I'm sorry, Jays didn't show me much
Dan Smith
guys. This is for all you guys who insist on saying the Braves suck
and Toronto is the much better team.
The Braves are the best team in baseball right now. Especially when they
are totally healthy. The problem is that when they lose very key and important
players, noone notices because they are such a deep team. For your information,
the Braves played the entire postseason without their two top closers : Kent
Mercker and Al Pena. Mercker was the left-handed closer and Pena the righty.
Wohlers, Stanton and Freeman were the set-up men. (Imagine setup men throwing
95 to 100 mph, that's how strong the Braves were in 1992). Pena and Mercker
were both lost to injuries late in the year.
If these guys are healthy, Reardon wouldn't even be on the team so you wouldn't
have been able to rally off him and I know you would't have seen Leibrandt in
there in game 6 either. The Braves would have won this series with them
because they kept it painfully close even without them.(Mercker and Pena)
Take Henke and Ward from Toronto or Dibble and Charlton from Cinncinnati and
see how they fair. I just hurts as a Braves fan to see Toronto rally off of
guys that weren't even pitching in game-tight situations all year. The fact
that the announcers or press didn't make a big deal out of the Braves playing
without their 2 top closers was due to the fact that the Braves still had Stanton
and Wohlers and Freeman. Their depth masked a huge loss to the bullpen.
My point is Toronto showed me they could rally off men 35 years old and above.
You never did anything against Pete Smith, Stanton or Wohlers. NEVER! NOT IN
THE WHOLE SERIES! The Braves rallied off your best in game 6 (Henke, Ward, Key).
I was content with the series loss until I saw the post-game with Toronto doing
the chop and chanting. LIKE THEY DID SOMETHING! RALLYING OFF A 36 YEAR-OLD
JUNKBALLING LEFTY!
Toronto fans be happy and grateful. You eeeked out 4 one-run wins rallying off
old has-beens in three of them. The Braves won both of their games convincingly.
Like I said, I was content to take this loss and be quiet until I saw the
post-game. The Toronto players (the ones doing that) are classless. At least
Minnesota didn't try to embarrass the Braves when they won the 7th game last year
1 - 0 on a broken-bat double by Dan Gladden off the Braves real closer Al Pena.
They thanked their lucky stars and said the Braves deserved half of the trophy.
I'm not whining about injuries. I simply want Toronto to acknowledge their
fortune and not degrade the Braves. You did not beat the Braves best. In your
heart you've got to know the Braves didn't win the NL West with Reardon
pitching in save situations all year long. We played without Otis Nixon last
year (imagine Lonnie Smith a leadoff hitter and Braves still almost won it)
and now without Pena and Mercker this year. It just hurts that the world cannot
see the team that played so well this year, but merely a patched up version that
still made a very gutsy effort to win even when they were down and out. And when
we lose to you, you kick us when we are down instead of realizing your good
fortune. After all, its not often you can be declared World Champions after
winning 4 games by 1 run in a 7 game series off of a team with a bullpen weakened
by injury. (Sorry for the length, but you guys really made this one hurt)
KING OF THE BEACH
>I'm sorry. This is not for the gracious Toronto fans. Congrats to you
>guys. This is for all you guys who insist on saying the Braves suck
>and Toronto is the much better team.
>The Braves are the best team in baseball right now. Especially when they
[blah, blah, blah]
WHAT A SORE LOSER.
DUDE, IT'S JUST A GAME. IF PEOPLE'S LIVES DEPEND THIS MUCH ON A BASEBALL
TEAM'S PERFORMANCE, THEN IT'S TIME FOR SOCIETY TO STEP IN.
JEEZ...
--
+Primus-RedHotChiliPeppers-RollinsBand-TheChurch-TheHouseOfLove-U2-Pixies-Curve+
JAY "IDig" PARDEE
v-b...@uiuc.edu
+-KMFDM-NineInchNails-Ministry-FrontLineAssembly-MeatBeatManifesto-SkinnyPuppy-+
Colin McFadyen
>I'm sorry. This is not for the gracious Toronto fans. Congrats to you
>guys. This is for all you guys who insist on saying the Braves suck
>and Toronto is the much better team.
I don't want to lump myself in with the ungracious Jays fans but I would like
a chance to respond to Dan's post.
[ stuff about bullpen injuries and how the Braves are probably the best team
in baseball deleted. ]
>Take Henke and Ward from Toronto or Dibble and Charlton from Cinncinnati and
>see how they fair. I just hurts as a Braves fan to see Toronto rally off of
>guys that weren't even pitching in game-tight situations all year. The fact
>that the announcers or press didn't make a big deal out of the Braves playing
>without their 2 top closers was due to the fact that the Braves still had Stanton
>and Wohlers and Freeman. Their depth masked a huge loss to the bullpen.
>My point is Toronto showed me they could rally off men 35 years old and above.
>You never did anything against Pete Smith, Stanton or Wohlers. NEVER! NOT IN
>THE WHOLE SERIES! The Braves rallied off your best in game 6 (Henke, Ward, Key).
>I was content with the series loss until I saw the post-game with Toronto doing
>the chop and chanting. LIKE THEY DID SOMETHING! RALLYING OFF A 36 YEAR-OLD
>JUNKBALLING LEFTY!
Toronto rallied against the supposed best reliever in baseball to win the ALCS.
Dennis Eckersley was yanked in game 6!! Granted they didn't do well against
Wohlers or Stanton but they were never there in the crunch for Atlanta when
they were needed most. Blame it on Cox?? The point is that Toronto didn't
face them when the chips were down (i.e. final inning of a very close game...
forget game 5) so we don't know what may have happened.
>Toronto fans be happy and grateful. You eeeked out 4 one-run wins rallying off
>old has-beens in three of them. The Braves won both of their games convincingly.
Agreed, Toronto won 3 (ok 4) very close games that could have gone either way
but if the relievers (Reardon and Liebrandt) are has-beens then that was Cox's
fault for having them in there. Maybe it was Cito's fault, after all he sure
seemed to outcoach Cox by getting the hitting match-ups going in his favour.
The Braves won convincingly??? Both games were decided by home runs. A pitching
error both times by Jack Morris.
[ Dan says Toronto players chanting and chopping are classless deleted ]
>I'm not whining about injuries. I simply want Toronto to acknowledge their
>fortune and not degrade the Braves. You did not beat the Braves best. In your
>heart you've got to know the Braves didn't win the NL West with Reardon
>pitching in save situations all year long. We played without Otis Nixon last
>year (imagine Lonnie Smith a leadoff hitter and Braves still almost won it)
>and now without Pena and Mercker this year. It just hurts that the world cannot
>see the team that played so well this year, but merely a patched up version that
>still made a very gutsy effort to win even when they were down and out. And when
>we lose to you, you kick us when we are down instead of realizing your good
>fortune. After all, its not often you can be declared World Champions after
>winning 4 games by 1 run in a 7 game series off of a team with a bullpen weakened
>by injury. (Sorry for the length, but you guys really made this one hurt)
Sorry about the Brave's loss Dan. Maybe next year their opposition will just
roll over and give it to them because they deserve it so much.
--
Colin McFadyen -- Carleton U. Computing and Communications Services
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA K1S 5B6
col...@ccs.carleton.ca
Leonard J. Nissim
dans...@mcopn2.dseg.ti.com writes...
>I'm sorry. [stuff deleted]
>are totally healthy.
All 26 teams had injuries. My team (the Dodgers) had our only two sluggers
(Strawberry & E. Davis) out for most of the year. I am *not* asking for
sympathy--injuries are a part of every team every year. It is absurd to
belly-ache about Ted Turner's team's injuries. They had some. So what?
>
>If these guys are healthy, [stuff deleted]
then you might not be whining and whining. So what?
>It just hurts as a Braves fan to see Toronto rally off of
>guys that weren't even pitching in game-tight situations all year. The fact
>that the announcers or press didn't make a big deal out of the Braves playing
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Too bad (from your point of view) that fat, ugly Skip and vile, traitorous Don
were not announcing.
>without their 2 top closers was due to the fact that the Braves still had
>Stanton
>and Wohlers and Freeman. Their depth masked a huge loss to the bullpen.
>
>I'm not whining about injuries.
That's exactly what you are doing. What sore losers you fans of Ted Turner's
team are! We lost 99 games this year (most Dodger losses in a season since
1908), which is shameful, but we are not whining and moaning. We are suffering
inside, and hoping for a much better year in 1993. But you are welcome to
moan and whine, as did the Milwaukee Braves fans before you over the 1959 NL
Pennant.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leonard Nissim, notorious Dodger fanatic (nis...@mary.fordham.edu)
Disclaimer: "I speak only for myself."
World Championships: Brooklyn-----1955
Los Angeles--1959 1963 1965 1981 1988
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Mann
>
> The Braves are the best team in baseball right now. Especially when
they
> are totally healthy. The problem is that when they lose very key
and important
> players, noone notices because they are such a deep team. For your
information,
> the Braves played the entire postseason without their two top
closers : Kent
> Mercker and Al Pena.
So. All teams have to put up with injuries. The Pirates
took the Braves to 7 without Zane Smith. With Smith, the
Pirates probably would beat the Braves. But that's beside
the point. The Braves won, and in doing so have the right
to be called the best team in the NL this year.
>
> If these guys are healthy, Reardon wouldn't even be on the team so
you wouldn't
> have been able to rally off him and I know you would't have seen
Leibrandt in
> there in game 6 either. The Braves would have won this series with
them
> because they kept it painfully close even without them.(Mercker and
Pena)
>
As I said, the Pirates would have won with Smith. So what?
Can anyone name a world series in which their weren't one
or two people out due to injuries.?
Your whole post sounds like a bunch of sour grapes.
--
Jim Mann
Stratus Computer jm...@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Edward [Ted] Fischer
>
>Okay guys. you may be right. But you'd be a little sour too if your team
>played like gangbusters even without 2 of their best pitchers and watched
>another team barely win four games (2 off a total clown Jeff Reardon) and
>call themselves the best team in baseball and then make fun of you as if
>they beat you at your best.
I think part of this feeling is the "hired gun" syndrome. Reardon was
wearing a Braves uniform, but he hadn't been with the team long, and I
doubt most people associated him with the Braves. Now if Reardon
converts those saves, he becomes instantly lauded as the Braves'
saviour (amazing how success leads to acceptance). But as it was, the
Braves chances were blown by an outsider. Which really feels bad.
>You guys did not see the Braves team that won
>the west this year and that's a shame.
Agreed. If it worked during the regular season, go with it for the
playoffs. The post-season is a little different, but the rules of the
game remain the same. But Cox felt his bullpen was weak, and so
wanted Reardon. Oh, well.
-Valentine
--
Make outs, not walks! ted...@cs.cornell.edu
Clemens four Cy Young!
Dan Smith
>> If these guys are healthy, Reardon wouldn't even be on the team so
>you wouldn't
>> have been able to rally off him and I know you would't have seen
>Leibrandt in
>> there in game 6 either. The Braves would have won this series with
>them
>> because they kept it painfully close even without them.(Mercker and
>Pena)
>>
>
>As I said, the Pirates would have won with Smith. So what?
>Can anyone name a world series in which their weren't one
>or two people out due to injuries.?
>
>Your whole post sounds like a bunch of sour grapes.
Okay guys. you may be right. But you'd be a little sour too if your team
played like gangbusters even without 2 of their best pitchers and watched
another team barely win four games (2 off a total clown Jeff Reardon) and
call themselves the best team in baseball and then make fun of you as if
they beat you at your best. Do you guys honestly think you'd have rallied
if you'd seen 95 mph fastballs with movement (Pena) or 96 mph fastballs
(Mercker) in clutch situations instead of 83 mph meat pitches by Reardon?
You did nothing, and I mean nothing, with the Braves regular set-up men
throwing (Stanton and Wohlers). You especially did nothing off Stanton
and that's sad because if you think he's good, Mercker is better. He pitched
circles around Stanton all year. You guys did not see the Braves team that won
the west this year and that's a shame. However, I agree with the post about
the Pirates not being totally healthy. Here's the catch. The Braves after
beating the Pirates did not make fun of them by doing the hook or anything. They
in fact commended the Pirates. And Braves fans did not make statements like:
The Braves are better than the Pirates in every area. I have actually heard stuff
like that from Toronto fans. Come on. If your totally better, why all the 1 run
wins off what is not even close to the best Braves bullpen. You won the series,
but the teams are evenly matched and even moreso with the Braves closers in there.
So don't make fun of us. Our team tried their hearts out and scared the hell out
of you in the process.
Dan Smith
>In <1992Oct26....@mksol.dseg.ti.com> dans...@mcopn2.dseg.ti.com (Dan Smith) writes:
>
>>I'm sorry. This is not for the gracious Toronto fans. Congrats to you
>>guys. This is for all you guys who insist on saying the Braves suck
>>and Toronto is the much better team.
>
>I don't want to lump myself in with the ungracious Jays fans but I would like
>a chance to respond to Dan's post.
>
>
>Dennis Eckersley was yanked in game 6!! Granted they didn't do well against
>Wohlers or Stanton but they were never there in the crunch for Atlanta when
>they were needed most. Blame it on Cox?? The point is that Toronto didn't
>face them when the chips were down (i.e. final inning of a very close game...
>forget game 5) so we don't know what may have happened.
>
I have to totally agree with Colin on this one. Bobby Cox really pissed me off
during the series with his handling of the bullpen. Notice how he realized at
the end of the series that Stanton was the man to go to in the clutch. Too late
Bobby! They had already lost 3 games by then. I wish Toronto would have faced
the Braves best when the chips were down. If you hit them, I have to give you
some well-deserved credit. Yes, managing killed the Braves in this series. I wish
the good players would have had more to do with it than bad managing.
>
>Sorry about the Brave's loss Dan. Maybe next year their opposition will just
>roll over and give it to them because they deserve it so much.
I knew I would get flamed but I was experiencing complete frustration at the
losses anyway and then to see the postgame...
You guys don't know what its like because you're not in our shoes. You had your
best in the game (Henke and Ward) when it counted. The Braves had an idiot in
the game when it counted because of an idiot managing move. I'm not saying the
Braves would have won the series, but as a Braves fan you just want to see your
best possible team out there in the WORLD SERIES. When you can't have that, that's
fine. But when you come damn close to winning anyway and the opposition makes
fun of you and some people call you the Denver Broncos of baseball, you get a
little tired of hearing that shit. I mean even Denver has Elway in there when
it counts, not his backup. In other words, when Denver loses their best team is
on the field. That was not the case for the Braves.
Anyway congratulations Jays. I give you credit for winning the thing. But please
no insults or statements about being the best team in baseball. Wait until you
beat us at our best then you can brag all you want and I will be right with you
calling you the best team in baseball. For now, you are world champions and
congratulations. Hope to see you in a rematch next year. I think the Jays are
definitely the most talented team in the AL and I hope the expansion draft
doesn't hurt either of our teams too badly so we can have a rematch.
