ducks and runs away quickly...}


Actually, my team is the Saint Paul Saints but they're not "Major League" so are out of consideration for this thread.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kyzyl:
What, no love for the Houston Astros?
{ducks and runs away quickly...}
Actually, the reason I didn't mention the Houston Astros (a/k/a the Tumbleweeds) is that next year they will be an AL club and I already struck all AL teams from my recommendation list.
 
Posted by Kyzyl (# 374) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
quote:
Originally posted by Kyzyl:
What, no love for the Houston Astros?
{ducks and runs away quickly...}
Actually, the reason I didn't mention the Houston Astros (a/k/a the Tumbleweeds) is that next year they will be an AL club and I already struck all AL teams from my recommendation list.
Gotcha. I grew up in Houston and have a soft spot for them. Went to games back in the days when they had the grounds crew dressed as astronauts and the old Colts stadium was still standing in the parking lot of the Astrodome.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
I think the important thing to realise is that "winning things" in baseball is a rather different proposition from football or cricket. There's no promotion or relegation and everything's designed to ensure that no side will ever be excessively dominant. Although there are persistent inequalities, they're trivial compared to most sports.

Some struggling sides consider winning to be a .500 record over the season (winning as often as they lose). With no threat of relegation, it's even possible to view success or failure entirely through the lens of results against your local rivals. For other sides, the play-offs are the target, along with divisional and league championship pennants and finally the World Series. But any of these can be a major achievement for a given club.
One of the frustrations of not having a relegation system is that your team's owner can decide that "winning" means selling enough tickets to turn a profit, regardless of the results. My Rockies had a few good runs a few years ago, but seem to be back to their bottom of the table ways. The owners don't care because there are usually enough people willing to go to the game regardless of the result. The ballpark is right downtown, so it makes for a good start to a night out. Lots of people will go with large groups. On top of that, there are enough people who moved here from other markets who will buy tickets when their team is in town. Between all of those tickets, there isn't a huge motivation to improve the product. Say what you will about the Yankees, but at least they know that they are not the only game in town, and put a lot of money and effort towards consistently winning. That would be a good reason to pick an older club- the more life long fans you have, the more likely they are to cry foul when things don't go well. (That still doesn't explain the Pirates, who are one of the oldest teams in existence, and still have the longest streak of losing records in North American sports history. I noticed that no one had mentioned that little tidbit- they haven't had a winning season since Barry Bonds was a skinny speed player.)
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
(That still doesn't explain the Pirates, who are one of the oldest teams in existence, and still have the longest streak of losing records in North American sports history. I noticed that no one had mentioned that little tidbit- they haven't had a winning season since Barry Bonds was a skinny speed player.)
I almost decided to answer this on the regular baseball thread for fear that it was getting a little off-theme of choosing a team for Sioni Sais, but after due consideration it helps illustrate why I am pushing for the Pirates.

When the losing streak started 20 years ago, it coincided with an ownership that was exactly like you depict--interested in the bottom-line profit. They started dumping their high-priced talent to bring payroll down and putting young (i.e., cheap) players on the field under the guise of "rebuilding" the team. The concept of constant "rebuilding" (dump pricey players for cheap ones) seems to have been the plan followed by the then-majority owner until 2006 or 2007 (somewhere around then). A new majority owner then took over.

This new owner was willing to shell out bucks for the team. However, he started with a different type of rebuiliding. He wanted to restock the farm system. To do this, he kept trading talented players for multiple "prospects." In the short run this is understandable, but ultimately, of course, if you keep trading away your talented players you end up with a team that has no talent.

This brings us to 2009. The Pirates were still trading away talented players (like Nate McClouth) for prospects--and even the other players on the team started complaining about this tactic (not just the fans). Also in 2009 Andrew McCutchen came up through the farm system. He is a massively talented player and there were a lot of people (myself included) who were waiting to see if the Pirates would trade him in 2010--or if he would demand a trade to a team that intended on competing.

And then the miracle happened. The Pirates kept him and started building around him. In fact, in 2012, they signed him to a six year extension on his contract to keep him with the team. And the ownership group shelled out big bucks for other talent, including signing A.J. Burnett from the Yankees both to beef up the young pitching staff and give them a veteran player to learn from.

