This is the thread where we talk about the 2003 MLB Playoffs

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

So we got:

Red Sox vs. Athletics
Yankees vs. Twins

Marlins vs. Giants
Cubs vs. Atlanta

Red Sox vs. Giants in the World Series is my prediction with the Sox winning it all of course. But I may have just spoken too soon.

― Chris V. (Chris V), Monday, 29 September 2003 11:45 (twenty-two years ago)

anyone know how much of the postseason Channel 5 in the UK is covering live? Will it be the usual two games per week in the playoffs plus every game of the World Series?

― zebedee (zebedee), Monday, 29 September 2003 11:49 (twenty-two years ago)

maybe someone can answer zebedee's question here

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 29 September 2003 12:43 (twenty-two years ago)

go sox

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 29 September 2003 12:44 (twenty-two years ago)

I am a bit pissed off though as the first Sox game starts at 10pm EST. What the hell is this? Best damn pitching matchup of the whole playoffs and we get a friggin late start. Pedro vs. Hudson, come on! Instead MLB decides that Barry Bonds and his giant mishapen head gets the early game. This is bullshit. When Bud Selig gets back from getting his "kids regular" haircut he should be kicked in his ass.

― Chris V. (Chris V), Monday, 29 September 2003 12:51 (twenty-two years ago)

and in the nuts, too

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 29 September 2003 13:13 (twenty-two years ago)

I really really really really really want the Twins to upset the Yankees. Nothing would make me happier (except of course the A's sweeping the Sox).

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 29 September 2003 13:16 (twenty-two years ago)

What's the matter Dan, just step AROUND the vomit on Landsdowne Street.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 29 September 2003 13:31 (twenty-two years ago)

Dan must die.

― Chris V. (Chris V), Monday, 29 September 2003 13:33 (twenty-two years ago)

The Red Sox postseason is fucking with my rehearsal commute, ergo it must stop. Also, the Curse MUST LIVE ON because I like watching Bostonians cry.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 29 September 2003 13:35 (twenty-two years ago)

Then you'll have something to do when you're stuck in traffic! Just check the reflection in your rearview mirror

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 29 September 2003 13:41 (twenty-two years ago)

I would like nothing better than the Twins to beat the Yankees, then watch the Sox kick a little Minnesotian ass.

― Chris V. (Chris V), Monday, 29 September 2003 13:42 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.mndonkeyandmule.com/mdmalogosmall.gif

But they're so cute!

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 29 September 2003 13:44 (twenty-two years ago)

Actually those asses are ENORMOUS.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 29 September 2003 13:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Tracer Hand, you are a prince.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 29 September 2003 13:52 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't like any of these teams! But I quite fancy that Derek Jeter so Yankees.

― Ally (mlescaut), Monday, 29 September 2003 13:55 (twenty-two years ago)

Cubs over Braves in 6 (the ATL lineup goes ice-fucking cold)
Giants over Marlins 5 (Dontrelle gets rawwwwwked)
A's over Red Sox in 6 (bullpen bullpen bullpen)
Yankees over Twins in 7 (the red-hot Twins give the Yanks the scare of their lives, but they can't quite pull it off)

Giants over Cubs in 6 (Dustygate goes national; Cubs can't hit)
A's over Yanks in 6 (Half the Yanks pitching staff dies pre-series from old age)

Giants over A's in 7 (happily, no earthquakes to report (over than Billy Beane destroying his office. again))

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Monday, 29 September 2003 13:58 (twenty-two years ago)

GO CUBS! < /kneejerk>

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 29 September 2003 13:59 (twenty-two years ago)

You mean Sox over A's in 5. Only a 5 game series for the first round.

― Chris V. (Chris V), Monday, 29 September 2003 14:01 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, in the bizarro world.

― Ally (mlescaut), Monday, 29 September 2003 14:04 (twenty-two years ago)

i thought the opening round was changed to 7 games?!?!? or am i thinking of the nba?

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Monday, 29 September 2003 14:06 (twenty-two years ago)

NBA. Its 5 for MLB.

― Chris V. (Chris V), Monday, 29 September 2003 14:32 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm pretty sure the opening round was changed to 7 games in baseball. But I'm not going to look it up or anything.

― Salmon Pink (Salmon Pink), Monday, 29 September 2003 14:56 (twenty-two years ago)

go Kerry

http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/mlb/photo/photogallery/season_2003/0927_cubs/05.jpg

― felicity (felicity), Monday, 29 September 2003 14:59 (twenty-two years ago)

its 5. Just check espn.

― Chris V. (Chris V), Monday, 29 September 2003 15:03 (twenty-two years ago)

2003 MLB Playoff Teams - Wins/Losses/% (sorted descending)

NY Yankees 101 61 .623
Atlanta 101 61 .623
San Francisco 100 61 .621
Oakland 96 66 .593
Boston 95 67 .586
Florida 91 71 .562
Minnesota 90 72 .556
Chi Cubs 88 74 .543

baseball prospectus odds

espn "expert" analysts

― gygax! (gygax!), Monday, 29 September 2003 16:52 (twenty-two years ago)

http://pages.ripco.net/~dymaxia/tomahawk.jpg
http://pages.ripco.net/~dymaxia/cub1.jpg

i'm so sorry, nothing personal...

― Kerry (dymaxia), Monday, 29 September 2003 20:30 (twenty-two years ago)

that's beautiful!

― cinniblount (James Blount), Monday, 29 September 2003 20:33 (twenty-two years ago)

mark prior injured, done for the year

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 30 September 2003 01:32 (twenty-two years ago)

!!!! Ew Kerry!

Those are very funny, though. Blount you had me for a sec.!!!!!

― felicity (felicity), Tuesday, 30 September 2003 02:39 (twenty-two years ago)

opening round is five games, but i think only yanks-twins will go that long.

― maura (maura), Tuesday, 30 September 2003 02:59 (twenty-two years ago)

gygax! I have a birthday in early October too.

― Sir Leee (Leee), Tuesday, 30 September 2003 05:36 (twenty-two years ago)

mark prior injured, done for the year

Blount, stop impersonating the Bad Cubs God, please ... if only you'd been behind the Corey Patterson scare ... I still can't believe that they actually won a goddamn doubleheader, let alone the division.

PS The Cubs are so much more wildly unlikely and wildly more talented than in twenty years that my stupid hope is wildly biting my tongue; I'm picking the Braves, but maybe I smell something like magic? And really, if the fucking Cubs could beat the Braves, anything would be possible ...

PPS Go Twins! And Red Sox! And A's, even!

― brian nemtusak (sanlazaro), Tuesday, 30 September 2003 05:49 (twenty-two years ago)

Yankees v. Twins, 0-0 in bottom of the 3rd. Come on twinkies!

― Chris V. (Chris V), Tuesday, 30 September 2003 16:48 (twenty-two years ago)

I saw some Yankees fans on the news this morning and remembered why it's a good idea to root against the Yankees. One of them actually said, "I'm getting tired of them. I mean, they haven't won a championship in two years."

― Ally (mlescaut), Tuesday, 30 September 2003 16:54 (twenty-two years ago)

Try being a Red Sox fan. 85 fuckin years assbags!

― Chris V. (Chris V), Tuesday, 30 September 2003 16:56 (twenty-two years ago)

Well that's cos the Red Sox suck, no offense or anything.

― Ally (mlescaut), Tuesday, 30 September 2003 16:58 (twenty-two years ago)

I hate you. ;)

― Chris V. (Chris V), Tuesday, 30 September 2003 17:02 (twenty-two years ago)

Let's have a fancy street battle over this, shall we?

― Ally (mlescaut), Tuesday, 30 September 2003 17:04 (twenty-two years ago)

when the red sox win the world series this year we will all come to NY and take a steaming dump on Yankee Stadium.

― Chris V. (Chris V), Tuesday, 30 September 2003 17:09 (twenty-two years ago)

Haha yeah, good luck with that, sucka.

― Ally (mlescaut), Tuesday, 30 September 2003 17:12 (twenty-two years ago)

Ugh, anybody but the Yankees PLEEEASE. Even the Braves would be less painful

― phil-two (phil-two), Tuesday, 30 September 2003 17:16 (twenty-two years ago)

great game so far. cmon guzman!

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Tuesday, 30 September 2003 17:17 (twenty-two years ago)

i wanna see the sox come within inches ending the curse - like they can smell it; and then proceed to lose, like 4 games in a row and blow it.

i'd stil rather it be them than the yanks tho.

