The Super Terrific MLB Thread - Part 2

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
SeattleVertigo said:
(Nobody saw this kind of season coming out of them this year.)

No kidding! Even if they started going downhill starting tomorrow (and please don't, kthxbye), it's still their best season since ... what, 2001? I can't remember if they still had a decent year in 2002.
 
Re: Watch my form now!

WildHoneyAlways said:

Sorry, using spending priorities to determine how big a fan you are is nonsense. I'd have some serious questions about my parents if they chose to spend money on season tickets instead of buying us new school clothes or saving that money for a down-payment on a new home. It's one thing when a person has disposable income but I'm not in the habit of judging people by how much money they have or spend. Personally, I have spent ridiculous amounts of money on U2, the Sock and Bears games but I don't consider my self to be a bigger/better fan than anyone else. Using dollar amounts to rank fandom reeks of elitist bullshit to me.

Can somebody that's not a Cub or Red Cub fan see what I'm getting at?

That's why I specifically said that it is a) only one factor and b) its not a bottom line dollar amount but dependent on your income, the time it takes to get to the ballpark, etc. You are taking something I said to an extreme I didn't intend it to go to.

And other indicators of being a fan who is not bandwagon - if you watch them on tv or listen on the radio whether they win or lose. If you aren't embarassed to wear your T-shirt or hat in the rival city when the rivals are ahead of you. Etc.

As far as economic messages to owners go, you'll never actually be able to get a group of fans organized enough to "boycott" live games so the team will get better. Most owners know that a better team will make more money - more ticket sales, cable dollars, merchandise sales, etc. It definitely would suck to have a terrible owner who doesn't care about the team, and in some cases, see: Bill Simmons's latest mailbag, you are allowed to drop your allegiance to a team if the owner has abused and disrespected the fan base and players over a period of time. But if the team just isn't that good for a while? bandwagon.
 
Dusty Bottoms said:
I'd laugh if the Yankees won the division and the Mariners won the wild card and Boston got left out altogether.

Seeing as how the Red Sox have to face Tampa Bay 12 more times, I think they'll survive.

Normally, I'd be thinking that the Sox are gonna tank now, but for some reason I've got this calm demeanor about it all, like they are going to get through this just fine.

I guess that's what happens when they finally win a World Series. One tends not to be as paranoid as before.
 
It can also be looked at thus:
The Red Sox currently still have the largest lead in any division in baseball. (Not to mention still having th best record in MLB)
So if Sox fans need to be worried, so do Angel fans, Met fans, Brewer Fans, Tigger fans and Dback fans.

I must say I'm not pleased with the Gagne trade though.
 
Re: Re: Watch my form now!

Varitek said:

Most owners know that a better team will make more money - more ticket sales, cable dollars, merchandise sales, etc. /B]


But what if you're an owner who has guaranteed sellouts every game because the ballpark is a landmark/tourist attraction/social gathering place? If you are guaranteed sellouts whether you spend 150 million for a great team, or 50 million for a poor team, what incentive does the owner have to spend the extra money when it won't bring in any more fans or money?

Like it or not, it is the bandwagon fans who provide the incentive for the owners to spend more money on a winning team.
 
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1652338,00.html

Are Baseball Umpires Racist?

Monday, Aug. 13, 2007 By KATIE ROONEY

Bad calls by the ump are as much a part of baseball as home run records, rabid fans and watery beer, but a new study shows that an umpire's decision may have a disturbing ulterior motive: racism.

According to the new study led by Daniel Hamermesh, a professor of economics at the University of Texas at Austin, Major League Baseball umpires tend to call more strikes when the pitcher is of their same race; when they're not, umps call more balls. It doesn't happen all the time — in about 1% of pitches thrown — but that's still one pitch per game, and it could be the one that makes the difference. "One pitch called the other way affects things a lot," says Hamermesh. "Baseball is a very closely played game." What's more, says Hamermesh, a slight umpire bias affects more than just the score; it also has an indirect effect on a team's psyche. Baseball is a game of strategy. If a pitcher knows he's more likely to get questionable pitches called as strikes, he'll start picking off at the corners. But if he knows he's at a disadvantage, he might feel forced to throw more directly over the plate, possibly giving up hits.

In the new study, Hamermesh's team analyzed the calls on 2.1 million pitches thrown in the Major League between the 2004 and 2006 seasons. Controlling for all other outside factors, such as the pitcher's tendency to throw strikes, the umpires' tendency to call strikes and the batter's ability to attract balls, researchers found evidence of same-race bias — and the data revealed that the bias benefits mostly white pitchers. Not surprising, since 71% of MLB pitchers and 87% of umpires are white.

