Huh. Is that why, last time I saw the Giants play at Chavez Ravinea few years ago, the five giant Hispanic guys six rows behind us started yelling, “HEY! THESE FAGS FROM SAN FRANCISCO SAID THEY HATE MEXICANS!”
Not at all. That’s a contrived tournament of national teams. What Algher is talking about is a matchup between the clubs that win the most significant national championships worldwide.
You’re really out to sea. I hope you at least find a lighthouse some day.
Ah, and we’re not allowed to challenge it because you’re the Emperor of the Boards, right?
You have made an argument. Just because it’s a terrible argument doesn’t mean it’s not an argument.
I should hope so! Since your “opinion” is under fire, why don’t you come back in and support it? Is it because you won’t, or is it because you can’t?
It wsn’t really a complaint…more of an observation. Believe me, Vin knows exactly how many times each year the Dodgers have played the Giants. I don’t remember any particular inflection in his voice that would make it sound like a whine. Just commenting for those people who don’t know that we play up north 9 games a year.
As for the drunk asshole who attacked Lou Seal…we don’t claim him. A little Silly String never hurt anybody, and that jerk didn’t even get a face full. But you’ll never hear a crowd at Chavez Ravine chanting “Beat SF! Beat SF!” We just don’t invest all that much effort into hating the Giants. They’re scum, and they employ scum, but the traffic going home gets more of our attention. Ditto the drunk Mexicans.
Well now, let’s be fair. There are plenty of Dodger fans who get into very loud chants of “Giants suck!” and, more often, “Barry sucks!” and I’m certain that not all of them are drunk. Not to mention the LA fan in SF last weekend who had the t-shirt that said, “Giants suck” on the front and “and Barry swallows!” on the back.
I’m not sure this means that one group takes the games more seriously than the other. I think it’s just an indication that some LA fans are more accepting of certain behavior than fans of other teams.
Why? Baseball seems to be doing fine without one. And I don’t see any reason why we need to make the owners any richer than they are.
What behavior would that be, winning? 
I agree that this is a great rivalry, and we most certainly do hate them. But this has not been an interleague matchup for quite a few years now (since the Crew joined the NL).
Suppose you went to a performance of a very good play that normally runs about 2 hours. Only this time, they take 3 hours to perform it. Same lines, same action, but just performed at a slower pace. Would you like it more, or less, than the original?
I enjoy more baseball. I’m not keen on the same amount of baseball, just spread over more time.
The thing is, MLB used to have a playoff structure like that, from 1969 to 1993. Then they decided to double the number of teams in the playoffs, which was, IMHO, a lousy idea every which way.
They could have left it at four. Or they could have gone to a six-team playoff structure, with the team with the best record in each league getting a first-round bye. (Could do this either with three divisions, or two divisions and a wildcard - either way, AFAIAC.) That would have preserved the value of the 162-game season, at least for the teams with the best records; it would have made it less likely that after being the best in their league over 162 games, a short-series defeat would keep them out of the World Series; and it would have kept the number of games at any one time down to TV-manageable levels.
Let’s not, and say we did. 
If each team was carrying eight linebackers, you probably would.
Seriously, why do teams need to carry 11-12 pitchers? It cuts down on the number of position players they can carry. If you have 13 position players, that means an AL team is down to a 4-player bench. That’s awfully thin, and I don’t see that they’re getting much more benefit than if they had 10 pitchers, which was the norm for decades.
Because in order to cope with today’s extremely strong and athletic hitters, pitchers must put more velocity and movement on the ball than ever before, and painful experience has shown that teams which carry fewer than 12 pitchers either wear out their bullpen by July or run their starting pitchers onto the disabled list.
Something for which Tommy LaSorda was infamous. He’d always leave a starting pitcher in about an inning too long, and we paid the price for it with a list of injuries a mile long during his tenure. I love the guy, and thought he was a great manager, but I really wanted to slap him for this tendency.
What I have noticed is how many bats break. Therer must be 3 or 4 a game. Someone is going to get hurt. I have seen bat barrels come close to pitchers and fielders several times. Oddly when they used pink bats for mothers day ,I did not see any break. So maybe we should paint them all the time.
The way I see it, that’s because the role of middle relief - a guy who can pitch 3-4 innings, instead of just 1 or 2, when your starter gets knocked out in the 5th inning - seems to have gone by the boards.
Let’s face it, it burns up bullpen arms a lot faster to go through three pitchers in three innings, than to use just one. And if you do that sort of thing, yes, you’re going to have to carry 12 pitchers.
And if you’re expecting 5-6 innings out of your fifth starter every five days, then surely you can find a reliever or two who can do 3 innings twice a week.
And Earl Weaver didn’t leave his starters in too long, but managed to get by with 9-10 pitchers. Hell, in 1978, he had only 8 pitchers for much of the season, and two of those were a washed-up Nelson Briles, and a worthless Joe Kerrigan. That team won 90 games.
Actually, I was just repeating it. Charlie Steiner said it on the air over the weekend on the Dodger broadcast. His color commentator backed him right away.
Maybe it’s just that we don’t have anything as nifty to chant as Beat L.A. We tried chanting Beat S.F. but we just felt foolish.
In 1962, there were 20 teams in the league. And 18 of those teams would only be facing 9 other teams in their entire season. How is that good? How does that serve the fans? How is that even logical? You’re in a proffesional system with 19 other teams, but the most teams you can face in a season, even if your are the best in your league, is 10.
Seriously. 162 games and only 9 opponents? The current system is far better. Inter-league play is a good first step but I think we should go further. How about we fully avail ourselves of the opportunity for variety?
Also, there was the time in the 1972 World Series where Johnny Bench thought he was being intentionally walked, only to have the catcher suddenly crouch behind home plate, as Rollie Fingers threw a perfect strike three to make Bench look like a complete fool.
The difference is what they’re made out of. The ones that break easy are the maplewood bats. I can’t for the life of me understand why MLB hasn’t banned them yet–they’re clearly a catastrophic injury and major lawsuit waiting to happen.
How so? Injury, yes. Lawsuit, no way. The players can’t sue, and neither can the fans. Read the back of your ticket sometime. You “assume the risk” by entering the ballpark.
Not to say that those cheapo bats shouldn’t be done away with, mind you. Whatever happened to the old ones that lasted a season?
They can write whatever they want on the ticket, that doesn’t make it the law. Assumption of the risk varies from state to state. In some it precludes the plaintiff from arguing that the defendant is negligent and in others it does not. It just depends on where you live.
Those bats cracked all the time, they just didn’t usually break.
Today’s bats are of far higher quality in terms of materials and workmanship. However, they’re deliberately built with thinner handles, to allow more weight to be put towards the business end of the bat. That makes them a lot likelier to snap off at the handle.
Sure, but there may be a court ambitious enough to at least allow the fan (or fan’s family) to make a nuisance of themselves. And MLB might scramble to offer a massive settlement instead of letting the fan/family file a motion, to avoid a PR disaster. Which means money lost as a direct result of letting players use maple bats.
There must be something the players like about them. Barry Bonds is probably their most prominent (or notorious) fan, and you can’t tell me he buys them to save money. Maybe they have a bigger sweet spot, or it’s harder to tell if they’re tarred up, or they feel lighter or something.
Can’t be right. Broken bats have been on the rise since 2001, when Bonds broke the single-season HR record with a maple bat and copycats started coming out of the woodwork. I’ll do some more research on this later; for now, I must get to bed.
Or, what RickJay said. What do you know about maple bats, Rick? Are they sturdier, but more likely to shatter than they are to crack?