Kjell Johansson
>I'm sorry. This is not for the gracious Toronto fans. Congrats to you
>guys. This is for all you guys who insist on saying the Braves suck
>and Toronto is the much better team.
...
>I'm not whining about injuries. I simply want Toronto to acknowledge their
>fortune and not degrade the Braves. You did not beat the Braves best. In your
And the Braves did not beat the Jays best... :) :) :)
(Sorry, I couldn't resist it, even though I rooted for the Braves - stop
whining, Dan. Injuries are, unfortunately, a part of the game. :(
* Walker * d5k...@dtek.chalmers.se *
* 1993 - the year of the REDS *
Jeff Drummond
Sender: Jeff Drummond
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Summary: The Jays showed me enough.
In article <1992Oct26.2...@mksol.dseg.ti.com> dans...@mcopn2.dseg.ti.com writes:
> [ Some stuff deleted ]
>
>You guys don't know what its like because you're not in our shoes. You had your
>best in the game (Henke and Ward) when it counted. The Braves had an idiot in
>the game when it counted because of an idiot managing move. I'm not saying the
>Braves would have won the series, but as a Braves fan you just want to see your
>best possible team out there in the WORLD SERIES.
Of course. And not only that, you want to see each and every one of your
players at their full potential. If Bonds had played up to his potential
(i.e., the way he'd played all year)...
The limit of this line of reasoning is that if team X loses, it's only because
they didn't have their best players; or their players weren't playing up to
their full potential; or whatever. Every victory becomes tainted by mere fact
that the loser could have won if only...
> When you can't have that, that's
>fine. But when you come damn close to winning anyway and the opposition makes
>fun of you and some people call you the Denver Broncos of baseball, you get a
>little tired of hearing that shit. I mean even Denver has Elway in there when
>it counts, not his backup. In other words, when Denver loses their best team is
>on the field. That was not the case for the Braves.
>
>Anyway congratulations Jays. I give you credit for winning the thing. But please
>no insults or statements about being the best team in baseball.
The Braves played very well this year. They had the best record in baseball
and they are the NL champions for the second consecutive year. Not too
shabby, in my book.
However, the Blue Jays _are_ the best team in baseball this year according
to the only criteria that really matters. They won the World Series. No
ifs, ands or buts. No hemming, hedging, coulda/shoulda/woulda's.
> Wait until you
>beat us at our best then you can brag all you want and I will be right with you
>calling you the best team in baseball. For now, you are world champions and
>congratulations. Hope to see you in a rematch next year. I think the Jays are
>definitely the most talented team in the AL and I hope the expansion draft
>doesn't hurt either of our teams too badly so we can have a rematch.
Good luck to all 28 teams next year.
-Jeff j...@cray.com
--
"The best athlete
wants his opponent at his best.
The best batter
enters the mind of the pitcher."
-Lao "Lefty" Tzu in _The_Tao_of_Baseball_, Chapter 68.
Glenn R. Waugaman
In article <1992Oct26....@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, dans...@mcopn2.dseg.ti.com (Dan Smith) writes...
>I was content with the series loss until I saw the post-game with Toronto doing
>the chop and chanting.
Why shouldn't they have? It's a tiresome, annoying, asinine gesture which
should be mocked and ridiculed at every opportunity, as far as I'm
concerned. If Toronto was sick of it, then good for them-- they've joined
up with the rest of the free world, minus Atlanta.
I understand your frustrations, and how you might feel that in losing
somehow the Braves might not receive the proper respect. I was (mildly)
rooting for the Braves, too, although I respect the Blue Jays very much.
I think your fears are unfounded, and your criticisms of the Jays'
behavior in fun misdirected. The Braves did not disgrace themselves in
defeat, as the Pirates did not when the shoe was on the other foot. This
is the way it goes when two evenly-matched teams must decide a winner in a
best-of-seven series.
By the way, the Braves knew they had serious bullpen deficiencies due to
injury before the trading deadline and chose not pull out the stops. What
they went out and got was Jeff Reardon. In a similar predicament, the
Blue Jays acquired David Cone to shore up the starting staff, not knowing
if Juan Guzman would be 100% (as it turns out he was, but the help didn't
hurt). This is also part of the game...
---
Glenn Waugaman
Digital Equipment Corporation
Littleton, MA
g_wau...@nac.enet.dec.com
---
John Franjione
>I'm sorry. This is not for the gracious Toronto fans. Congrats to you
>guys. This is for all you guys who insist on saying the Braves suck
>and Toronto is the much better team.
[Everything else deleted]
This doesn't really have to do with your post, but after all the
stat/antistat wars which have occurred in this group this season, I
thought I might bring this up.
I don't think you'll find any of the stathead types on this newsgroup
doing any of this derision which you speak of. Statheads get flamed
for being "obnoxious", when all they are trying to do is understand
baseball better. For example, my interpretation of the playoffs and
World Series are:
As a fan:
I wish the Pirates would have won the NLCS. I'm glad the Blue Jays
won the WS, because they have a good organization with good fans.
Also, I was happy to see the Braves lose. I was especially happy to
see the Braves lose game 2 on the 9th inning homer.
As an amateur stathead:
The playoffs and World Series say little about which team is actually
"better". The Jays victories were all by one run, and with a few
breaks, Atlanta could have won the Series. To really decide which
team is best, you'd need many more games (how many more? I don't
know).
John Franjione
Dale Stephenson
>> [ Some stuff deleted ]
>The Braves played very well this year. They had the best record in baseball
>and they are the NL champions for the second consecutive year. Not too
>shabby, in my book.
>However, the Blue Jays _are_ the best team in baseball this year according
>to the only criteria that really matters. They won the World Series. No
>ifs, ands or buts. No hemming, hedging, coulda/shoulda/woulda's.
This is true this year. The Blue Jays beat the Braves fair and square, and
they were a darn good team. However, it may not be long before a team that
finished 2nd in its division may be world series champs, because they happened
to win a few short series. When that happens, I won't call the world series
the only criteria that matters.
--
Dale J. Stephenson |*| (st...@cs.uiuc.edu) |*| Baseball fanatic
"It is considered good to look wise, especially when not
overburdened with information" -- J. Golden Kimball
Mark Mitchell
[Re: Toronto players mocking Atlanta fans]
}Why shouldn't they have? It's a tiresome, annoying, asinine gesture which
}should be mocked and ridiculed at every opportunity, as far as I'm
}concerned.
Just imagine the outrage and indignity we'd be hearing from Canadians
if the Braves had won the series and preceded to mock the Blue Jays
fans in some way. We would *never* hear the end of the whining.
However, the Blue Jays were rightfully excited about their win, and if
denigrating others is how they choose to celebrate that is their
business. I believe this is the same behavior which Deion Sanders
(rightfully) caught so much flak for: having to put down Tim McCarver
rather than simply join in a celebration of his own team's accomplishments.
--
Mark Mitchell Georgia Tech mm...@prism.gatech.edu
"Death wears a big hat, 'cause he's a big bloke."
Jason Lee
>The Braves are the best team in baseball right now.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong. I thought that the best team was the
one who wins the World Series. Maybe I should read the fine print in
the rules. Yep, I just found it.
Definition of the World Champion
The World Champion of Baseball shall be that team which wins the World
Series, except if somebody thinks otherwise.
David K. Lowenthal
>no insults or statements about being the best team in baseball. Wait until you
>beat us at our best then you can brag all you want and I will be right with you
>calling you the best team in baseball. For now, you are world champions and
>congratulations. Hope to see you in a rematch next year. I think the Jays are
>definitely the most talented team in the AL and I hope the expansion draft
>doesn't hurt either of our teams too badly so we can have a rematch.
Oh give me a break. I really couldn't care less about either of these teams,
but the Blue Jays are the best team. They won the Series, and any stupid
whining about injuries is irrelevant. You can NOT say that the Jays would
have lost if the braves would have had the 2 relievers. Come on, their
bullpen sucked all year. Pena blew games left and right. Give me a break.
If you want to use injuries as an excuse, how about the Reds? Maybe they
would have given the Braves a run if not for their myriad of injuries.
But NO, the Braves were BETTER than the Reds, there is no excuse, the same
way there is no excuse for the Braves. they LOST, deal with it.
--dave
David Marc Nieporent
You found it, alright, but it's pretty irrelevant. (Hi, Roger Maynard.)
The World Champion is the team that wins the World Series. Always.
The World Champion != Best Team in Baseball. Not necessarily.
It's certainly very likely that the World Champion is one of the *four*
best teams in baseball, though that isn't guaranteed either.
--
David M. Nieporent | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix. |------------------------------------
princeton.edu | Clinton/Gore '92. One more week!!!
Is every Bush supporter illiterate? Democrat is a noun, not an adjective.
David Marc Nieporent
>In article <1992Oct26....@mksol.dseg.ti.com> dans...@mcopn2.dseg.ti.com (Dan Smith) writes:
>>The Braves are the best team in baseball right now. Especially when they
>>are totally healthy. The problem is that when they lose very key & important
>>players, noone notices because they are such a deep team.For your information,
>>the Braves played the entire postseason without their two top closers : Kent
>> Mercker and Al Pena.
>So. All teams have to put up with injuries. The Pirates
Agreed. This is why I think the above argument is incorrect. Depth is
part of being a good team.
>took the Braves to 7 without Zane Smith. With Smith, the
>Pirates probably would beat the Braves. But that's beside
>the point. The Braves won, and in doing so have the right
>to be called the best team in the NL this year.
Ducking the flames from Roger Maynard, I reply:
No, they don't. They have the right to be called the NL Champions.
They're probably the best team in the NL, as evidenced by that W-L
record, but not necessarily.
>>If these guys are healthy,Reardon wouldn't even be on the team so you wouldn't
>>have been able to rally off him and I know you would't have seen Leibrandt in
>>there in game 6 either. The Braves would have won this series with them
>>because they kept it painfully close even without them.(Mercker and Pena)
>As I said, the Pirates would have won with Smith. So what?
>Can anyone name a world series in which their weren't one
>or two people out due to injuries.?
>Your whole post sounds like a bunch of sour grapes.
It could be, but the argument could be true. Maybe the Braves would
have won with Mercker/Pena. (Maybe they would have won if they'd have
played Gant instead of Otis Nixon. What IS Cox's fascination with Nixon,
anyway?)
On the other hand, who cares? As you point out, every team has luck
help or hurt their efforts. To say a team "would have won" if only the
ump hadn't missed the call, or so and so hadn't been injured, makes no
more sense than saying they would have won if that ball had been fair
instead of foul, or if they had just turned that double play.
Tom Haapanen
> [assorted whining deleted]
> But please no insults or statements about being the best team in baseball.
I personally believe that a better team will generally win a seven-game
series -- and that means that AS OF RIGHT NOW, the Jays are better than
the Braves, and thus the best team in baseball. Maybe that wasn't true
in August, or last year, or in 1977, but it's true now. But take heart,
Dan, there's always next year. :)
And baseball has an immense element of startegy and tactics, and that means
that the manager is an essential and important PART OF THE TEAM. If Cito
Gaston outmanaged Bobby Cox (as I believe he did), that just means that
the Jays were better in that tenth position, manager!
[ \tom haapanen "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]
[ to...@wes.on.ca "trust the programmer" -- ansi c standard ]
[ waterloo engineering software "to thine own self be true" -- polonius ]
Glenn R. Waugaman
In article <72...@hydra.gatech.EDU>, mm...@prism.gatech.EDU (Mark Mitchell) writes...
>
>Just imagine the outrage and indignity we'd be hearing from Canadians
>if the Braves had won the series and preceded to mock the Blue Jays
>fans in some way. We would *never* hear the end of the whining.
So the shoe is on the other foot. When American Indians complained of
"denigration", they were told to lighten up, to take it in the spirit
offered (and there's something to be said for that). But when the Jays
turned the pervasive, unignorable symbol around and used it as their
rallying cry, Atlantans see nothing but disrespect. Most of us didn't see
it that way; we saw it as done in fun.
Gary Leung
>
Sure we do. Every fan in the world has probably suffered through
one instance or another where their team is beaten while not at
full strength. Heck, when the Jays lost in the ALCS in 5 last year to
the Twins, Joe Carter had an ankle that was so badly sprained (I
think he did it in game 2 or 3) that he couldn't put any weight
on it. Still, I would say that the Twins were the best in the
A.L. last year.
As a Toronto Blue Jays fan, we know what injuries can do and how
frustrating they can be. The
collapse of 1987 when we lost 7 straight to end the season to
practically give the A.L.East to the Tigers. We lost both Tony
Fernandez and Ernie Whitt to serious late season injuries.
Believe me, all fans go through this type of stuff. You're not
the first. Just don't take anything away from the winning team.
> You had your
>best in the game (Henke and Ward) when it counted. The Braves had an idiot in
>the game when it counted because of an idiot managing move. I'm not saying the
>Braves would have won the series, but as a Braves fan you just want to see your
>best possible team out there in the WORLD SERIES. When you can't have that, that's
>fine. But when you come damn close to winning anyway and the opposition makes
>fun of you and some people call you the Denver Broncos of baseball, you get a
>little tired of hearing that shit. I mean even Denver has Elway in there when
>it counts, not his backup. In other words, when Denver loses their best team is
>on the field. That was not the case for the Braves.
>
>Anyway congratulations Jays. I give you credit for winning the thing. But please
>no insults or statements about being the best team in baseball.
That's funny, I thought that the World Champions WERE considered
the best team in baseball? Why play the World Series otherwise.
Oh sorry, the Braves are not 100% healthy so maybe we should
cancel the World Series since the team that beats them wouldn't
be proving anything anyway. Get serious! I suggest to you that
the only thing you find "insulting" is that fact that the Jays
won and the Braves lost.
Let's face it, why do the Braves fans do the tomahawk chop. It's
to rally their team and to annoy the hell out of the opposition.
It works! That's the beauty of the "10th man". As a Jays fan, I
find it annoying but that's the point isn't it? To that end, I
have to give you Brave's fans credit. The tomahawk chop and
rally cry IS supposed to bother the opposition and their fans
(otherwise, you guys may as well yell "let's go Jays"). Hence,
the only reason the Jays and their friends mock the chop is to
annoy the Braves and their fans. No disrespect intended (heck I
didn't know the chop was so sacred), it's all fun and games.
Heck, we won! Let us celebrate.
> Wait until you
>beat us at our best then you can brag all you want and I will be right with you
>calling you the best team in baseball.
For now, WE ARE the best team in baseball. Do you think you're
the only team with injuries? Manny Lee played the entire second
half of the season on a gimpy knee (he missed most of
September). Why do you think he had so little range during the
series. What about Alomar? Why was he hitting barely about .100
in the series after coming off an MVP ALCS where he hit over
.400? Couldn't have anything to do with that play at the plate
in game two where he bruised his elbow on Smoltz's knee could
it? I understand he couldn't straighten his left arm fully until
game 6.