The highest percentage of strikes were called when both the home-plate umpire and pitcher were white, and the lowest percentage were called between a white ump and a black pitcher. The study also found that minority umpires judged Asian pitchers more unfairly than they did white pitchers. It's a significant disadvantage for Asian pitchers because the MLB doesn't have any Asian umpires. Interestingly enough, Hamermesh's research found that the race of the batter didn't seem to matter — the correlation was only between the pitcher and the home-plate ump. Rich Levin, an MLB spokesman, refused to comment on the research findings.

Bias in officiating is nothing new in the world of sports. A study released last May showed that referees in the National Basketball Association make racially biased calls too, calling more fouls against players of the opposite race. That was that study that spurred Hamermesh to look at the issue in baseball, and he thinks his findings are even more revealing — in basketball, fouls are called by an entire officiating crew, but in baseball most calls are made exclusively by the home-plate umpire. "In the NBA you don't always know who is making the calls, whereas in baseball it's the home-plate umpire," Hamermesh says.

Though his research confirms that bias exists, Hamermesh says it can be easily reduced or eliminated. When a game's attendance is particularly high, when the call is made on a full count or when ballparks use QuesTec, an electronic system that evaluates the accuracy of umpires' calls after the game, the biased behavior disappeared, according to the study. "The umpires hate those [QuesTec] systems," Hamermesh says. "When you're going to be watched and have to pay more attention, you don't subconsciously favor people like yourself. When discrimination has a price, you don't observe it as much." Right now, the QuesTec system is used in 11 of MLB's 30 ballparks, mostly in the American League.

Hamermesh, who has studied discrimination at all levels, says that bias is instilled in infancy — much like enduring personality traits such as shyness or high self-esteem — as an essential part of human behavior. "We all have these subconscious preferences for our own group," he says. Ever the economist, Hamermesh adds, "It's important to look at it in baseball because of the amount of money that's being made — the salary of the umpires, baseball players and the amount of revenue that's being made by the industry. All these things make this important."

But the takeaway message of his study is a hopeful one, says Hamermesh: discrimination can be corrected. "I expect that [MLB] will not be very happy about this, but the fact that with a little bit of effort this kind of behavior can be altered, that's very gratifying. I wish with society as a whole we could reduce the impact of discrimination as easily as it could be done in baseball."
 
corianderstem said:


No kidding! Even if they started going downhill starting tomorrow (and please don't, kthxbye), it's still their best season since ... what, 2001? I can't remember if they still had a decent year in 2002.

2002 was the year when the Mariners went 93-69, a great record, but came in third (third!!) in their division, missing the playoffs.

They went 93-69 again in 2003, but came in second place in the division, again missing the playoffs somehow.

Then they really tanked from there.

I'm ready for some Seattle baseball playoff mania again, dammit!
 
The best officials are the ones who discriminate against everybody equally.
 
It's really quite an achievement that they've come this far at all, after where they were.

I don't know how the offense can keep it up. They probably won't, and with their shaky pitching, the wild card is their best hope.
 
Phil Rizzuto passed away.

I might be one of the last generations of Yankee fans that got to listen to him as a broadcaster.

He was a Homer, he loved the Yankees, but he was a fun listen. I'm sure to non-Yankee fans, he was not such a great listen, kind of like when I moved to LA and Chick Hearn drove me berserk. But, I loved listening to him. His years with Bill White were priceless; White would rip him for leaving games early, for his fear of lightning, etc.

Anyway, I have a lot of fond memories that involve the Yankees and his voice, and so I admit to being sad today.
 
Hewson said:
I must say I'm not pleased with the Gagne trade though.

I couldn't agree more. Surely there was somebody less well known that could have been picked up.

If they'd let the 'ankees take him we'd be at least six games up right now.

Thank your lucky stars for TB...

P.R., R.I.P.
 
Mercury News - - PITTSBURGH - Barry Bonds has expanded his legal team, retaining Bay Area attorneys Todd Schneider and John Burris to defend him against potentially false and defamatory statements, according to a news release. Bonds began seeking civil rights representation three weeks ago after pitcher Curt Schilling criticized the slugger in an interview with HBO's Bob Costas."This is directed at Schilling more than anybody," said criminal defense attorney Michael Rains, who is representing Bonds in a grand jury investigation stemming from the Balco case. "Schilling said some things that were inappropriate and potentially defamatory. I know it was upsetting to Barry. We talked about the issue and I know he was talking to some civil lawyers to put people on notice that he has someone defending him."

Way to go Barry. :happy:
 
Great win even if it's against Tampa. Hopefully, the walkoff win will actually give this team a bit of life and excitement - something that's been sorely lacking for most of the season.
 
Hopefully Kevin Millar can cowboy up again today...
 
31871771.jpg


quack
 
Wow, I heard that story and the most shocking part to me was, "Jose Offerman hit a home run". Seriously, this is one of those Izzy Alcantara moments where you go "what a nut".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom