WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-10-11 19:59:31 +0000

Jeter = clutch Arod = not clutch

Posted by tgl on 2005-10-11 20:05:23 +0000

NC!

Posted by tgl on 2005-10-11 20:22:23 +0000

I'm beginning to understand the criticism of the Red Sox and MFY on points concerning lack of finesse. Slugging : Beethoven :: Small Ball : Mozart

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-10-12 02:11:06 +0000

Why am I finding myself rooting for the Angels? I dislike that team, and team name.

Posted by frame609 on 2005-10-12 03:45:17 +0000

I've finally decided: though I like all four teams, I'll be most excited for a Houston/Chicago World Series.

Posted by tendiamonds on 2005-10-12 13:11:55 +0000

I've been thinking about why I am rooting for the Angels. Speculation abound:

1. They beat the Yankees, and I hate the Yankees more than I love the Red Sox (this year)
2. The White Sox beat the Red Sox, and I haven't quite forgiven them for that indiscresion
3. Scott Podsednik is overrated
4. Orlando is still my boy
5. I like Vladdy, Barty and K-Rod, too.
6. The White Sox have home pinstripes

On the other hand:

1. I like Ozzie
2. The White Sox deserve it more, they've had an amazing year
3. There's dignity in your team losing to the team that wins it all... even if you lose in the first round you can sorta claim to be #2

Posted by tendiamonds on 2005-10-12 13:12:55 +0000

I want to see Houston/Anaheim in the Classic, with Houston winning with a Clemens walkoff hit in Game 7.

Posted by tgl on 2005-10-12 14:21:53 +0000

1. Red uniforms. 2. Vlad 3. Eckstein (When he was there.) 4. Cabrera (Why can't we get guys like that?) 5. Colon/Santanna/Rodriguez Only drawback: thunder sticks Erm, Red Sox could claim #4 if the White Sox go all the way.

Posted by tendiamonds on 2005-10-12 16:15:18 +0000

No, see, in the nature of an elimination tournament, each team's finish position is really only defined as less than the finish position of the team that beat them, so if the White Sox are #1 the Red Sox are less than number one, but no less, since, in the confines of the tournament, they were never given a chance to contend the position of teams in higher brackets. So, say the Angels win, and then lose to the Astros (yay!), then the Angels are less than #1, ie #2 or less; the White Sox, are less than that, ie #3 or less and the Red Sox are #4 or less. However, if the White Sox go on to win it all, then the NL team in question is #2 or less; the Angels are _also_ #2 or less and the Red Sox are additionally #2 or less, as it has only been proven that they are weaker than the #1 team. See?

Posted by Miriam on 2005-10-12 17:38:21 +0000

Can I see a chart or graph of that? I respond well to visuals.

Posted by tgl on 2005-10-12 17:40:32 +0000

Yes, I see how the Red Sox may be considered no better than #2 if they lose to the eventual #1. Did the Padres get swept? How 'bout we rank all teams by total postseason wins?

Posted by frame609 on 2005-10-12 17:47:09 +0000

The Padres get extra demerits for having a #1 starter who broke a rib celebrating his team's 82-80 record.

Posted by tendiamonds on 2005-10-12 18:06:00 +0000

You need to have some sort of power ranking, I suppose. But confine it to the tournament that is postseason baseball... so a team that is swept by the eventual winner will be ranked lower than a team that wins a game or two... Nevertheless, there is no honor in the Red Sox postseason performance. They sucked, they were beat, period. It's impressive enough that they made it there at all, given the dire state of their health this year. I'm looking for another ring on Red Sox fingers before the MFY get another one. I'm also looking for 4 within the confines of a decade. Then they should go off the radar for a while and rebuild their loser cachet.

Posted by tgl on 2005-10-12 18:27:03 +0000

RE: loser cachet This translates into cheap season tickets, right? Supposedly the renovation/demolition of the .406 club (406 club?), will go a long way towards reducing the wait list. Why am I not on it?

Posted by frame609 on 2005-10-12 18:28:39 +0000

I'll happily go in on season tickets with whomever.

Posted by tendiamonds on 2005-10-12 18:59:29 +0000

No no no, loser cachet is part of why it's so hard to get Red Sox tickets. They were the greatest losers in the history of baseball. Not merely for the drought, but for the torture along the way, I don't need to go into it here. I would love to see the Sox have a little dynasty phase, but if they crush everyone for too long, then they're no longer the underdogs, they're the other MFY, the MFRS. But if they come up and have a mini-dynasty, (ie 4 championships in a decade) and then disappear into relative obscurity and torture us for a while, they will again be cool to admire. That's the loser cachet.

Posted by tendiamonds on 2005-10-12 19:00:29 +0000

I'm giving up my share of my family's 10th Man Plan next year, it's just too damned hard to go... We're converting to Spinners attendees.

Posted by frame609 on 2005-10-13 07:22:23 +0000

I'll buy!