In short, the current ownership is no longer doing the fake, money-saving "rebuilding" and is now doing real, substantial rebuilding. Like I said upthread, if I were new to baseball and looking for a team to cheer on, I'd choose the Pirates--they are on the upswing! A few more tweaks over the off-season and this team is ready to be a threat.

And, as a Phillies fan, I can't wait! Just the thought of someday seeing a Phillies-Pirates post-season playoff series puts a huge grin on my face!
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
In Arizona I picked up a souvenier, and what could be more American than a baseball cap.

So my team is the Phoenix Suns.

Are they any good? No one seems to have heard of them over here.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
You picked up an athletic cap for the Phoenix Suns- a basketball team. If you want to cheer on the Arizona major league baseball team, you'd want the Diamondbacks AKA the D-Backs.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
You picked up an athletic cap for the Phoenix Suns- a basketball team. If you want to cheer on the Arizona major league baseball team, you'd want the Diamondbacks AKA the D-Backs.
The Diamondbacks are a horrible new side with no history, but they'll always have a place in my heart for their 2001 WS victory, coming from behind in the bottom of the 9th in Game 7 to beat the Yankees. It's hard to hate a team after that. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
You picked up an athletic cap for the Phoenix Suns- a basketball team. If you want to cheer on the Arizona major league baseball team, you'd want the Diamondbacks AKA the D-Backs.
That shows how much I know about US sport.
[Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :
 
You absolutely want the Detroit Tigers. Especially since Detroit itself is an underdog town right now, and its sports fans are as loyal as you'll ever find (see this example, even though it's for the Lions, our football team).

Plus the Tigers are (so far) doing well right now! We haven't won the World Series since 1984, and the St. Louis Cardinals beat us in the series just a few years ago. So you want to root for the Tigers, not the Cardinals.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
Many, many thanks for your entertaining and thoughtful posts. It really does look like I'll be a Pirates fan next season so, if any of you have burning reasons why a Limey with no connections to Pittsburgh should not support that team, you have 48 hours to let me know.

Please note that I am aware that the owners haven't been as pure as the driven snow over the last umpteen years but hey, this is a MLB franchise, what do you expect? Ethical business?
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
You also have to get a little obsessed with statistics, and at least try (or pretend) to know what they mean. Baseball is loaded with stats, some so obscure you wonder why anybody ever bothered to calculate them. I have heard announcers say things like (as a batter steps up to the plate): "Jones has only hit .173 against left-handed pitchers with two out and men in scoring position..." You have to nod and act as if you think this means something.
Baseball stats are childish compared with cricket stats...which Sioni Sais is trying to forswear.

I swear I once heard the commentator (John Arlot?) noting that an over just finished was the first time in several years that just that number of runs had been hit by the team batting second in the 29th over of the second innings, from the west end of that particular cricket ground. Aided by his statisticians, he could no doubt have done the same for every over of every match in every major cricket ground in the country, for all of the major county sides and all of the test matches for at least a couple of decades.

John
 
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 
I think there are baseball statisticians that could give him a run for his money: consider this site.

Sioni, the Pirates are an excellent choice. Now you need to read the Wikipedia entry on the team, as well as those on Roberto Clemente, Willie Stargell, Bill Mazeroski, Ralhp Kiner, and Honus Wagner. There are probably YouTube videos of all of them in action. It is perfectly OK, even normal, for fans to hate the owners of the team. It's usually the owners who ruin everything.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
You also have to get a little obsessed with statistics, and at least try (or pretend) to know what they mean. Baseball is loaded with stats, some so obscure you wonder why anybody ever bothered to calculate them. I have heard announcers say things like (as a batter steps up to the plate): "Jones has only hit .173 against left-handed pitchers with two out and men in scoring position..." You have to nod and act as if you think this means something.
Baseball stats are childish compared with cricket stats...which Sioni Sais is trying to forswear.

I swear I once heard the commentator (John Arlot?) noting that an over just finished was the first time in several years that just that number of runs had been hit by the team batting second in the 29th over of the second innings, from the west end of that particular cricket ground. Aided by his statisticians, he could no doubt have done the same for every over of every match in every major cricket ground in the country, for all of the major county sides and all of the test matches for at least a couple of decades.

John
I have no problem with cricket statistics, just too many aspects of the modern game. I suppose the KP saga did it for me and David Collier's assertion that the Saffies goaded Pietersen was truly the last straw. Of course they did, but for him to make anything of it was stupid.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
As followers of the game may have noticed I am now a declared Pittsburgh Pirates fan.

Many thanks to all of you, even Phillies supporters.
 
Posted by Winnow (# 5656) on :
 
I seldom post on SoF (you all are so out of my league!) but I happened on this discussion about one of my obsessions: major league baseball! Another long-time Giants fan, since they moved Out West from Back East. Actually, I learned how to score baseball games in my high school physical education class ('59) and got hooked on the Giants then and got addicted by scoring the games (I still have many of my old score sheets). Wish I could say I've loved them since they moved Out in '58, but can't, more's the pity.

So I just finished watching the Giants tie the playoff series to determine whether they or the Cardinals get to face the Tigers in the Real World Series. Of course, I'm rooting for My Giants. Always have and always will. Except when my favorite player, Randy Johnson [Axe murder] was playing, then wherever he was was my favorite team -- Mariners, Astros, Diamondbacks, Yankees, and {sigh} My Giants. I have 50+ VCR tapes of his games, including his PERFECT GAME and of course the World Series Games. I love him still. But anyway, I recommend the Giants. Orlando Cepeda was My Big Guy back in the day. And all the Alou brothers. Great teams.

I recommend learning to score games. That will make all the difference in the world. And don't worry about having to actually see the games -- listening on the radio is quite satisfactory, and even makes scoring easier because the announcers actually tell you what's going on. I used to watch the games on TV with the sound off and the radio on. Best of both worlds!

And once you get "into" baseball -- and perhaps cricket? but I know nothing about cricket -- you'll find a lot of dimensions to baseball. It's quite a spiritual game. There's a whole lot more going on than meets the eye. One would think it's boring until you actually know. Then you KNOW, and you'll never go back.

GO GIANTS!! [Axe murder] [Biased]

(Oh, my other obsession is SF 49ers football! YAY NINERS!)

And no, I'm not from San Francisco, but I am a Californian now living in Idaho. And I hate the Dodgers. [Devil]

Carry on ...
 
Posted by Winnow (# 5656) on :
 
Another reason to like the Giants (and the 49ers) is their Cool Uniforms! They have the best uniforms of any team.

Except of course the Boise State Broncos football team. Yay Broncos!
 
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 
quote:
I recommend learning to score games. That will make all the difference in the world. And don't worry about having to actually see the games -- listening on the radio is quite satisfactory, and even makes scoring easier because the announcers actually tell you what's going on. I used to watch the games on TV with the sound off and the radio on. Best of both worlds!
Yes. When I was 9-10 years old, I would listen to the Reds' night games (under the covers, with a transistor radio and earphone--this was the early '60s) and keep score (I also had a flashlight). I reused old scorecards from games I'd actually been to. I learned a lot about how to appreciate the game that way.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Winnow:
And once you get "into" baseball -- and perhaps cricket? but I know nothing about cricket -- you'll find a lot of dimensions to baseball. It's quite a spiritual game. There's a whole lot more going on than meets the eye. One would think it's boring until you actually know. Then you KNOW, and you'll never go back.

From following cricket I know what you mean about a game having a spiritual dimension. What other explanation is there for the popularity of a game that gives no result after 30 hours play? In cricket (well, proper cricket) the ten fielders can be anywhere so that is a subtlety few games have.

Is there much poetry on baseball? Cricket has a fair amount, though it tends to be purple or downright bad! Of all sporting literature that of cricket is possibly the finest in the world, so can someone recommend baseball writers?
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
If the subject is poetry, baseball has the classic Casey At The Bat. From a baseball perspective, it is near perfect.

When you speak of sporting literature, are you referring to works of fiction? There are a number, but not of any great merit. On the other hand, if you are referring to writers writing essentially love letters to baseball, then try George F. Will's Men At Work. I have trouble with Will's politics, but in his love of baseball we speak the same language.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
If you want to appreciate the history and mythology of baseball, I would suggest you try to get your hands on the Ken Burns "Baseball" mini series. It is a little out of date (it aired in the mid 90s, although they did some updates recently), but it does a fantastic job of telling you about the famous players, incidents ([url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkle%27s_Boner]Merkle's Boner[/url] gets some nice coverage), and teams you will need to know to appreciate the game.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
There is little cricket fiction, but it isn't unknown. Cricket has so much history that between match reports, almanacs (see Wisden's) and biographies there isn't room for much else. James and Cardus both reported on cricket but James wrote about the spirit of cricket beautifully. Then again, he could probably write beautifully about a sewage works.

You're right though, I'll have to get a primer on baseball, some history and enough of the rules to not look an ass, and while keeping quiet could achieve that it wouldn't be any fun.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
it's silly, but there's some great baseball movies that influenced me as a kid to become a baseball fan. A League of Their Own is the source of one of my favorite quotes ever: "There is no crying in baseball!" Which I use often.

The Bad News Bears (old version, please), Field of Dreams. There's more I'm just blanking right now.

And Casey At The Bat is such an integral part of my childhood (mom used to recite it to me at bedtime) I get all misty just thinking about it. it's such classic americana.

music: John Fogerty's Centerfield is my soundtrack to summer. in my little brain, when the green buds hit the trees and the mud dries on the field you crank up Fogerty and oil your mitt. it's just what you do.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
I just recently finished reading The Glory Of Their Times. It is the first-hand reminiscences of players from the early days of professional baseball (I believe the earliest started playing in the 1890s, and the most recent one played into the 1940s). The book is full of anecdotes. At times, memory cheated and the players state things that did not, in fact, happen quite the way that they remembered. But that doesn't matter--the stories are still wonderful!
 
Posted by basso (# 4228) on :
 
The Glory of Their Times is a classic of baseball literature.

Two by Donald Honig are also great reading - Baseball: When the Grass Was Real and Baseball:Between the Lines. Both are oral histories of the the game, by the men who played it. To show that I'm a fair-minded fan, I'll also recommend Roger Kahn's The Boys of Summer, about the <coff coff> Brooklyn Dodgers.


Roger Angell has been writing the best baseball reports in the business since the early 60s. (He's E. B. White's stepson, BTW.) I'd start with Agincourt and Beyond, his report on the 1975 season, including the famous Red Sox win in Game 5 of the Series that year that featured Carlton Fisk's famous home run. Best baseball article ever, IMNSHO.

Literature: Ring Lardner, of course. Start with You Know Me, Al. James Thurber's short story You Could Look it Up anticipated real life (Eddie Gaedel) by some years. Speaking of Eddie Gaedel, Bill Veeck's memoir Veeck as in Wreck is a hoot.

My favorite baseball novels are by Mark Harris: The Southpaw, Bang the Drum Slowly (good movie too, featuring a very young DeNiro), and Ticket for a Seamstitch.

There's lots more, but that's what occurs to me right now.
 
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 
For baseball fiction, I recommend W.P. Kinsella,l best known for the novel Shoeless Joe which was made into the movie Field of Dreams. He's also written several excellent short stories about baseball (like all his stuff, in a magical realist vein), including one about a game that goes on forever.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
My favorite baseball film is Bull Durham. The love stories are funny, crazy, and totally improbable, but I'm told that many minor leaguers recognize a lot of reality in the day to day routine of the team.

Key advice from Crash the veteran catcher to his protege pitcher Nuke LaLoosh: "Relax, all right? Don't try to strike everybody out. Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic."

And a word from the favorite poet of Annie Savoy, the Bulls' prime fan and groupie: "Walt Whitman once said, 'I see great things in baseball. It's our game, the American game. It will repair our losses and be a blessing to us.' You could look it up."

And also from Annie: "Baseball may be a religion full of magic, cosmic truth, and the fundamental ontological riddles of our time, but it's also a job."
 
Posted by Kyzyl (# 374) on :
 
Don't forget "The Natural" - book by Bernard Malamud (1952), movie with Robert Redford (1984)
 
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 
The matter of scorekeeping was mentioned--Wikipedia, naturally, has a good summary.

You could practice with the World series. PDF of a scorecard here.
 
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :
 
You cannot go wrong with my Dodgers. The team was recently sold to a retired basketball player and his friends. The sale included the beloved Chavez Ravine, their home stadium, just three miles away from my old house in Pasadena, but oddly not the car park! They were in the running for a wild card slot in the playoffs, but failed to be contenders in the post-season.
 
Posted by Winnow (# 5656) on :
 
My Giants beat the Cardinals last night in the pouring rain and it's on to the World Series!! [Axe murder]

Dodgers fans: have you heard Danny Kaye's "The D-O-D-G-E-R-S Song"?
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
The movies mentioned are great. I'd like to add The Sandlot to the mix, too.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0