> For now, you are world champions and
>congratulations. Hope to see you in a rematch next year. I think the Jays are
>definitely the most talented team in the AL and I hope the expansion draft
>doesn't hurt either of our teams too badly so we can have a rematch.
>
Agreed.
Dan Campbell
>waug...@gusher.enet.dec.com (Glenn R. Waugaman) wrote:
>
>[Re: Toronto players mocking Atlanta fans]
>
>}Why shouldn't they have? It's a tiresome, annoying, asinine gesture which
>}should be mocked and ridiculed at every opportunity, as far as I'm
>}concerned.
>
>Just imagine the outrage and indignity we'd be hearing from Canadians
>if the Braves had won the series and preceded to mock the Blue Jays
>fans in some way. We would *never* hear the end of the whining.
>
>However, the Blue Jays were rightfully excited about their win, and if
>denigrating others is how they choose to celebrate that is their
>business. I believe this is the same behavior which Deion Sanders
>(rightfully) caught so much flak for: having to put down Tim McCarver
>rather than simply join in a celebration of his own team's accomplishments.
>
I have to agree with this post wholeheartedly. As an atlanta fan, I
was understandably disappointed about the outcome of the series, but as a fan of
baseball, I LOVED this series. My team was never blown out, so every game was
exciting until the end (except maybe game 5), the matchup of teams was great,
and most of all, at the time I left the stadium after game 6, I was thinking to
myself that the people directly involved with the series (the players,
managers, etc...) handled themselves with amazing class. When the flag
incident happened, I was really impressed with the way everything was handled.
The USMC did well to counter at least a little bit of the USA's arrogance image
by admitting their mistake humbly and swiftly, and by asking to make amends.
From what I saw on TV, the fans in Toronto handled it with class, seeming to
accept the USMC apology, and even poking some gentle fun at us. From CBS's
commentary, I had expected some real anti-american displays, which would have
upset me, but the Canadians came through. My hats off to them.
Having lived a large part of my life in the south, I didn't really know
what to expect from the Atlanta crowd with respect to the Canadian involvement.
I actually expected a pretty large contingent of pro-USA, anti-the-rest-of-the-
world bigots, but was very pleasantly surprised. There weren't even very many
American flags at the stadium. I must say that the press seemed a lot more
interested the "Oh-no a canadian team might win" mentality then most of the
fans I saw at the stadium.
From most of what I saw, both at the Atlanta-FC Stadium, and on TV of
the Skydome, most of the "Go my-country" sentiment was pretty much in the same
vein as the "Go my-city" sentiment. In other words, the fans that pulled for
the team from their own country specifically because of what country it was
from did it pretty much for the same reasons that many fans root for the team
from their home city.
You know what? From what friends have told me, this wasn't on TV, but
shortly after game 6 had ended, after the Braves had pretty much left the
field, and the Blue Jays were in the midst of their celebration, a HUGE
standing ovation occured. Most of the fans I talked to in the stadium were
disappointed, but happy to have seen a great series, and a terrific finish.
In other words, the fans of both cities were very classy. The only
thing that I could think of that disappointed me about the series was that the
victors felt it necessary to taunt the losing team and their fans as a part of
their celebration. I am a Braves fan. I do not, however, do the chop. I
agree with most of the civilized world that it's moronic, and I also have a lot
of sympathy for the American Indians who feel stereotyped and insulted by the
chop and chant. BUT, it is still ridiculously poor sportsmanship to taunt the
team and the fans of the team you just beat. They just won the World Series
for god's sake! Have fun, celebrate, but there's no need to display a huge
lack of class that way.
My hats off to the Blue Jays baseball team. They gave us a great
series. It was amazingly fun to watch, and they won. They are the World
Series Champions, and that can not be disputed. To the Brave's fan who
commented about the injuries: As I'm sure a million people have said before
me, that's part of the game. Maybe if the Reds had had fewer injuries, we
wouldn't have even gotten a chance to see Cabrera's heroics in the NLCS. I
empathise with your disappointment (Believe me on this one), but that's the way
the cookie crumbles.
But, to the Blue Jays baseball team members who were showing their
lack of class on international TV by taunting the losers, I say, grow up. The
Braves players and fans are people too. With the exception of Jack Morris
(for obvious reasons), the Atlanta fans rooted FOR their team, not AGAINST
the Blue Jays. They acted in the spirit of good sportsmanship, and it shows
something about the character of these men that they couldn't be good sports.
-Dan
Bri Farenell (Droopy)
>I'm sorry. This is not for the gracious Toronto fans. Congrats to you
>guys. This is for all you guys who insist on saying the Braves suck
>and Toronto is the much better team.
>The Braves are the best team in baseball right now. Especially when they
>are totally healthy. The problem is that when they lose very key and important
>players, noone notices because they are such a deep team. For your information,
>the Braves played the entire postseason without their two top closers : Kent
>Mercker and Al Pena. Mercker was the left-handed closer and Pena the righty.
>Wohlers, Stanton and Freeman were the set-up men. (Imagine setup men throwing
>95 to 100 mph, that's how strong the Braves were in 1992). Pena and Mercker
>were both lost to injuries late in the year.
Are the Braves really the best team in baseball? I thought that is
what the World Series was supposed to determine. Sounds like sour
grapes to me.
>If these guys are healthy, Reardon wouldn't even be on the team so you wouldn't
>have been able to rally off him and I know you would't have seen Leibrandt in
>there in game 6 either. The Braves would have won this series with them
>because they kept it painfully close even without them.(Mercker and Pena)
Tough. Should we have stopped the World Series to accomodate the BRaves?
Would you have been remorseful if Toronto had been the ones with injuries?
I'm sure you'd keep right on Chopping. If Atlanta was really SOOOOOOOOOOOO
much better than Toronto, they wouldn't have put themselves in a position
where the game couldhave been determined by a homer.
>that the announcers or press didn't make a big deal out of the Braves playing
>without their 2 top closers was due to the fact that the Braves still had Stanton
>and Wohlers and Freeman. Their depth masked a huge loss to the bullpen.
We got Canadians claiming that the American media was biased against
Toronto and Atlanta fans claiming that the announcers were biased against
the BRaves. What does that tell you?
>My point is Toronto showed me they could rally off men 35 years old and above.
>You never did anything against Pete Smith, Stanton or Wohlers. NEVER! NOT IN
>THE WHOLE SERIES! The Braves rallied off your best in game 6 (Henke, Ward, Key).
>I was content with the series loss until I saw the post-game with Toronto doing
>the chop and chanting. LIKE THEY DID SOMETHING! RALLYING OFF A 36 YEAR-OLD
>JUNKBALLING LEFTY!
How good is Atlanta if a junkballing 36 year old lefty is out there
in a huge game situation? If Atlanta's pitching was so deep, they would
have had someone else to put in.
>I'm not whining about injuries.
It sure sounds like it.
>I simply want Toronto to acknowledge their
>fortune and not degrade the Braves. You did not beat the Braves best. In your
>heart you've got to know the Braves didn't win the NL West with Reardon
>pitching in save situations all year long. We played without Otis Nixon last
>year (imagine Lonnie Smith a leadoff hitter and Braves still almost won it)
>and now without Pena and Mercker this year. It just hurts that the world cannot
>see the team that played so well this year, but merely a patched up version that
>still made a very gutsy effort to win even when they were down and out. And when
>we lose to you, you kick us when we are down instead of realizing your good
>fortune. After all, its not often you can be declared World Champions after
>winning 4 games by 1 run in a 7 game series off of a team with a bullpen weakened
>by injury. (Sorry for the length, but you guys really made this one hurt)
Good! Probably the only reason I rooted against the Braves in the last
two series is due to the phenomenal number of fair-weather fans they
picked up since last July. They were drawing 5 and 6 thousand up until
then. Now, EVERYONE is a Braves fan.
The chop and chant was intended
to annoy the other team but when you taunt someone and then end up
losing, you HAVE TO EXPECT the other team and their fans are going
to do that. The chop and chant was a taunt and now Braves fans are
whining that they are getting taunted back. Poor babies!
To all you Toronto fans, congrats. You supported your team
throughout the good times and the bad. You did not abandon them during
bad times and flock back to them in August of a contending year. You
were loyal. You deserve this a lot more than most of the fair-weather
Braves fans do. You simply got a taste of your own medicine. Tough
shit.
Congratulations to the WORLD CHAMPION Blue Jays and their
classy fans.
Congratulations to the NL CHAMPION Braves but NOT to most
of their fair-weather fans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bri Farenell | CLARKSON HOCKEY:
Clarkson '95 | C U IN MILWAUKEE
fare...@craft.camp.clarkson.edu |=========================
AHL and ECAC contact for rec.sport.hockey | GO USA HOCKEY!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONGRATULATIONS TO THE 1992 CALDER CUP CHAMPION ADIRONDACK RED WINGS!
Calder Cup Champs: 1981 1986 1989 1992
Dan Smith
Your using phrases like "would have won with Pena/Mercker". I am not
saying the Braves would have won the series with these guys. They may
have lost it in fewer games. We'll never know. I'm just saying I, in
my personal opinion, was not overly impressed with the Jays victories
in the series. This is a personal opinion. I'm just not impressed with
rallies off Reardon or Leibrandt. Could anyone possibly be impressed with
a rally off Reardon? Is that Toronto's fault? No. They did what they had
to do to win. They are world champions and deserve it. It was the Braves'
fault (managing was terrible and that is part of the game) for putting
Toronto in such easy situations to win the games. Its just pure frustration
to see a series lost to bad bullpen managing. I just wish you could have
seen our best in the clutch (not even talking about Mercker or Pena). Anyone
would have been a better choice than Reardon. The obvious choice is Stanton but
Cox could have also chosen Wohlers or even Marvin Freeman who Toronto never got
to see in the series. Freeman is a very good pitcher (infinitely better than
Reardon). Anyway, it is not my place to take any credit away from Toronto.
You did what you had to do to win it and good teams do that. The Braves killed
themselves with bad managing but deserve credit for playing the thing so close
anyway.
Bri Farenell (Droopy)
deserve all the credit.
Bullshit!
Both teams deserve credit. This guy seems to be trying to discredit
the Jays and their effort.
The Jays rallied against the top reliever in the game today (Eck)
and the top reliever in history (Reardon).
The jays may have won 4 close games but that impresses me more
than the Braves Game 5 blowout.
Any team can jump out to a big lead and hold it but the Jays
proved they can win the close games. The difference between good
teams and bad teams are clutch performance. In the World Series,
Toronto did and Atlanta didn't. Most of the year, Atlanta did
too.
Concerning the Chop and Chant, if you are a visiting player
who has been taunted by that for 3 games and you win, wouldn't
you want to rub it in a little into the guys who were
taunting you? I sure would. Atlanta fans simply got a taste of
their own medicine.
I don't try and discredit the Braves because theyhad a great
season but just because the Braves had injuries does not take
away from teh excellent performance of the (otherwise hated
divisional rival) Blue Jays. The Braves may have been at a slight
disadvantage with their 2 pitchers missing but they were even
the rest of the game.
If Atlanta was SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
much better than Toronto except for the bullpen, Toronto
wouldnt have even been close in the 1st place. I don't try and
degrade the Braves but you shouldn't try and do the same to
the Jays either. Both teams showed thje world a lot. In
saying that just one team showed a lot, sounds like nothing
more than fair-weather fan sour-grapes whining.
Bri Farenell (Droopy)
>waug...@gusher.enet.dec.com (Glenn R. Waugaman) wrote:
>[Re: Toronto players mocking Atlanta fans]
>}Why shouldn't they have? It's a tiresome, annoying, asinine gesture which
>}should be mocked and ridiculed at every opportunity, as far as I'm
>}concerned.
>Just imagine the outrage and indignity we'd be hearing from Canadians
>if the Braves had won the series and preceded to mock the Blue Jays
>fans in some way. We would *never* hear the end of the whining.
>However, the Blue Jays were rightfully excited about their win, and if
>denigrating others is how they choose to celebrate that is their
>business. I believe this is the same behavior which Deion Sanders
>(rightfully) caught so much flak for: having to put down Tim McCarver
>rather than simply join in a celebration of his own team's accomplishments.
To me, Toronto was doing nothing more than giving the BRaves'
fans a taste of their own medicine. Period. It's hypocritical
for you to do something and them condemn someone else for doing
the exact same thing. The chop is a taunt, plain and simple.
If the Braves fans were wrong for doing it, then they shouldn't
criticize the Jays for doing it either. If the Braves fans were justified
for doing it, then the Jays were similiarly justified.
TO ALL YOU SOUR GRAPES, WHINING, FAIR-WEATHER BRAVES FANS: Just go home
and wait till next year.
Jeesh! I have no particular hard feelings for the Braves' team
and players. In fact, I like them; John Smoltz played minor league
baseball in my hometown. I like Dave Justice and Steve Avery. I can't
stand their fans, though. I would more than likely have rooted for
them if it weren't for their fair-weather fans. Where were the
other 45,000 in Fulton County Stadium when the Braves were
drawing 7000 fans a game early in 1991?
To you classy Atlanta fans who have liked the Braves for a
while and give BOTH teams proper credit without whining,
I wish your team luck next year.
mo...@uga.edu
It is sad to see the Braves lost the championship just because of bad
management. After playing so well all through the years and towards the end to
goof off like this is terrible. But I am glad at least the Jays did not get it
so easy; but I can't help wishing that it would have been better if there was
7th game. May be next year the Braves will win it all...
MR
A Hopeful & Very Sad Braves fan
guil...@otago.ac.nz
> The Braves are the best team in baseball right now. Especially when they
> are totally healthy. The problem is that when they lose very key and
> important players, noone notices because they are such a deep team.
> For your information, the Braves played the entire postseason without
> their two top closers : Kent Mercker and Al Pena.
No one has bothered to point out how outright silly this is. (And
usually, this kind of duty is the great encompassing theme of r.s.b).
The Braves were, of course, very healthy, and if you were going to bring
up what few injuries they had, why not Treadway?
Pena and Mercker are good players, but any team for whom they are
the big injuries must count themselves lucky. Toronto had an injury
or two also -- I assume Wells was hurt, and also Stieb. For that
matter, Gruber? But anyway, no team can count on having every man
on the 40-man roster available at all times -- especially pitchers,
especially pitchers with histories of arm trouble like Alejandro
Pena....
Finally, why did Stanton have more saves per relief appearance than
Mercker?
> My point is Toronto showed me they could rally off men 35 years old and above.
> You never did anything against Pete Smith, Stanton or Wohlers. NEVER! NOT IN
> THE WHOLE SERIES! The Braves rallied off your best in game 6 (Henke, Ward,
> Key). I was content with the series loss until I saw the post-game with
> Toronto doing the chop and chanting. LIKE THEY DID SOMETHING! RALLYING OFF
> A 36 YEAR-OLD JUNKBALLING LEFTY!
1. Not to be too flamish, but is this funnier than the "Toronto and
Pittsburg We Are Fam-i-lee" poster or not? I can't quite decide.
2. Why didn't Atlanta use the final weeks of the season to groom a starter
for the pen? The Braves in 1992 had 161 starts by pitchers with ERA's of
3.36 or better -- the big 3, Smith, Leibrandt, Nied and Bielecki. Smith
and Leibrandt each made one regular season relief appearance.
The obvious answer is that they thought getting an established closer
(Reardon) was a better idea. It didn't work out (this time -- last
time, with Pena, it did), that's all.
Reardon against righties was probably as good a bet as Stanton. If
I was an Atlanta fan, I would've been wondering about trying Smith,
instead of acquiring the someone with the H/IP data of Reardon (his
K/W is still good, though). But then do you really go that far on
11 starts -- Pete Smith is just Pete Smith.
3. Leibrandt may be a 36 year-old junkballing lefty, but he's been
pitching well for the Braves. I guess we can just imagine the shame
that should accrue to Toronto had they NOT rallied off him.
Rallying off Leibrandt is perhaps not so unlike rallying off Key.
4. Henke is 35 years old or above.
> I'm not whining about injuries. I simply want Toronto to acknowledge their
> fortune and not degrade the Braves. You did not beat the Braves best. In your
> heart you've got to know the Braves didn't win the NL West with Reardon
> pitching in save situations all year long.
I want the rest of the AL to acknowledge that the Mariners (I'm a fan)
are not the worst team. You did not beat the Mariners best this year.
Hey, you listening?
Of course the Braves won by 8 games, with a bullpen that struggled,
so of course they WOULD have won the NLW with Reardon pitching in
save situations all year long.
> After all, its not often you can be declared World Champions after winning
> 4 games by 1 run in a 7 game series off of a team with a bullpen weakened
> by injury. (Sorry for the length, but you guys really made this one hurt)
If I were the Braves, with their pitching depth, and I could say to
Toronto, you play without Wells, we'll play without Mercker and Pena,
I might do it.
Bill Guilford
GEOFFREY E DIAS
>I was content with the series loss until I saw the post-game with Toronto doing
>the chop and chanting. LIKE THEY DID SOMETHING! RALLYING OFF A 36 YEAR-OLD
>JUNKBALLING LEFTY!
>
...with a 41 year-old who was recently out for a whole season with a back
problem.
Speaking as a Toronto fan, most did the chop, BECAUSE IT WAS SO DAMN ANNOYING!!
John Franjione
>The jays may have won 4 close games but that impresses me more
>than the Braves Game 5 blowout.
>Any team can jump out to a big lead and hold it but the Jays
>proved they can win the close games. The difference between good
>teams and bad teams are clutch performance. In the World Series,
>Toronto did and Atlanta didn't. Most of the year, Atlanta did
>too.
This, of course, is a common misconception in general. The best teams
are the ones who jump out to the big lead. Bill James has a discussion
of this in one of the Abstracts. The point is that the indicator of an
excellent teams is their record in games decided by a large number of
runs (say 5 or more), rather than their record in one run games. I'll
bet that if you rank teams by their winning percentage in 1-run games,
and by winning percentaqge in all other games, you'd find more
correlation with the overall winning percentage with the latter. Think
about it. You say above that "any team can jump out to a big lead and
hold it." Who did this more often last year, the Braves or the
Dodgers? Sure, any team can hold a big lead. But you have to acquire
that lead first.
That said, I question the validity of this in Championship Series or
World Series play. The teams are so close in ability, that perhaps
there will be more close games, and that record in close games in the
CS or WS is an important indicator of superiority. Any comments?
John Franjione
Dan Smith
>This guy is saying that he thinks the Jays suck and Braves
>deserve all the credit.
>
>Bullshit!
>
>Both teams deserve credit. This guy seems to be trying to discredit
>the Jays and their effort.
>
Excuse me. When did I ever say the Jays suck and the Braves deserve all the credit.
That simply hasn't been said. I have given Toronto credit for winning the series. I
just said I wasn't impressed with some of the wins. I don't HAVE TO BE IMPRESSED if
I so choose. Do it off Stanton or Wohlers and I'm impressed (not Reardon). Its like
going to Niagra Falls or something. A lot of people may be impressed. I may not be.
YOU CAN"T MAKE ME BE IMPRESSED ABOUT SOMETHING.
>The Jays rallied against the top reliever in the game today (Eck)
>and the top reliever in history (Reardon).
>
The best reliever in history as you call him had an unusually high ERA
for a closer IN HIS PRIME. He is now at least 4 years past his prime.
Now what you did off Eck was impressive and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
>Concerning the Chop and Chant, if you are a visiting player
>who has been taunted by that for 3 games and you win, wouldn't
>you want to rub it in a little into the guys who were
>taunting you? I sure would. Atlanta fans simply got a taste of
>their own medicine.
Toronto players were doing that when they were at home also (ALomar,Gruber)
>
>I don't try and discredit the Braves because theyhad a great
>season but just because the Braves had injuries does not take
>away from teh excellent performance of the (otherwise hated
>divisional rival) Blue Jays. The Braves may have been at a slight
>disadvantage with their 2 pitchers missing but they were even
>the rest of the game.
>
>If Atlanta was SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
>much better than Toronto except for the bullpen, Toronto
>wouldnt have even been close in the 1st place. I don't try and
>degrade the Braves but you shouldn't try and do the same to
>the Jays either. Both teams showed thje world a lot. In
>saying that just one team showed a lot, sounds like nothing
>more than fair-weather fan sour-grapes whining.
For the last time, I am not degrading the Jays. They get credit from me
and are getting credit from the rest of the world as being world champs
while the Braves are being called the Denver Broncos of baseball. How much
credit do you need! You are being hailed as world champs!
Also, I'm tired of this fair-weather fan bullshit. I, for one, am not. I have
watched over 600 Braves games in the past 6 years and followed them very close
when they finished last 3 years in a row. I followed them because they were the
only team I could follow. You see I, and most Braves fans, live in the south. We
do not have the luxury of living up north where there is a major-league team every
100 miles. If you bothered to check, most Braves fans come from the following
states: Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, etc. We follow the Braves because they are the
the team for which we get games and because we have grown to like the team over
the years.
You ask where were all the fans back when the Braves were losing. As you know,
losing teams always have attendance problems, that's just plain obvious. There
were a lot of us watching on TV, however. A lot of fans where I am from drive
10 hours to Atlanta to see the Braves play. If we want to see our team play major
league ball in person, we follow the Braves because we can't drive to other team's
cities. You guys can have the luxury of switching teams if you want. You can root
for Boston if they're doing well, or either of the New York teams or Philadelphia.
Or if you live in Milwaukee, you have the Brewers or if they do bad, Detroit or
somebody. Down here we have the Braves, and only the Braves (at least until the
Florida Marlins start up). We are diehard fans and have stuck with this team
thru thick and thin.
Jason Lee
>In article <1992Oct27.0...@zeus.calpoly.edu> jp...@zeus.calpoly.edu (Jason Lee) writes:
>>In<1992Oct26....@mksol.dseg.ti.com> dans...@mcopn2.dseg.ti.com writes:
>>>The Braves are the best team in baseball right now.
>
>>Somebody correct me if I'm wrong. I thought that the best team was the
>>one who wins the World Series. Maybe I should read the fine print in
>>the rules. Yep, I just found it.
>
>>Definition of the World Champion
>>The World Champion of Baseball shall be that team which wins the World
>>Series, except if somebody thinks otherwise.
>
>You found it, alright, but it's pretty irrelevant. (Hi, Roger Maynard.)
>The World Champion is the team that wins the World Series. Always.
>
>The World Champion != Best Team in Baseball. Not necessarily.
>
>It's certainly very likely that the World Champion is one of the *four*
>best teams in baseball, though that isn't guaranteed either.
>
>--
>David M. Nieporent
This is the system we've got for determining the World Champion. Those
people who do not want to equate the World Champion with what they perceive
is actually the best team in baseball are worrying too much over something
that doesn't even matter. Two people could argue until the cows come home
over whether the Braves or the Blue Jays are the best team, and each side
could make very convincing arguments, but it still doesn't matter. The only
thing that is actually indisputable fact is that the Toronto Blue Jays are
the world champions. The system is certainly flawed, as in baseball, anybody
who has a good series can win, so what we've got is a system that says that
the World Champions are the World Champions. End of Story.
No more wondering what-ifs, because that doesn't go very far. The worst team
in baseball (LA) could what if too!!!!
Kim Krattiger
Braves by doing the chop. My guess would be they were ridiculing the obnoxious
fans who chant and chop through the ENTIRE game. This is not to say that
team spirit is a bad thing, but I think a lot of the Atlanta fans really have
gone overboard with this thing. Once in a while wouldn't be bad, but though
the entire game would really wear on anyone's nerves!!!
Mark Mitchell
}"denigration", they were told to lighten up, to take it in the spirit
}offered (and there's something to be said for that). But when the Jays
}turned the pervasive, unignorable symbol around and used it as their
}rallying cry, Atlantans see nothing but disrespect. Most of us didn't see
}it that way; we saw it as done in fun.
But your analogy makes no sense: the "spirit offered" by the Blue
Jays was gloating and rubbing the Atlanta fans noses in the loss.
The Blue Jays' fans seemed to understand how to have fun - they waved
their foam J's, they waved their Canadian flags, they cheered loudly.
Those were celbrations "done in fun", but the players' chanting in the
locker room was obviously a different story.
No matter though, they won the series and earned the right to
celebrate as they wished, either by cheering their own accomplishments
or trying to gloat over others.
Sherri Nichols
the Series>
In article <1992Oct28.0...@zeus.calpoly.edu> jp...@zeus.calpoly.edu (Jason Lee) writes:
>This is the system we've got for determining the World Champion. Those
>people who do not want to equate the World Champion with what they perceive
>is actually the best team in baseball are worrying too much over something
>that doesn't even matter.
It may not matter to you; however, it does matter to others.
> Two people could argue until the cows come home
>over whether the Braves or the Blue Jays are the best team, and each side
>could make very convincing arguments, but it still doesn't matter. The only
>thing that is actually indisputable fact is that the Toronto Blue Jays are
>the world champions.
No, there are plenty of indisputable facts. There is the indisputable fact
that the Braves won more games in a 162 game season than the Jays. There's
also the indisputable fact that they didn't win significantly more games
than the Jays.
> The system is certainly flawed, as in baseball, anybody
>who has a good series can win, so what we've got is a system that says that
>the World Champions are the World Champions. End of Story.
As long as you call the Jays the World Champions, I have no argument with
you. If you claim that the outcome of a 7-game series determines which
team is *better* than the other, then I do have an argument with you.
We could replay this World Series starting today with the same two teams,
and have a good possibility of ending up with a different outcome. Would
that mean the Braves were suddenly better? No, of course not.
I'm certainly not claiming that the current system is flawed. It would be
flawed if the goal of the system were to select the best team, but that's
not the goal.
Look at it this way: it's pretty likely that in the near future, an extra
round of playoffs will be added. With an extra round of playoffs, at some
point, some team that finished second in their division will win the World
Series. Will that team, which obviously couldn't beat out all the teams in
its division over the course of the season, be the "best" team? Of course
not; they will, however, be the World Champions.
Sherri Nichols
snic...@adobe.com
Leonard J. Nissim
(Sherri Nichols) writes...
><Note: I am *not* a Braves fan; I was definitely pulling for the Jays in
>the Series>
>
>Look at it this way: it's pretty likely that in the near future, an extra
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>round of playoffs will be added. With an extra round of playoffs, at some
>point, some team that finished second in their division will win the World
>Series. Will that team, which obviously couldn't beat out all the teams in
>its division over the course of the season, be the "best" team? Of course
>not; they will, however, be the World Champions.
I fear that you are right; the owners, scared about lower TV revenue, will try
more gimmicks. But how terrible for baseball.
>
>Sherri Nichols
>snic...@adobe.com
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leonard Nissim, notorious Dodger fanatic (nis...@mary.fordham.edu)
Disclaimer: "I speak only for myself."
World Championships: Brooklyn-----1955
Los Angeles--1959 1963 1965 1981 1988
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sherri Nichols
>I fear that you are right; the owners, scared about lower TV revenue, will try
>more gimmicks. But how terrible for baseball.
I don't think it's automatically terrible for baseball. The major way in
which it could be terrible for baseball is if it hurts the value of the
regular season too much, and I don't see that shortening the regular season
by a week and adding a couple of wild card teams really does much harm to
that.
If a second place team were to win the Series, you'd see much wailing and
gnashing of teeth among the sportswriters, but I doubt you'd see much from
the fans of the second place team. You'd see it from the first place team
they defeated, but I don't see it as really any different than one division
winner who's won fewer games than the other division winner winning the
current LCS.
And playoffs are fun and exciting. Presumably, the owners want to do this
because more people are interested in watching more playoff games.
Sherri Nichols
snic...@adobe.com
Mark J. Rinehart
> fare...@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell ("Droopy")) wrote:
> }To me, Toronto was doing nothing more than giving the BRaves'
> }fans a taste of their own medicine. Period. It's hypocritical
> }for you to do something and them condemn someone else for doing
> }the exact same thing.
>
> it is perfectly acceptably for me to mockingly stutter back at
> the person?
It would help if you'd be mature about your comments, and stop playing
stupid, in an attempt to justify your whining position, as you do with
the above paragraph. You know very well that is not what the poster
above was referring to. Yours is a truly pathetic response.
> The Blue Jay players were being sore winners by mocking the Braves
> fans in the locker room. If you think it would have been anything
You, assumably a Braves fan, are just as sore a loser for whining
about this. Give us all a brake.
Mark
Dale Stephenson
[snip: regarding the desirability of added playoffs]
>If a second place team were to win the Series, you'd see much wailing and
>gnashing of teeth among the sportswriters, but I doubt you'd see much from
>the fans of the second place team. You'd see it from the first place team
>they defeated, but I don't see it as really any different than one division
>winner who's won fewer games than the other division winner winning the
>current LCS.
It is a little bit different. Since the two division winners do not play each
team the same number of times (especially in the NL), we can pretend that we
really aren't sure which one is the better team. If the Braves and Pirates
had played the same teams the same number of teams, the Braves may not have
won two more games. (Granted, the fiction is harder to maintain when the
disparity in the win column is larger.)
I also like it because both teams are champions -- one won the West and one
won the East. With the second teir involved, we will have teams that
didn't win anything, and that we can't even pretend *could* be better than
their opponent. If we must have another level of playoffs, I'd prefer adding
four more teams and having four 4 team divisions.
>And playoffs are fun and exciting. Presumably, the owners want to do this
>because more people are interested in watching more playoff games.
Playoffs can be fun and exciting. But the LCS ratings weren't terrific this
year, and diluting the product isn't going to help. Pennant races are
pretty exciting, too. Remember last year when the Braves and Dodgers were
neck-and-neck for the whole month of September? If the top 2 teams auto-
matically went, we would have stopped caring in August. I don't think leaving
that race to a 4-7 game series would be any more fun or exciting. Quite the
opposite.
It's true that pennant races like that don't come along often. But if 2nd
place teams make the postseason, they'll never come along again. A tight
race to make the last playoff spot (with all due respect to the 87-88 NJ
Devils) just isn't the same.
--
Dale J. Stephenson |*| (st...@cs.uiuc.edu) |*| Baseball fanatic
"It is considered good to look wise, especially when not
overburdened with information" -- J. Golden Kimball
Thomas Ruschak
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>round of playoffs will be added. With an extra round of playoffs, at some
>
>more gimmicks. But how terrible for baseball.
Am I the only baseball fan who's decided to drop baseball if the
owners do this? I love baseball, but it seems like this is just the first
step on the road to a system like the NHL's, where the regular season means
almost nothing. All I can say is that it's stupid, and they won't do it on
my dollars... Still, it'd be a shame... I could live with some of the
other changes proposed, like interleague play, altho I'd hate it, but this
would be just too much...
What are other people's attitudes? Are there enough that feel as I do
to affect the owners?
Thomas "Cubs fan ... but for how long?" Ruschak
Lance Squiddie Smith
>>I fear that you are right; the owners, scared about lower TV revenue, will try
>>more gimmicks. But how terrible for baseball.
>I don't think it's automatically terrible for baseball. The major way in
>which it could be terrible for baseball is if it hurts the value of the
>regular season too much, and I don't see that shortening the regular season
>by a week and adding a couple of wild card teams really does much harm to
>that.
The only great fear is that such a move will put MLB on the slippery slope
to an NHL/NBA play-off structure. The usual argument is that the NFL started
with only the division winners and one wildcard. I don't really buy it.
I can see taking the top two teams from both divisions of a league. I'm
not sure about the division winners and then the next two best teams.
>If a second place team were to win the Series, you'd see much wailing and
>gnashing of teeth among the sportswriters, but I doubt you'd see much from
>the fans of the second place team. You'd see it from the first place team
>they defeated, but I don't see it as really any different than one division
>winner who's won fewer games than the other division winner winning the
>current LCS.
I think the purist would be split on this issue if the season were reduced
back to 154 games in order to make room for another round of play-offs. It's
sorta retro-progressive. They get the old season length back, but must
tolerate additional play-offs.
People will definitely complain about a second place team winning, but then
people are still bitching and moaning about the 1987 Twins. Some people
will always bitch and moan no matter what you do.
>And playoffs are fun and exciting. Presumably, the owners want to do this
>because more people are interested in watching more playoff games.
I think it would also make the end of the season more interesting for more
people. Although not mathematically eliminated, the Twins really weren't
contending towards the end of the season. Oakland's lead just seemed in-
surmountable. By making adding another play-off berth you keep more fans
interested in the season longer. I think this is a Good Thing [tm].
The only thing I'm worried about is a 162-game season with three rounds
of 7-game play-offs/WS. That really is pushing the season deep into bad
weather. (I don't enjoy watching the World Series being played in the cold
or rain.) I'd prefer a 154-game season and a 5-game series for the first
play-off round. Would the owners be willing to give up 4 home games in
order to get more play-offs?
--
Lance "RainDog" Smith | "Outrageous, alarming, courageous, charming.
(lsm...@cs.umn.edu) | Oh, who would think a boy and bear
Still waiting for the | could be well accepted everywhere
Great Leap Forward. | It's just amazing how fair people can be."
David Grabiner
> Look at it this way: it's pretty likely that in the near future, an extra
> round of playoffs will be added. With an extra round of playoffs, at some
> point, some team that finished second in their division will win the World
> Series. Will that team, which obviously couldn't beat out all the teams in
> its division over the course of the season, be the "best" team? Of course
> not; they will, however, be the World Champions.
It's already happened once. The 1981 Cincinnati Reds had the best
won-lost percentage in the majors, but didn't make the playoffs. The
Dodgers were World Champions.
--
David Grabiner, grab...@zariski.harvard.edu
"We are sorry, but the number you have dialed is imaginary."
"Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again."
Disclaimer: I speak for no one and no one speaks for me.
Charles Mcwilliams
> I'm sorry. This is not for the gracious Toronto fans. Congrats to you
> guys. This is for all you guys who insist on saying the Braves suck
> and Toronto is the much better team.
Well, if that's the truth, the Braves don't even deserve to be NL West
champs. If Cincy had been healthy all year, it would be the Braves
sitting at home watching TV, not the Reds. Imagine a healthy Sabo, Rijo,
Browning, Larkin....well, you get the picture.
Charlie McWilliams
Go Reds!
sco...@minuet.cc.purdue.edu
Sherri Nichols
>It is a little bit different. Since the two division winners do not play each
>team the same number of times (especially in the NL), we can pretend that we
>really aren't sure which one is the better team.
With the balanced schedule, this becomes pretty much moot.
Even without the balanced schedule, it's pretty difficult to maintain the
fiction. For the won-loss records not to be meaningful, there would have
to be a significant difference in the quality of the talent across the two
divisions.
>their opponent. If we must have another level of playoffs, I'd prefer adding
>four more teams and having four 4 team divisions.
I prefer this solution, too.
>Playoffs can be fun and exciting. But the LCS ratings weren't terrific this
>year, and diluting the product isn't going to help.
I suspect that a large part of the ratings problem CBS is seeing with the
postseason is attributable to the fact that they basically don't cover
baseball in the regular season.
> Pennant races are
>pretty exciting, too. Remember last year when the Braves and Dodgers were
>neck-and-neck for the whole month of September? If the top 2 teams auto-
>matically went, we would have stopped caring in August. I don't think leaving
>that race to a 4-7 game series would be any more fun or exciting. Quite the
>opposite.
>
>It's true that pennant races like that don't come along often. But if 2nd
>place teams make the postseason, they'll never come along again.
It's not true that they don't come along; they just move to the other
level. Now, it's a battle to get the playoff spot.
> A tight
>race to make the last playoff spot (with all due respect to the 87-88 NJ
>Devils) just isn't the same.
I disagree. I've watched a number of tight races in the Patrick division,
and they were exciting. Unfortunately in the NHL, with so many teams
making the playoffs, you're less likely to get those tight races, and too
many playoff spots are guaranteed too early.
Sherri Nichols
snic...@adobe.com
Paul Maclauchlan
:
: However, the Blue Jays were rightfully excited about their win, and if
: business.
After all, just because the chop and chant is insulting to the North
American aboriginals doesn't stop the Atlanta fans from choosing to
insult their race.
--
.../Paul Maclauchlan
Moore Corporation Limited, Toronto, Ontario (416) 364-2600
pa...@moore.com -or- {...!uunet.ca,...!telly}!moore!paul
"Baby this town rips the bones from your back, it's a death trap,
It's a suicide rap, we gotta get out while we're young."/BS'75
David Marc Nieporent
>In article <steph.7...@pegasus.cs.uiuc.edu> st...@pegasus.cs.uiuc.edu (Dale Stephenson) writes:
>>It is a little bit different. Since the two division winners do not play each
>>team the same number of times (especially in the NL), we can pretend that we
>>really aren't sure which one is the better team.
>With the balanced schedule, this becomes pretty much moot.
>Even without the balanced schedule, it's pretty difficult to maintain the
>fiction. For the won-loss records not to be meaningful, there would have
>to be a significant difference in the quality of the talent across the two
>divisions.
>>their opponent. If we must have another level of playoffs, I'd prefer adding
>>four more teams and having four 4 team divisions.
>I prefer this solution, too.
Ditto.
>>Playoffs can be fun and exciting. But the LCS ratings weren't terrific this
>>year, and diluting the product isn't going to help.
>I suspect that a large part of the ratings problem CBS is seeing with the
>postseason is attributable to the fact that they basically don't cover
>baseball in the regular season.
Yeah; a CBS person was quoted in the NYT as saying that they really
don't see any reason to show regular season games, except that only 60%
of the country gets cable.
EXCUSE ME? This isn't a good reason by itself?
>> Pennant races are
>>pretty exciting, too. Remember last year when the Braves and Dodgers were
>>neck-and-neck for the whole month of September? If the top 2 teams auto-
>>matically went, we would have stopped caring in August. I don't think leaving
>>that race to a 4-7 game series would be any more fun or exciting. Quite the
>>opposite.
>>It's true that pennant races like that don't come along often. But if 2nd
>>place teams make the postseason, they'll never come along again.
>It's not true that they don't come along; they just move to the other
>level. Now, it's a battle to get the playoff spot.
Which loses a LOT, IMHO.
>> A tight
>>race to make the last playoff spot (with all due respect to the 87-88 NJ
>>Devils) just isn't the same.
>I disagree. I've watched a number of tight races in the Patrick division,
>and they were exciting. Unfortunately in the NHL, with so many teams
>making the playoffs, you're less likely to get those tight races, and too
>many playoff spots are guaranteed too early.
--
David M. Nieporent | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix. |------------------------------------
princeton.edu | Clinton/Gore '92. One more week!!!
"You can't be one kind of man, and another kind of President."
Amit Likhyani
get used to it. There will be instances when your favorite team does
not win the division, but still makes the playofffs. It could even be a
case where the second place team in the East could have a better record
than the first place team in the West or vice versa.
I am not saying it is good for baseball, but at least appreciate the
advantages of it. At least let them make a proposal, before you scoff
at it.
I hope there is a significant advantage for winning the division or
having the best record in the league, so you don't have second place
teams winning the series half the time, but only once in a while.
Ted Krueger
>
>In article <72...@hydra.gatech.EDU>, mm...@prism.gatech.EDU (Mark Mitchell) writes...
>>
>>Just imagine the outrage and indignity we'd be hearing from Canadians
>>if the Braves had won the series and preceded to mock the Blue Jays
>>fans in some way. We would *never* hear the end of the whining.
>
>"denigration", they were told to lighten up, to take it in the spirit
>offered (and there's something to be said for that). But when the Jays
>turned the pervasive, unignorable symbol around and used it as their
>rallying cry, Atlantans see nothing but disrespect. Most of us didn't see
>it that way; we saw it as done in fun.
>
>Glenn Waugaman
>Digital Equipment Corporation
>Littleton, MA
>g_wau...@nac.enet.dec.com
>---
Wrong! When whatever college team that started the tomahawk chop,
they did it as a rallying cry for their team, not to mock American
Indians. When the Blow Jays do it, they do it to mock the Braves.
Ted
--
Bill Clinton was voted best governor by his peers - 1988
Michael Dukakis was voted best governor by his peers -1986
kru...@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Mark Mitchell
}
}After all, just because the chop and chant is insulting to the North
}American aboriginals doesn't stop the Atlanta fans from choosing to
}insult their race.
This is an interesting justification for the Blue Jays' mocking
behavior! So you are saying that the Blue Jays were not only
mocking Atlanta fans but also Native Americans when they did the
chop and chant? Doesn't that make their behavior doubly bad?
Tom Haapanen
>} fans a taste of their own medicine. Period. It's hypocritical
>} for you to do something and them condemn someone else for doing
>} the exact same thing.
mm...@prism.gatech.EDU (Mark Mitchell) writes:
> Really? So - for instance - if I speak to someone who stutters it is
> perfectly acceptably for me to mockingly stutter back at the person?
Oh? So the chop-and-chant is really just a very widespread combination of
physical handicap and speech impediment, which is spread by a virus at
Atlanta home games, right?
The Braves fans do the chant-and-chop routine to try to intimidate the
visiting team (and the Jays were getting back at them) -- the comparison
to a speech impediment is absolutely ridiculous.
[ \tom haapanen "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]
[ to...@wes.on.ca "trust the programmer" -- ansi c standard ]
[ waterloo engineering software "to thine own self be true" -- polonius ]
Dale Stephenson
[snip]
>I am not saying it is good for baseball, but at least appreciate the
>advantages of it. At least let them make a proposal, before you scoff
>at it.
>I hope there is a significant advantage for winning the division or
>having the best record in the league, so you don't have second place
>teams winning the series half the time, but only once in a while.
How about this for a significant advantage: The best of five series is only
a four game series, and the first place team starts with 1 win.
I don't see how else you can give a significant advantage in a sport where
(unlike football and basketball) the better team only wins 55% of the time.
Dale Stephenson
>In article <steph.7...@pegasus.cs.uiuc.edu> st...@pegasus.cs.uiuc.edu (Dale Stephenson) writes:
[snip]
>> A tight
>>race to make the last playoff spot (with all due respect to the 87-88 NJ
>>Devils) just isn't the same.
>I disagree. I've watched a number of tight races in the Patrick division,
>and they were exciting. Unfortunately in the NHL, with so many teams
>making the playoffs, you're less likely to get those tight races, and too
>many playoff spots are guaranteed too early.
The NHL does have far too many playoff teams. The '88 Devils were exciting,
and it was a fun race, but it still isn't the same to me. Even when the
Devils finished their run they were still the 4th place team in the division.
Though they won their division playoffs (thanks, Sean), I didn't seriously
believe they were the best team. '88 was also very exceptional in that the
Devils *won* to get in the playoffs. When there's still a race, it's usually
the last place teams staggering down the stretch, lurching their way towards
a playoff berth.
This is all IMHO, of course. I'm also opposed to conference tourneys in
NCAA basketball.
Chuck Lownie
>I'm sorry. This is not for the gracious Toronto fans. Congrats to you
>guys. This is for all you guys who insist on saying the Braves suck
>and Toronto is the much better team.
>
>are totally healthy. The problem is that when they lose very key and important
>players, noone notices because they are such a deep team. For your information,
>the Braves played the entire postseason without their two top closers : Kent
>Wohlers, Stanton and Freeman were the set-up men. (Imagine setup men throwing
>95 to 100 mph, that's how strong the Braves were in 1992). Pena and Mercker
>were both lost to injuries late in the year.
>
This has got to be the WORST!!! case of sour grapes I have ever seen.
Your team lost, fair and square. That does not mean your team sucks, it
just means they lost the world series. You had a couple injuries. Who
knows what would have happened if Pena and Mercker were healthy. The
Jays won the world series and can gloat that this year they were the
best team in the major leagues. That's what the world series is for, to
declare the winner of the season. If the Braves won then they could say
that.
>If these guys are healthy, Reardon wouldn't even be on the team so you wouldn't
>have been able to rally off him and I know you would't have seen Leibrandt in
But they weren't healthy and Reardon was on the team and Leibrandt did
pitch. The Braves management fielded the best team possible. Blame
your management for not winning, don't take away from the Jays victory.
>
>My point is Toronto showed me they could rally off men 35 years old and above.
Don't forget a 41 year old hit the game winning double (as if age means
anything).
>You never did anything against Pete Smith, Stanton or Wohlers. NEVER! NOT IN
>THE WHOLE SERIES! The Braves rallied off your best in game 6 (Henke, Ward, Key).
The Braves never scored of Todd Stottlemyre. If he pitched the entire
series.......so what's your point?? Blame Bobby Cox.
>I was content with the series loss until I saw the post-game with Toronto doing
>the chop and chanting.
>
Lighten up. They were just having fun. At least the Jays weren't
picking fights with reporters in their celebrations....and if they did
it still wouldn't take away from the fact that the Jays won fair and
square.
>old has-beens in three of them. The Braves won both of their games convincingly.
So? It's total games won, not total runs scored.
>
>I'm not whining about injuries. I simply want Toronto to acknowledge their
It certainly sounds like you are.
Yes the Braves are a great team. So are the Jays. If there were no
injuries, who knows what would happen. But you cannot say that the
Braves would have won. The Jays are a solid team up and down, so are
the Braves. It would have been a flip of the coin. The fact is though,
injuries or no injuries, the Jays won. That's all we have to go on now.
Just admit the Braves lost in the World Series again. You can say "if
only" all you want. They're a great team but they did not win the world
series. Hopefully we'll have the same matchup next year.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
RVES...@vma.cc.nd.edu
unbeatable!
imagine a healthy ruth, gehrig, dimaggio, mantle, berra, maris,
scooter (of course), and so on with whitey ford and company pitching,
and the balb!! to provide all the intangibles!
but no, they all had to up and grow old, die, or go bald (in the balb!!'s
case). sheesh.
Scott Barman
>In article <28OCT199...@mary.fordham.edu> nis...@mary.fordham.edu (Leonard J. Nissim) writes:
>>I fear that you are right; the owners, scared about lower TV revenue, will try
>>more gimmicks. But how terrible for baseball.
>
>
>because more people are interested in watching more playoff games.
No Sherri, Leonard is right. When baseball studies things like what to
do about the DH, ballpark conditions, etc. they also look at the playoff
system. More people are against changing it than are for it. The last
study I saw was two years ago and it was a 2.5-1 margin AGAINST changes.
The owners aren't stupid. They know there is one more year on the
current television contracts. Contracts that paid them a bit more than
$1.1 billion. They see what the economy is doing, not only to
themselves but to television as well. They have to do something to
maximize the revenues. The only way for baseball to do that is to have
something for the networks to buy. In the television business it's
called increasing inventory.
In-season games are not enough. This is not the NFL where they play
once per week and they can make an event out of it. Baseball's 162 game
schedule and summer timeframe gives baseball the potential for lower
audiences even without their current problems. There is a history of
the networks losing money on in-season packages only to make up the
losses in the post season. Both NBC and ABC lost money on their
in-season games the last three years they carried baseball. They need
more post season games to increase the inventory, to give the networks
more time to sell in front of large audiences to advertizers.
The precedent already exists. If you go back in history, NBC paid
(according to what was told to me) 25% more for rights to the 1969
season after MLB expanded and went to a division format and added the
playoffs at the end of the season. Seeing the need to further increase
revenues, the television negotiations of 1984 resulted in the League
Championship Series being changed to a best four of seven format only to
result in an increase in rights fees paid by both NBC and ABC.
So what is left for baseball to do? Baseball can go back to the best of
nine format, like they did in the 1910s. It has the potential to add
more games but baseball abandoned it because they thought it made the
series too long. Another problem is the "potential" factor. Sure the
networks get a guarenteed five games, but at what cost? In 1991, it
cost CBS $4.8 million per game in venue productions alone to show the
NLCS. This did not include studio backup operations or the satelite
time needed to transmit the game to New York for broadcast on their
netowrk frequencies. The ALCS was another problem because of the
tarrifs and labor laws they have to endure going into Canada (no flames
from Canadians since Canadian television has similar problems from the
US). [NOTE: CBS averaged $1.9-$2.4 million per in-season game. It is
typical for the production cost of playoff games to double.]
Before you say "this will not happen" let me tell you this is one idea
that has been presented to the networks as a possibility. Another idea
is considering the HBO proposal to televise the Interleague Game of the
Week capitalizing on "rivals" (Mets-Yankees, Cubs-ChiSox, Dodgers-Angels,
etc.). Finally, before Fay Vincent was drummed out, there was talk of
having the SuperStations pay rights fees to carry their games nationally.
What I left out was the big one. I have heard from a somewhat reliable
source that a proposal will be made at the Winter Meetings in December
to expand both leagues to 18 teams by 1996 or 1997 and to 20 teams by
the year 2000. The proposal suggest that after the expansion, the
leagues would reorganize into four division with the emphesis on
rivalries as opposed to geography, like the NHL--including naming the
divisions. The new post season format would add only an extra tier of
playoffs featuring the winners of the division. The matchups will be
determined before the start of the season (e.g., Winner of division A
will play the winner of division c, etc.). The World Series will still
be a best-of-seven contest between the NL winner and AL winner.
The proposal is said to have some support. It doubles the number of
pennant races and may increase an interest in baseball as football and
hockey starts their seasons. This means a possible bigger audience for
September Games of the Week showing teams in a pennant drive. It also
increases that all important post season inventory necessary to get more
money from the networks. Finally, it keeps the baseball tradition of
only winners being able to play in post season since the plan allows
only division winners to take part.
This proposal is borne out of the owners watching what the ABC deal ment
to the NFL. ABC now pays for two playoff games, along with their
lucrative Monday Night Football package, and the owners pocket the cash.
Because this was done during the same recession as baseball is having to
contend with, it is getting notice.
Sorry Sherri, the owners seem to feel that if you give the people a
product, they will buy it. Additional pennant races and more playoffs
may not be desired by the fan, but it may be enough to keep the owner's
pocketbook happy. This is all that counts. Just remember, fans scream
how the NHL regular season is a travesty when only a handful of teams do
not make the playoffs. But NHL teams do not have a problem filling
their buildings for the playoffs and they do get television ratings out
of Canada and NHL cities in the US. People did not turn away from the
ABC-created playoff games either. With these strong examples, how can
the baseball owners not consider adding more playoffs? They would be
stupid not to!
--
scott barman | <This space intentionally left blank>
sc...@asd.com |
(I can barely speak for myself, you expect me to speak for my employer??)
Evan Leibovitch
fare...@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell ("Droopy")) writes:
>We got Canadians claiming that the American media was biased against
>Toronto and Atlanta fans claiming that the announcers were biased against
>the BRaves. What does that tell you?
That the media really wanted the Dodgers and Yankees in the Series?
>To all you Toronto fans, congrats. You supported your team
>throughout the good times and the bad. You did not abandon them during
>bad times and flock back to them in August of a contending year. You
>were loyal. You deserve this a lot more than most of the fair-weather
>Braves fans do. You simply got a taste of your own medicine. Tough
>shit.
Actually, this points out what may be a cultural difference between
Toronto sports fans, and fans of (at least some) other cities.
In other cities, when the team is losing, fans stay away.
In Toronto, when the team is losing, the seats are filled anyway.
Whether these seats are filled with fans is a different story.
Toronto is the major financial, media, and corporate centre of Canada.
Most of Canada's biggest companies are based here, many with
entertainment budgets to burn and tax deductions to seek. To them,
sports in this city is just another entertainment like concerts, stage
plays and restaurants. Being a fan of the team is, at best, a secondary
concern, unless your company has a financial interest in the team's
success.
Look at the situation in hockey. The Toronto Maple Leafs, since their
glory years of the 60s, have consistently been one of the NHL's doormats.
Yet their home games are all sold out, even against similarly mediocre
teams, and at disgraceful prices. The *waiting list* for season ticket
purchasers continues to stay long, as the corporations hang on to them
and the rich just will their seats to their children.
I don't think it's because the existing season ticket holders are real
fans. Most are held by corporations, rich folk and other groups needing
(tax-deductable) perks to give away. I'd be curious to know what proportion
of the Leafs' season ticket holders actually go to each of their games.
(Frankly, if a company offered me tickets to a Leafs-Whalers game as an
incentive, I'd probably feel insulted and go to a competitor :-)
The situation is similar for the Jays, though it's not as drastic (since
there are >45,000 seats to fill in the Dome rather than 18,000 at the
Gardens). But most of the ground-level and first-deck season tickets
have been scooped up by the banks and beer companies and retail chains
and radio stations and the other elite, never again to be available to
the average fan unless they know the right friends or win the right
contests.
Though these seats would never be relinquished by their owners if the Jays
stopped fielding a top team, you could hardly say this means the people
filling those corporate seats are die-hard fans. Why do you think
Toronto has such a reputation for quiet fans?
Part of the reason that so many fans packed the SkyDome for the game 6
is that that was the closest many of them will ever get to good seats in
the Dome. Sure, Toronto loves its team. I don't want to take anything
away from this year's celebration. The *real* fans here have been
waiting a long time for something to cheer about.
Atlantans who have to suffer the taunts of woofing Jay fans can't be
expected to know about all the pent-up frustration in many Torontonians.
Many Toronto residents are still jealous of other cities in Canada for
hosting world's fairs and Olympics, while its bids to host both have been
consistently rejected (in the case of the Olympics, it was Atlanta who most
recently beat out Toronto).
As for the Jays being "Canada's Team", I'd say that's a combination of
having only two teams in the country, and the Jays' success. Once the
Expos have a better season than the Jays, you'll see the choice of
"Canada's Team" in Halifax and Vancouver switch over in a second.
(To my knowledge there are still significant pockets in Canada of Tiger,
Red Sox and Mariner fans).
So, Braves fans, don't take it personally. What you're seeing up in
Toronto is not just the cheers for a baseball team. You're seeing a
payback for the Olympics, frustration over the failures of the Leafs,
temporary relief from political haranguing, and a couple of new heros
delivered to a town that's starved for them.
But don't give undue credit to the fans of a city, where most of the
good seats are either held by corporations or hoarded as status symbols.
Toronto has its share of fair-weather fans just as much as any other city.
Many of the "die-hard" fans here own tickets as much because of their
accountants' advice as because they love the game.
--
Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
ev...@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
"IBM's three letters are probably EBCDIC for CYA" - Nik H.
Mark Bartelt
| As for the Jays being "Canada's Team", I'd say that's a combination of
| having only two teams in the country, and the Jays' success. Once the
| Expos have a better season than the Jays, you'll see the choice of
| "Canada's Team" in Halifax and Vancouver switch over in a second.
Perhaps. Then, again, perhaps not: Do you really suppose that the coasts
would consider them "Canada's Team" even if the Expos were the (only) team
in the sovereign nation of Quebec?
And, if/when the Expos made it to a world series, would the US Marines be
able to even *find* a Quebec flag (let alone figure out which end was up)?
[ Hey, all in good fun, eh? ]
Mark Bartelt 416/978-5619
Canadian Institute for ma...@cita.toronto.edu
Theoretical Astrophysics ma...@cita.utoronto.ca
"Clothes not busy being worn are busy drying." - Dylan, on laundry day
[ singing "It's all right, ma (I'm only bleaching)" ]
Sherri Nichols
>No Sherri, Leonard is right. When baseball studies things like what to
>do about the DH, ballpark conditions, etc. they also look at the playoff
>system. More people are against changing it than are for it. The last
>study I saw was two years ago and it was a 2.5-1 margin AGAINST changes.
Scott, if nobody's interested in having those extra playoffs, why would the
networks be interested in paying more money to get them? That's my point:
not whether a poll reports whether fans want it or not.
Sherri Nichols
snic...@adobe.com
Sherri Nichols
>In other cities, when the team is losing, fans stay away.
>In Toronto, when the team is losing, the seats are filled anyway.
>Whether these seats are filled with fans is a different story.
Not true: Toronto didn't sell out all playoff games in the old stadium.
(Yes, I know it was an awful stadium, with awful seats, and I don't blame
fans for choosing to watch it on TV. I was just pointing out that Toronto
fans really aren't different from other fans).
Sherri Nichols
snic...@adobe.com
Anand Sinha
>In article <2AF41B...@telly.on.ca> ev...@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes:
>>In other cities, when the team is losing, fans stay away.
>>In Toronto, when the team is losing, the seats are filled anyway.
>>Whether these seats are filled with fans is a different story.
>
>Not true: Toronto didn't sell out all playoff games in the old stadium.
Ah, but the game that was not sold out was Game 2 of the ALCS in 1985. IT
was an afternoon game. And really, $35 for seats that are 800+ft away
from homeplate, facing in the wrong direction, is totally ludicrous.
Anand Sinha Proud to be at Game 2 of ALCS '85
TORONTO BLUE JAYS --> WORLD CHAMPIONS 1992
The Econoclast
> In article <1992Nov2.1...@adobe.com> snic...@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:
>>In article <2AF41B...@telly.on.ca> ev...@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes:
>>>In other cities, when the team is losing, fans stay away.
>>>In Toronto, when the team is losing, the seats are filled anyway.
>>>Whether these seats are filled with fans is a different story.
>>
>>Not true: Toronto didn't sell out all playoff games in the old stadium.
>
> Ah, but the game that was not sold out was Game 2 of the ALCS in 1985. IT
> was an afternoon game. And really, $35 for seats that are 800+ft away
> from homeplate, facing in the wrong direction, is totally ludicrous.
In fact, the grandstand seats in the outfield sold for just under $20
[Cdn] and were not sold out for ANY of the games. Attendance at the
playoff games was consistently less than it had been for some of the
games during the season, when those same seats sold for $2 or $4,
depending on the day and the event. The championship games were played
in cold weather, and the seats were expensive. People stayed home in
droves.
I have vivid recollections of this problem: when tickets went on sale
for the playoffs, we were told (via ads in the local press) that each
person could order up to 8 tickets, and the price would be about $20
each. So I rushed out and ordered 8 tickets to various games for each
of the five members of our family, sending separate certified cheques
for $160 for each order.
I thought everyone would want to go to these games, and I figured we'd
be lucky just to get a few tickets. As you know, though, I received
the $800 shock of my life the next week or so when we received all 40
tickets we had ordered!
I was lucky enough to unload most of them, but I sure had
guessed wrong. Most people had decided that watching the game on
television was far superiour to paying $20 for crumby seats in nasty
weather. After attending just one of the games, I had to agree.
--
Regards,
John Palmer London, Ontario Voice: (519) 661-3533 FAX: 661-3666
reply to jpa...@uwovax.uwo.ca The Economics Institute for Journalists
============================================================================
The New Economics: Overlapping Generalizations & Rationalized Expectorations
Charles M Kozierok
which was designed and built for football before the Blue Jays were a glimmer
in Labatt's eye, many of the seats were actually located beyond the outfield
fences, not even facing toward the field. they still sold thousands of these.
weather is also a consideration (which some other cities also have to
deal with, but probably not quite as bad).
my point is that these are considerations above and beyond those that many
other fans would make in "choosing to watch it on TV", and besides all
of the above i thought i remembered them not only selling out (except
for a handful of no-shows) but actually adding extra seats for the games.
it is possible that i am misinformed.
--
charles
Jason Lee
The reason the networks would be interested in paying more for expanded
playoffs is simply that more people would be watching. A large number of
people who watch postseason baseball watch extremely little during the
regular season, and are attracted by the allure of the championships. The
people opposed to change are the purists of the game. As a purist myself, I
am not only opposed to expanded playoffs, but I am also opposed to the
current divisional format. While I know it won't, I wish baseball would
revert to the old way, one league just duking it out within itself, winner
takes all.
Obviously expanded playoffs do wonders for postseason excitement, but
nothing else.
--
Jason Lee
GO ROCKIES 1993
Don Baylor for President!!!
Sherri Nichols
>In article <1992Nov2.1...@adobe.com> snic...@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct30....@asd.com> sc...@asd.com (Scott Barman) writes:
>>>system. More people are against changing it than are for it. The last
>>>study I saw was two years ago and it was a 2.5-1 margin AGAINST changes.
>
>playoffs is simply that more people would be watching.
Which is exactly what I said to begin with, and that Scott took exception
to. I quote:
In article <1992Oct28.1...@adobe.com> snic...@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:
>
>And playoffs are fun and exciting. Presumably, the owners want to do this
>because more people are interested in watching more playoff games.
>people opposed to change are the purists of the game. As a purist myself,
I don't think it's possible for a fan of an expansion team to be a purist.
Purists are opposed to expansion.
Myself, I am adamantly *not* a purist.
Sherri Nichols
snic...@adobe.com
Sherri Nichols
>it depends on how you define "sold out" - at Exasperation Stadium,
>which was designed and built for football before the Blue Jays were a glimmer
>in Labatt's eye, many of the seats were actually located beyond the outfield
>fences, not even facing toward the field. they still sold thousands of these.
>weather is also a consideration (which some other cities also have to
>deal with, but probably not quite as bad).
As I said, I'm aware that it was an awful stadium for baseball.
>my point is that these are considerations above and beyond those that many
>other fans would make in "choosing to watch it on TV",
I disagree. All fans everywhere take these sort of things into
consideration. A cold rainy day game anywhere is likely to result in some
empty seats in almost any stadium. That's my point: Toronto fans haven't
demonstrated that they're different from other fans, as the original poster
was claiming. The original poster was trying to use the recent history of
the Jays in selling lots of tickets and the history of the Maple Leafs to
claim that unlike in the US, fans in Toronto would come whether the team
was good or not.
I don't see much evidence that fans in Toronto behave much differently than
fans anywhere else when it comes to choosing to attend games. When the
stadium is bad, fewer people come. When they've got a new stadium, they
come in droves, as they did to Camden Yards this year. There was a fairly
short period between getting a team and having that team be successful, so
it's difficult to say just what Torontoans will do when the Jays aren't
successful. I don't think it's necessarily reasonable to extrapolate from
the Maple Leaf experience; while Chicagoans come to Wrigley despite bad
teams, they didn't do it for the White Sox a few years ago.
> and besides all
>of the above i thought i remembered them not only selling out (except
>for a handful of no-shows) but actually adding extra seats for the games.
I don't have my source for this here at work, but my memory is that not all
of the 1985 ALCS games were sold out. I was considering driving up from
Pittsburgh to watch them.
Sherri Nichols
snic...@adobe.com
Charles M Kozierok
>In article <1992Nov2.2...@athena.mit.edu> c...@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>my point is that these are considerations above and beyond those that many
>>other fans would make in "choosing to watch it on TV",
>
>I disagree. All fans everywhere take these sort of things into
>consideration. A cold rainy day game anywhere is likely to result in some
>empty seats in almost any stadium. That's my point: Toronto fans haven't
>demonstrated that they're different from other fans, as the original poster
>was claiming. The original poster was trying to use the recent history of
>the Jays in selling lots of tickets and the history of the Maple Leafs to
>claim that unlike in the US, fans in Toronto would come whether the team
>was good or not.
fans are special, or anything like that, rather that the jays'
old stadium *was* special. a "bad" stadium is one thing; a
stadium where your view is the bad side of the outfield fence
(only) is quite another.
anyway, i get your point.
no flames please, but is it possible that you are a pirates
fan and are feeling slightly over-sensitive about this issue
because of all the (questionable, IMHO) abuse pittsburgh fans
have been getting on this issue?
--
charles
Amit Likhyani
(was: Re.. by Sherri Nic...@adobe.com
Don Drysdale said on Up Close with the Firestone that there are no purists.
60 feet 6 inches and 90 feet are the only things left. We play in domed
stadiums with Astroturf. They should have expanded to 30 teams with 6 5
team divisions and expanded playoffs.
I agree with everything he said. I am not a purist only because change
is inevitable. Some will be good, some will be bad.
Roger Maynard
>The original poster tried to claim that Toronto fans behaved differently
>than fans in the States when it came to buying tickets and attending games.
>That's what I'm disputing; I find his evidence lacking.
Toronto has drawn 4M each of the last 2 years. (as you know) I would have
to say that that is much different behaviour from what we have seen in any
US city. Exhibition stadium was abominable. I have never been to any parks
in other cities so my info is second hand but the press in Toronto frequently
advised us that CNE stadium was the worst park in the Major Leagues. Of
course they might just have been hyping the need for SkyDome - I don't
really know.
But I would have to say that Toronto sport fans are different generally.
Look at the Leafs - arguably the worst team in the NHL over the last 25 years
and yet they have sold out most of their games over that time span.
rm
--
roger maynard
9128...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca
Sherri Nichols
>Excerpts from netnews.rec.sport.baseball: 2-Nov-92 Re: Extra playoffs
>(was: Re.. by Sherri Nic...@adobe.com
>> Myself, I am adamantly *not* a purist.
>
>Don Drysdale said on Up Close with the Firestone that there are no purists.
>60 feet 6 inches and 90 feet are the only things left. We play in domed
>stadiums with Astroturf. They should have expanded to 30 teams with 6 5
>team divisions and expanded playoffs.
>
>I agree with everything he said. I am not a purist only because change
>is inevitable. Some will be good, some will be bad.
Uh, scratch that. Sixty feet, 6 inches hasn't always been around, so
that's changed as well.
Sherri Nichols
snic...@adobe.com
Roger Maynard
>If you're going to use the 4 million+ attendance numbers since Skydome as
>evidence, you should put them in context. My 1990 Almanac lists Toronto as
>having a population of over 3.4 million, based on 1986 census numbers.
>It's not clear from my source whether this refers to just the city alone,
>or whether it refers to the metropolitan area. If it's just the city
>alone, and we compare comparable numbers for the city alone for the US
>cities, Toronto would be the largest city with only one team.
>Does anyone have numbers for the metropolitan area of Toronto?
I think it was just over 2M when I left a year ago (2M - 1?) but the
3.4M that you have would refer to bedroom communities, Oshawa, Mississauga,
Burlington and Hamilton possibly. These latter all have their own
municipal governments and are not a part of Toronto.
rm
--
roger maynard
may...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca
Sherri Nichols
>=== sorry, but you missed my point yet again; i am not commenting
> on the weather, after all many people sit through much worse
> to watch football. i was commenting on the fact that the seats
> which were not sold out were ones with a view beyond deplorable,
> beyond what i am pretty sure exists at other ballparks where
> the word baseball was at least mentioned once or twice before
> the stadium was built. (and no, i have not been to any
> of the stadia you mention, so you may have me there. any seats
> at 3RS 700 feet from home plate facing away from the field? :-)
My point is, Toronto was not in a *uniquely* bad position wrt selling out
the 1985 ALCS playoffs.
>>The original poster tried to claim that Toronto fans behaved differently
>>than fans in the States when it came to buying tickets and attending games.
>>That's what I'm disputing; I find his evidence lacking.
>=== i still believe this to be true but concede that the evidence
> is somewhat sparse, though setting attendance records has
> to count for something. then again, let's see what happens
> in say, 30 years or so when they aren't still so relatively new.
Exactly. Torontoans have yet to go through really bad times with their
baseball team. By the time the novelty wore off from having an expansion
franchise, the Jays were a very competitive team.
If you're going to use the 4 million+ attendance numbers since Skydome as
evidence, you should put them in context. My 1990 Almanac lists Toronto as
having a population of over 3.4 million, based on 1986 census numbers.
It's not clear from my source whether this refers to just the city alone,
or whether it refers to the metropolitan area. If it's just the city
alone, and we compare comparable numbers for the city alone for the US
cities, Toronto would be the largest city with only one team.
Does anyone have numbers for the metropolitan area of Toronto?
Sherri Nichols
snic...@adobe.com
Mark Brader
> having a population of over 3.4 million, based on 1986 census numbers.
> It's not clear from my source whether this refers to just the city alone,
> or whether it refers to the metropolitan area.
Metropolitan area. The *real* metropolitan area that is; either the
census metropolitan area or some facsimile of it concocted by the
almanac makers. There is also a political unit called Metropolitan
Toronto, which has 2.2 or 2.3 million people, and within that, the
City of Toronto proper has a little over 600,000.
Most reference sources show at most two of the three figures; the
relevant one for sports attendance is the census metropolitan area.
Metro areas of similar size in the US (1987 estimates, the best I have
at hand) include Boston, Dallas/Ft.Worth, Houston, and Washington DC;
in Canada, Montreal is the only similar one.
--
Mark Brader "... a movement is already under way to declare
Toronto December 7 an annual legal holiday in commemoration
utzoo!sq!msb of the opening of hostilities."
m...@sq.com -- Ring Lardner (in the New York Times), 1931
This article is in the public domain.
Anand Sinha
>If you're going to use the 4 million+ attendance numbers since Skydome as
>evidence, you should put them in context. My 1990 Almanac lists Toronto as
>having a population of over 3.4 million, based on 1986 census numbers.
>It's not clear from my source whether this refers to just the city alone,
>or whether it refers to the metropolitan area. If it's just the city
>alone, and we compare comparable numbers for the city alone for the US
>cities, Toronto would be the largest city with only one team.
>
>Does anyone have numbers for the metropolitan area of Toronto?
The population of 3.4mil for the Metro Toronto Area. The city of Toronto is
not very large in population itself, probably less than 1mil.
There are approximately 6mil within a 1-1.5 hour drive of Toronto.
Hey, we could go for another baseball team in Toronto...yeah...an NL team,
so we can get an all-Toronto WS. :-)
Anand Sinha
TORONTO BLUE JAYS --> WORLD CHAMPIONS 1992!!!!
Chris J. Wein
>In article <1992Nov4....@adobe.com> snic...@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:
>>If you're going to use the 4 million+ attendance numbers since Skydome as
>>evidence, you should put them in context. My 1990 Almanac lists Toronto as
>>having a population of over 3.4 million, based on 1986 census numbers.
>>It's not clear from my source whether this refers to just the city alone,
>>or whether it refers to the metropolitan area. If it's just the city
>>alone, and we compare comparable numbers for the city alone for the US
>>cities, Toronto would be the largest city with only one team.
>>
>>Does anyone have numbers for the metropolitan area of Toronto?
>
>The population of 3.4mil for the Metro Toronto Area. The city of Toronto is
>not very large in population itself, probably less than 1mil.
>
What is the population of metro Houston? Isn't it in the 3-4 million range?
--
==============================================================================
Chris Wein | cjw...@watcgl.waterloo.edu
Computer Graphics Lab, CS Dept. | cjw...@watcgl.uwaterloo.ca
University of Waterloo | (519) 888-4548
Brian Down
>In article <1992Nov3.0...@athena.mit.edu> c...@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>*** i am not saying that toronto's weather is unique, or that its
>> fans are special, or anything like that, rather that the jays'
>> old stadium *was* special. a "bad" stadium is one thing; a
>> stadium where your view is the bad side of the outfield fence
>> (only) is quite another.
>How many stadia have you been to? Have you ever watched a game in a cold
>rain from the top rows of the upper deck in a stadium like Pittsburgh, or
>Cincinatti, or Candlestick (well, scratch the rain :-))? Exhibition
>Stadium was bad, but it's hardly unique.
Hardly unique?? Clearly, you haven't seen the layout of the
stadium, let alone been there. I've been to ball stadia in Boston,
Baltimore (Memorial), Atlanta, San Fran and Oakland. The worst seat in
these stadia doesn't even begin to compare with the worst seat at Exhibition
Stadium. I would think "unique" aptly describes Exhibition Stadium.
In my limited experience, I've seen nothing during my travels
or from watching TV that could compare. It was terrible.
>The original poster tried to claim that Toronto fans behaved differently
>than fans in the States when it came to buying tickets and attending games.
>That's what I'm disputing; I find his evidence lacking.
Likewise. The example of attendance at Leaf games can be easily countered
by attendance at Red Wing games in either of the Joe Louis Arena or
the old Olympia. Although difficult to believe, for most of the past 30
years, the Red Wings have been a worse team than the Leafs. Nonetheless,
they would usually sell out.
>Sherri Nichols
>snic...@adobe.com
Brian Down (bd...@vis.toronto.edu)
Mike Godfrey
>> My 1990 Almanac lists Toronto as
>> having a population of over 3.4 million, based on 1986 census numbers.
>> It's not clear from my source whether this refers to just the city alone,
>> or whether it refers to the metropolitan area.
>
>Metropolitan area. The *real* metropolitan area that is; either the
>census metropolitan area or some facsimile of it concocted by the
>almanac makers. There is also a political unit called Metropolitan
>Toronto, which has 2.2 or 2.3 million people, and within that, the
>City of Toronto proper has a little over 600,000.
The official recent Statistics Canada number for the metro area is 3.89
million. FYI Montreal is 3.1 million.
--
Mike Godfrey "I came so far for beauty,
Dept of Comp Sci, UofT I left so much behind."
mi...@turing.toronto.edu -- Leonard Cohen
Sherri Nichols
>snic...@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Nov3.0...@athena.mit.edu> c...@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>>*** i am not saying that toronto's weather is unique, or that its
>>> fans are special, or anything like that, rather that the jays'
>>> old stadium *was* special. a "bad" stadium is one thing; a
>>> stadium where your view is the bad side of the outfield fence
>>> (only) is quite another.
>
>>How many stadia have you been to? Have you ever watched a game in a cold
>>rain from the top rows of the upper deck in a stadium like Pittsburgh, or
>>Cincinatti, or Candlestick (well, scratch the rain :-))? Exhibition
>>Stadium was bad, but it's hardly unique.
>
>Hardly unique?? Clearly, you haven't seen the layout of the
>stadium, let alone been there.
I am aware of the layout of the stadium. The point is, Exhibition stadium
is not the only place with terrible seats, seats where people would choose
to watch the game on TV rather than in person, even for post-season.
Memorial Stadium in Baltimore had obstructed view seats, and they weren't
consistently able to sell out post-season games, either.
Sherri Nichols
snic...@adobe.com
Patrick L Humphrey
>In article <1992Nov4.1...@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca> sin...@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Anand Sinha) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov4....@adobe.com> snic...@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:
>>>If you're going to use the 4 million+ attendance numbers since Skydome as
>>>evidence, you should put them in context. My 1990 Almanac lists Toronto as
>>>having a population of over 3.4 million, based on 1986 census numbers.
>>>It's not clear from my source whether this refers to just the city alone,
>>>or whether it refers to the metropolitan area. If it's just the city
>>>alone, and we compare comparable numbers for the city alone for the US
>>>cities, Toronto would be the largest city with only one team.
>>>
>>>Does anyone have numbers for the metropolitan area of Toronto?
>>
>>The population of 3.4mil for the Metro Toronto Area. The city of Toronto is
>>not very large in population itself, probably less than 1mil.
>>
>
>What is the population of metro Houston? Isn't it in the 3-4 million range?
Four million, give or take a couple of thousand -- of which two million are
in Houston proper, with the rest mainly in the adjacent counties -- Fort
Bend to the southwest, Brazoria and Galveston to the south, and Montgomery
to the north...
--PLH (so why do they *all* have to come in to work on the Southwest
Freeway? :-)
--
Sherri Nichols
>If you read further in the posting it is because the owners want it and
>the precedence they are using says people will buy it anyway.
Scott, how is this different from what I said originally, which you took
exception to? And I quote:
#In article <1992Oct28.1...@adobe.com> snic...@adobe.com (Sherri
#Nichols) writes:
#
#And playoffs are fun and exciting. Presumably, the owners want to do this
#because more people are interested in watching more playoff games.
>Let me ask you and the net a question: weather you're for expanded
>playoffs or against them, if it became a reality, would you watch them?
Sure.
Sherri Nichols
snic...@adobe.com
Dale Stephenson
[...]
>Let me ask you and the net a question: weather you're for expanded
>playoffs or against them, if it became a reality, would you watch them?
Strongly against -- but I'd watch anyway. Those darn owners have me be
the throat! :->
--
Dale J. Stephenson |*| (st...@cs.uiuc.edu) |*| Baseball fanatic
"It is considered good to look wise, especially when not
overburdened with information" -- J. Golden Kimball
Scott Barman
If you read further in the posting it is because the owners want it and
the precedence they are using says people will buy it anyway. The
examples were the initial offering of playoffs in 1969, the expansion of
the playoffs in 1985, the expansion of playoffs in the NBA and NHL, and
most importantly, the expansion of the NFL playoffs by two games during
the same relative time period that baseball is examining their policies.
Let me ask you and the net a question: weather you're for expanded
playoffs or against them, if it became a reality, would you watch them?
--
scott barman | <This space intentionally left blank>
sc...@asd.com |
(I can barely speak for myself, you expect me to speak for my employer??)
Charles M Kozierok
>>In article <1992Nov4....@adobe.com> snic...@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:
>>>If you're going to use the 4 million+ attendance numbers since Skydome as
>>>evidence, you should put them in context. My 1990 Almanac lists Toronto as
>>>having a population of over 3.4 million, based on 1986 census numbers.
>>>It's not clear from my source whether this refers to just the city alone,
>>>or whether it refers to the metropolitan area. If it's just the city
>>>alone, and we compare comparable numbers for the city alone for the US
>>>cities, Toronto would be the largest city with only one team.
>>>
>>>Does anyone have numbers for the metropolitan area of Toronto?
>>
>>The population of 3.4mil for the Metro Toronto Area. The city of Toronto is
>>not very large in population itself, probably less than 1mil.
>>
>
>What is the population of metro Houston? Isn't it in the 3-4 million range?
well, one point is the "official" population, which everyone
seems concerned about. another is what one might call the
"practical" population, which could be defined as the population
within x minutes commute of the stadium.
the definition of "metropolitan area" varies from city to city.
you can be sure of one thing though: there are plenty of cities
out there whose population, combined with that of the immediate
surrounding areas, equals or exceeds that of toronto. houston
is probably one, boston is definitely another (the greater
boston area contains at least 5 mil)
--
charles
Cyberpolka On Da Jeep
> >If you're going to use the 4 million+ attendance numbers since Skydome as
> >evidence, you should put them in context. My 1990 Almanac lists Toronto as
> >having a population of over 3.4 million, based on 1986 census numbers.
> >It's not clear from my source whether this refers to just the city alone,
> >or whether it refers to the metropolitan area. If it's just the city
> >alone, and we compare comparable numbers for the city alone for the US
> >cities, Toronto would be the largest city with only one team.
> >
> >Does anyone have numbers for the metropolitan area of Toronto?
>
> I think your almanac needs some new data. The population of METRO Toronto is
> about 2.2, 2.3 million.
> That 3.4 million figure sounds like it might be for a 40 km radius around TO.
I recall some data stamped with the most recent census stating that
Toronto has 3.9 million in its "metropolitan area". This doesn not mean
the "city of toronto" which is a different thing, and doesnt include
North York, East York, Scarborough, Etobikoke, etc.
/kc
Ken Chasse - Sonic Interzone, Toronto Ont. * Inet: sizone!spo...@ee.ryerson.ca
----------- -----------
"It's stupid, it's idiotic, it's inane, it isn't art, it's dumb, it's a ripoff
of American pop culture, and we live in a sad society that tolrates it."
- NIMROD
Mike Godfrey
>
>It's true that the best proof to my theories about the Jays drawing in
>bad times will have to be seen as time passes.
Bite your tongue, Evan!
Christine G. Wechter
>
>Let me ask you and the net a question: weather you're for expanded
>playoffs or against them, if it became a reality, would you watch them?
>--
Not *all* of them. I just don't have time for that. This year I watched
every minute of the playoffs that was on at night or on weekends (though
I'll admit to zoning out during a few Atlanta/Pittsburgh games). Well
worth it, but I'm paying for it now.
Probably I'd watch the teams/matchups I was most interested in, and then
I'd miss something exciting inthe games I didn't watch, and I'd be pissed.
I stop dealing with hockey after the regular season, those playoffs are
ridiculous. Don't even care who wins the Cup. Watching a few extra
football games is one thing, but extra 3-, 5-, or 7- game series -- way
too much.
Besides, if the expanded playoffs were as exciting as most of the '92
playoffs, I don't think my heart could take it.
We'll see, it should be interesting,...bet they do it though.
Chris
Glenn R. Waugaman
In article <1992Nov4.2...@adobe.com>, snic...@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes...
>>the precedence they are using says people will buy it anyway.
>
>exception to? And I quote:
>
>#In article <1992Oct28.1...@adobe.com> snic...@adobe.com (Sherri
>#Nichols) writes:
>#
>#And playoffs are fun and exciting. Presumably, the owners want to do this
>#because more people are interested in watching more playoff games.
It's very possible that the networks can make more money from more playoff
games at the same time a majority of baseball fans are opposed to such a
system (and are *not* interested in watching more playoff games). At much
lower per-game ratings, the networks can conceivably still get more people
to watch in total, and make more money. For one thing, most people do
have other things to do in their lives than to watch baseball, so more
games gives casual fans more opportunities to catch one, if even by
accident. That doesn't mean that more people are interested; it's totally
a function of external factors, like happening to be in front of a TV and
seeing that baseball offers a better instant alternative than the
Whitewater Kayaking Championships on ESPN. Add in the fact that these
extra playoffs further allow the networks to compete against each other
for a share of a larger money pie (driving up the price of individual
per-series bids), and what do we really know about actual fan interest?
Not much.
Similar TV ratings and money games are played right now, where the intent
is *not* to maximize the number of interested baseball fans watching, but
to maximize the incoming revenue. How about the 8:30 PM starts on the
weekends, where the networks don't care about the kids because they don't
fit the advertisers' preferred demographic group? Or that with those same
late start times the networks don't care if millions don't make it to the
end of the game because the percentages show that most games aren't close
(the past two World Series notwithstanding) and get turned off early, and
late-night ratings aren't that hot anyway? MLB *knows* that these things
don't maximize the number of interested baseball fans watching, and have
even requested earlier start times from the networks to prove it! The
networks respond with "well, give us some of our money back". Fat chance.
This game isn't about the fan interest; that was Scott's point.
---
Glenn Waugaman
Digital Equipment Corporation
Littleton, MA
g_wau...@nac.enet.dec.com
---
Dave Till
>>>>In other cities, when the team is losing, fans stay away.
>>>>In Toronto, when the team is losing, the seats are filled anyway.
>>>>Whether these seats are filled with fans is a different story.
>>>
>>>Not true: Toronto didn't sell out all playoff games in the old stadium.
>>
>> was an afternoon game. And really, $35 for seats that are 800+ft away
>> from homeplate, facing in the wrong direction, is totally ludicrous.
>
>In fact, the grandstand seats in the outfield sold for just under $20
>[Cdn] and were not sold out for ANY of the games.
>[...]
Other points to add:
-- the 1985 ALCS north grandstand tickets were *general admission* (first
come, first serve). To get a decent seat in the north grandstand (where
"decent" is defined as "able to actually see the baseball"), you had to show
up several hours before the gates opened. (I did this for game 1. Took the
afternoon off work. Played cards with my friends and watched the banners and
cameras go by. It was great. But I digress.) Not everyone was willing to
line up for several hours in uncomfortable weather (and no facilities) just
to get a terrible seat in a cold ballpark.
-- I don't think the other posters here have emphasized enough how terrible
Exhibition Stadium really was. In the north grandstand, the food was inedible,
and the lineups for it enormous. Since there was very little space behind
the (enclosed) north grandstand entryways, these lineups led to total
congestion: at game time, it took 15 minutes to travel the 200 feet from
the turnstiles to the seats. I shudder to think of what would have happened
had there ever been a fire.
That having been said, I find that I agree with Sherri: Toronto fans
aren't much different from other fans. However, the Toronto club
has a *large* area to draw fans from: there are millions of people in
Southern Ontario and Western New York, and only one club for them to see.
When you factor in the people from other parts of Canada making trips
to Toronto just to see the Jays, you can see why the Jays draw so well.
--Dave "remembers the 'Over Here, John!' sign" Till
e-mail path: da...@silver.sni.ca or da...@snitor.uucp
"Canada, let it all out. It's party time." -- Tom Cheek, Blue Jays
radio broadcaster, at approximately 1 in the morning, Sunday, October 25, 1992
Dan Smith
figures are overblown (including Toronto's) because the American league
uses a completely different system to calculate attendance than the National League.
In the American league, attendance is based on tickets sold. In the National League,
attendance is based on the actual number of people who come through the gates.
4 million people did not attend Toronto games this year. 4 million tickets
were bought. Whereas, in the National League, we know for a fact that over 3
million people attended, for example, Atlanta games.
BTW, does anyone have population stats on metro Atlanta? Just curious, really.
Michael Burke
>>In other cities, when the team is losing, fans stay away.
>>In Toronto, when the team is losing, the seats are filled anyway.
>>Whether these seats are filled with fans is a different story.
>
>Not true: Toronto didn't sell out all playoff games in the old stadium.
>
>fans for choosing to watch it on TV. I was just pointing out that Toronto
>fans really aren't different from other fans).
It depends on who defines a sell-out. If fans decide not to sit 800 to
1,000 feet way from home plate (the fence was at about 425 feet) does this
mean that they are not supporting the team? At this distance the crack of
the bat is heard well after the ball caught (in many cases). TV is where
the fans get to see and hear the game in real time.
--
---
Michael Burke
Sea Change Corporation
6695 Millcreek Drive, Unit 8
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5N 5R8
Tel: 416-542-9484 Fax: 416-542-9479
UUCP: ...!uunet!uunet.ca!seachg!burke
Perry Lee
In 1991, there was a perfect opportunity for this to happen on an interim
basis during September. After the fiasco with the Big O in Montreal,
the Expos were forced to spend the last part of the season on the road.
I'm sure that a lot of Torontonians would have welcomed the Expos with open
arms. Heck, Exhibition Stadium could have been made ready in an instant!
:
: Anand Sinha
: TORONTO BLUE JAYS --> WORLD CHAMPIONS 1992!!!!
--
Perry Lee Phone: (416) 672-2100
ISG Technologies Fax: (416) 672-2307
3030 Orlando Drive UUCP: pe...@isgtec.uucp
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, L4V 1S8 Internet: pe...@isgtec.com
Pablo A Iglesias
>Here's one for you guys debating attendance. All American League attendance
>figures are overblown (including Toronto's) because the American league
>uses a completely different system to calculate attendance than the National League.
>In the American league, attendance is based on tickets sold. In the National League,
>attendance is based on the actual number of people who come through the gates.
>4 million people did not attend Toronto games this year. 4 million tickets
>were bought. Whereas, in the National League, we know for a fact that over 3
>million people attended, for example, Atlanta games.
True, but do we know whether 3 million tickets were bought? I.e. does the
3Mpersons include free tickets?
>
>BTW, does anyone have population stats on metro Atlanta? Just curious, really.
>
--
Pablo
Sherri Nichols
>It's very possible that the networks can make more money from more playoff
>games at the same time a majority of baseball fans are opposed to such a
>system (and are *not* interested in watching more playoff games).
Maybe the area of confusion here is that I'm talking about people and you
guys are talking about "baseball fans". If more *people* aren't willing to
watch more playoff games, then the networks aren't going to be interested
in paying more money to get more playoff games.
> At much
>lower per-game ratings, the networks can conceivably still get more people
>to watch in total, and make more money.
I thought the networks were generally interested in the per-game rating,
not the total count.
Sherri Nichols
snic...@adobe.com
Charles M Kozierok
on the one hand, i believe they are, but if you notice it is
because they are always comparing one year to another, to see how
well a given year is going.
now on the other hand, i believe the theory is that if expanding
the playoffs did not hurt average ratings too much, then even
if a few less people watched, the ratings for the expanded playoffs
would be less than they were for the unexpanded, but still much
more than for regular non-baseball that would have been on in
the new games' slots. i believe that the world series, even in a
best-of-11 format (!!!! don't flame me, i think it is a bad idea
personally) would still have a higher per-game rating than sitcoms
in their place (depending on the show), and the larger number of
games would then mean more money for the networks.
essentially, this is what happened in hockey (whose playoff
format is a travesty, IMHO)
--
charles
Scott Barman
>>lower per-game ratings, the networks can conceivably still get more people
>>to watch in total, and make more money.
>
>I thought the networks were generally interested in the per-game rating,
>not the total count.
The way the the time is sold is a guarenteed audience at the time of
viewing (based on ratings numbers compiled by the A.C. Neilson Company).
If an advertiser was promised a 20 rating, advertized on one game and
that game had a rating of 16, then the network would have to "make good"
on the reduced audience. However, if they sell a block of time to a
large advertizer, the network will promise them an "average" audience
over a certain time. That certain time is measured in games. The rates
paid and audience guarentees change the longer the series goes. In
fact, if the series did not meet audience projections the rate could go
down for subsequent games.
NOTE: Unofficially, CBS will have to make good on approx. $2 million in
advertizing (I have been told). This is the lowest total of their brief
history in broadcasting baseball.