― dyson (dyson), Tuesday, 30 September 2003 17:37 (twenty-two years ago)

eek! what happened to Santana?

― gygax! (gygax!), Tuesday, 30 September 2003 17:42 (twenty-two years ago)

3-0 Twins!

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 30 September 2003 17:56 (twenty-two years ago)

"Leg cramp".

Holy fuck! I didn't get that score. Blount, where are you picking up the game?

― Kerry (dymaxia), Tuesday, 30 September 2003 17:57 (twenty-two years ago)

YES YES YES YES YANKEES EAT A BAG OF RUNS!

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 30 September 2003 17:58 (twenty-two years ago)

My God, that's possibly the most unintentionally-foul thing I've ever typed.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 30 September 2003 17:58 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm picking it up on ESPN

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 30 September 2003 17:59 (twenty-two years ago)

Skipping 585 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

I understand that the disparity between average Yankee salary to average other team salary is larger now but I don't see how A) that is unfair B) it is the #1 indicator of winning.

the Yanquis can afford players like Alex Rodriguez (highest paid player in the game) or Vladimir Guerrero when other teams can't. the yanquis can assemble a veritable all-star team because they sustain their profitability even when absorbing greater salary liabilities on top of paying taxes.

Ally, read moneyball by michael lewis if you haven't. based on what you've written in the past 24 hours on this thread, it seems like a rather odd confluence of ideas or maybe you've recently read it but if not it's a good story about how a team like Oakland (with one of the lowest payrolls in the majors: $40-50MM) managed to get to the playoffs in the past 4 years. it's a very "revenge of the nerds", counter-conventional wisdom feel-good pageturner that has been on the NYTimes best seller list for months for a very good reason. there's an odd corporate finance subtext to the book but the story is well told and the ideas are fresh to many baseball fans.

that being said, i'm not entirely sold on the concept of moneyball, i think a blend of sabr-metrics and conventional baseball wisdom is probably the best (general) management style, but as Yanc3y and Blount (and undoubtedly Raposa whose baseball theories/treatices are missed) keep on eye on the Padres next year (even though I think Oliver Perez is a total stud but he could turn out to be Damian Moss next year).

― gygax! (gygax!), Friday, 17 October 2003 18:43 (twenty-two years ago)

can you actually tell i'm on the phone when i'm composing these posts? lordy.

― gygax! (gygax!), Friday, 17 October 2003 18:46 (twenty-two years ago)

OK I have just had five posts eaten by ILX because the "m" key on my keyboard is acting up and it kept telling me my email wasn't valid. FUCK YOU ILX.

Anyway.

Dude! Other teams can too afford players like Alex Rodriguez! For example the Texas Rangers can afford Alex Rodriguez!!

Seriously though, I just don't see what is so wrong with a team that has higher profits, ie sells more tickets, merch, licensing deals, etc, being able to pay its players, ie the reason for this profitability, more money.

I will pick up that book, I have more time to read now so I have been meaning to get some books.

― Ally-zay, Friday, 17 October 2003 19:06 (twenty-two years ago)

last night's was the best game I've ever seen - I was 1 of 2 Yankees fans in a bar in Portland and fucking called my buddy in Brooklyn after Boone's HR and screamed YEEYYYEEEEAAAAAHHHHHH for about 5 minutes. Awesome. I've never felt so far from home !!

― calstars (calstars), Friday, 17 October 2003 19:15 (twenty-two years ago)

It was a great game but it wasn't as good as the one a few years ago with the Mets-Braves that went on for like 40 innings and then Piazza got an HR or whatever, I don't really remember, by the end of the 36th inning I was kind of drunk and standing in Madison Square Garden in a disoriented fashion with strangers.

― Ally-zay, Friday, 17 October 2003 19:17 (twenty-two years ago)

I guess Game 6 from '86 is also up there. But for sheer nail-biting, this one wins...I won't have to use a nail clipper for the next two weeks at least.

― calstars (calstars), Friday, 17 October 2003 19:23 (twenty-two years ago)

OK, I'm over the "I hate the Yankees because $$$" and am nicely settled into "I hate the Yankees because ZZZ". I will remark that Don Zimmer looks as though he should be growing out of the stomach of that one guy in Total Recall, and that will be my final word on matters of Yankee-hate. Keep in mind I rooted for 'em like a maniac when they went up against the Braves -- and for real Ally, anyone who hates the Braves is all right by me. (MORRIS AND PUCKETT SERVED YOUR BITCH ASS, TEDDY TURNER)

― nate detritus (natedetritus), Friday, 17 October 2003 22:32 (twenty-two years ago)

turner don't own em no mo nate

― cinniblount (James Blount), Saturday, 18 October 2003 00:49 (twenty-two years ago)

And Puckett and Morris don't play for the Twins no mo; I was just having '91 flashbacks. Good thing I stopped before I started tearing holes in the knees of my jeans and buying little old lady sweaters and buying Tad 7"s.

― nate detritus (natedetritus), Saturday, 18 October 2003 01:48 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.bbakira.co.uk/characters/colonelgun.jpg http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20011021/450happyjeffpk.jpg

― Leee (Leee), Sunday, 19 October 2003 04:20 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't really think that a salary cap is the answer - it seems kind of unfair to the players at the expense of the owners. After all, if you have an extremely profitable franchise like the Yankees, isn't it only fair that the players - who actually make the team what it is - should get their fair share of the take? You don't hear anyone talking about putting a salary cap on the owners now, do you?

― o. nate (onate), Sunday, 19 October 2003 23:36 (twenty-two years ago)

After the Yankees/Sox and Cubs/Marlins, this is the most lackluster Series evah.

http://www.perfectduluthday.com/drinkinghat.jpg

― calstars (calstars), Monday, 20 October 2003 02:29 (twenty-two years ago)

o. nate has just summed up my entire 10 year crusade against the salary cap in one paragraph. My life kind of feels meaningless now but seriously, listen to o. nate.

― Ally-zay, Monday, 20 October 2003 04:06 (twenty-two years ago)

there are ways to get around that problem, though

― oops (Oops), Monday, 20 October 2003 04:33 (twenty-two years ago)

And how do you propose we do this, oops?

― Ally-zay, Monday, 20 October 2003 04:40 (twenty-two years ago)

isn't it only fair that the players - who actually make the team what it is - should get their fair share of the take?

A. the owners play a big part in 'making the team what it is', no? The players are employees. In every business venture, owners do very little in the day-to-day operation of things but take in a shitload more money than those who work their asses off. It seems unfair but that's the way it is.
B. the market value of a player wouldn't be diminished by a cap. Players wouldn't make any less, teams would just have less money to throw around so instead of 8 superstars, each team would only be able to afford a couple. Right?

― oops (Oops), Monday, 20 October 2003 04:53 (twenty-two years ago)

In every business venture, owners do very little in the day-to-day operation of things but take in a shitload more money than those who work their asses off.

OK. Name me another business besides professional sports with a salary cap for its employees.

― Ally-zay, Monday, 20 October 2003 12:47 (twenty-two years ago)

To your points, Oops:

A. I'm not denying that the owners contribute, but show me the baseball fan who follows a team because he likes the owners. The players make the game great - I'm sorry, but it's just a fact. The rest of your point basically seems to be saying that life is unfair but that's the way it is. Well, if that's true, then why should we be making it more unfair by instituting a salary cap?

B. I'm sorry but this is just bad economics: "Players wouldn't make any less, teams would just have less money to throw around." Uh, no. Those two things are directly related.

― o. nate (onate), Monday, 20 October 2003 13:59 (twenty-two years ago)

OK. Name me another business besides professional sports with a salary cap for its employees.

here's 2 just off the top of my head:
the us govt.
any union

― gygax! (gygax!), Monday, 20 October 2003 14:23 (twenty-two years ago)

o. nate, I wanted to point out the contradiction in the "life isn't fair" statement myself but decided it was useless. I mean you can take the "fuck you, that's life" statement and apply it to the exact reverse argument. That's the shittiest argument for anything in the history of the world.

― Allyzay, Monday, 20 October 2003 15:58 (twenty-two years ago)

A. Who drinks Coca-Cola because they like the owners? Your line of thinking---rewarding the players who actually bring in the fans--makes ethical sense, but they are not the ones who put up the capital to finance the team. It's not that life isn't fair, that's just how businesses work. The 'not fair' part is a side effect.
B. The overall amount of money in MLB would remain the same. Teams such as the Yankees would have less to spend, while, say, Oakland would have more.

― oops (Oops), Monday, 20 October 2003 16:12 (twenty-two years ago)

Your plan B sounds more fair to the players, Oops - but it's not a salary cap. Not to be pedantic, but what you propose is something entirely different - it's called profit-sharing. That would have pros and cons of it's own. One con would be that it would remove some of the incentive that owners have to build up their franchise.

― o. nate (onate), Monday, 20 October 2003 19:44 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm beginning to think o. nate and Ally aren't pinko Commie fags like the rest of us.

― Leee (Leee), Monday, 20 October 2003 19:52 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, I thought it sounded more like profit-sharing, but I was thinking of profit-sharing as being restriced to within one team. That is, if the Yankees pull in a huge profit, only Yankee players would receive a cut of it, not all players on all teams. That doesn't seem like it would stop a team from attracting and keeping a bunch of superstars because a hugely profitable team would still be able to afford to pay huge salaries. It would just be a back-door way of doing so.
I'm not dead-set on a salary cap and I don't think 'you're wrong...I'm right!!'. Just discussing it, yanno?

(xpost)

― oops (Oops), Monday, 20 October 2003 19:55 (twenty-two years ago)

Now I'm confused. Are you proposing that the profits of one team should be shared among all teams, or that the profits of one team should be shared among all the players on that team?

― o. nate (onate), Monday, 20 October 2003 20:11 (twenty-two years ago)

the most boring sports conversations in the world (baseball, football, or basketball) involve the words 'salary cap'

― cinniblount (James Blount), Monday, 20 October 2003 20:20 (twenty-two years ago)

Hmm....to me, having a 'salary cap' entails sharing profits among all teams, while 'profit sharing' as a term means within a team. (I'm not claiming that's the right way to use those terms)
Profit-sharing within a team doesn't seem like it would solve the fairness 'problem'. Profit-sharing among all teams seems to be the best solution but I must be missing something in the equation. Or is it just that it is a form of *gasp* socialism?

blount otm

― oops (Oops), Monday, 20 October 2003 20:54 (twenty-two years ago)

The NY Post is already bored of Marlins. I hope Beckett destroys them.

― bnw (bnw), Monday, 20 October 2003 21:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Actually fuck that 'bount OTM'. The larger economic and social aspects of sports are the types of things that interest me. Talking about who's got the better fastball and what Mr. Manager-guy should've done is what truly bores me.

― oops (Oops), Monday, 20 October 2003 21:30 (twenty-two years ago)

the most boring sports conversations in the world (baseball, football, or basketball) involve the words 'salary cap'

Discussions of hockey salary caps = all-night bender at the Algonquin Round Table

― nate detritus (natedetritus), Monday, 20 October 2003 22:43 (twenty-two years ago)

the most boring sports conversations in the world (baseball, football, or basketball) involve the words 'salary cap'

Unless, that is, you nurse a secret jones for the dismal science.

― o. nate (onate), Monday, 20 October 2003 23:20 (twenty-two years ago)

Oops, to me, "salary cap" means just what it literally means: a cap on salaries - ie., an upper limit to the maximum salary that any player can receive. If my understanding differs from accepted usage, then I plead ignorance. This in no way implies any sharing of profits between teams - or, as I like to refer to it, "profit sharing". Of the two options, I find the idea of "profit sharing" to be more interesting. On that point, I think we agree. Forgive my ignorance, but isn't there already a limited form of profit-sharing that takes place in MLB? I'll have to do a little digging online.

― o. nate (onate), Monday, 20 October 2003 23:25 (twenty-two years ago)

Here's an article discussing the MLB profit-sharing deal as it currently stands (or stood in Feb. 2002, assuming it hasn't changed since then):

http://www.sptimes.com/2002/02/24/Sports/Alderson_presses_for_.shtml

So-called "industry-wide" revenue is shared between teams, but "local" revenue is not. The Yankees generated $218 million in local revenue in 2001, and they spent $121 million in payroll. For comparison purposes, Montreal (at the lowest extreme) generated $9.8 million in local revenue, and had a payroll of $31 million.

― o. nate (onate), Monday, 20 October 2003 23:35 (twenty-two years ago)

Can I just scream how much I think Ugueth Urbina is not-all-that-good? You almost *knew* for a fact he would blow the lead in the 9th, after being helped out by some generous strike calls by the home umpire.

If the Fish lose this one, they're done. Can anyone come back 3-1 down to the Yankees?

― Baked Bean Teeth (Baked Bean Teeth), Thursday, 23 October 2003 02:26 (twenty-two years ago)

woo, go marlins!

(i think they can come back 3-1 against anyone. not that they'll have to now, but i do.)

― maura (maura), Thursday, 23 October 2003 03:36 (twenty-two years ago)

did anyone else
see LL Cool J sitting
there with Timbaland?

do you think that--naw,
that collaboration is
too good to be true

― Haikunym (Haikunym), Thursday, 23 October 2003 04:08 (twenty-two years ago)

Is it any indication of the relative tepidness of this series that the most recent talk in this thread has been over baseball business?

I will admit to not being able to get it up so far. Maybe the LCSes left me spent.

― Leee (Leee), Thursday, 23 October 2003 04:13 (twenty-two years ago)

The World Series games have been mostly tight, except for game 2, and game 3 once the Yanks broke it open in the 9th. I'm enjoying them. But yeah, they're missing that Yanks/BoSox energy and the Cubs-can-they-do-it suspense. Still, don't hate: the Marlins are something else, and they are matching up surprisingly well against the Yanks.

Good series, IMO.

― Baked Bean Teeth (Baked Bean Teeth), Thursday, 23 October 2003 04:58 (twenty-two years ago)

The games have been tight for the most part, but I still have trouble getting fully behind the Marlins. I thought Yankees-hate would help me out, but it hasn't really kicked in. Game 1, even though it went down to the wire, never kept me as nervous as any of the other playoff games before it.

― Leee (Leee), Thursday, 23 October 2003 05:12 (twenty-two years ago)

the sports radio in atlanta has done this thing of tony montana as a bandwagon marlins fan.

― cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 23 October 2003 12:44 (twenty-two years ago)

I will admit to not being able to get it up so far.

Raphael Palmeiro to World Series!

― Leee (Leee), Thursday, 23 October 2003 19:00 (twenty-two years ago)

that will never happen

― cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 23 October 2003 19:02 (twenty-two years ago)

As it shouldn't happen.

― Leee (Leee), Thursday, 23 October 2003 19:10 (twenty-two years ago)

"say 'ello to my leetle friend!"

(maybe x-post...MAYBE NOT)

― Haikunym (Haikunym), Thursday, 23 October 2003 19:12 (twenty-two years ago)

haha!

― cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 23 October 2003 19:13 (twenty-two years ago)

Games 1, 3 & 4 were fantastic. I don't know what more people could ask for.

― Mr. Diamond (diamond), Thursday, 23 October 2003 19:19 (twenty-two years ago)

except, I guess for game 2 to have been just as good..

― Mr. Diamond (diamond), Thursday, 23 October 2003 19:20 (twenty-two years ago)

Speaking as a longtime Cubs fan, the division series were excruciating to watch and draining. I'm sure many Red Sox fans feel the same way. Those two extra inning games, the debacle in game 6/7 and both of Kerry Woods' starts against the Braves wore me out. Between the tension of the games and the lack of sleep going into work, it kind of mentally wore me down. The tension at each pitch in a close game is why baseball is a good game.

I just don't think Yankees fans (who have had many victory celebrations) or Marlins fans (who probably have few diehards) have the same kind of experience.

I've had a weird feeling the Marlins were going to win it all before the playoffs began, there is a post somewhere on ilx that can vouch.

I listened to a few innings on the radio driving home from band practice, but I went to bed when I got home, it seemed like it must have been a pretty good game.

"...it's called profit-sharing. That would have pros and cons of it's own. One con would be that it would remove some of the incentive that owners have to build up their franchise."

The sharing of TV revenue works pretty well in the NFL, other than the Cardnals and Bengals, most francises work every so often towards playoff contention and yet the big city teams (other than LA which has no club) still have the clout to have people wanting to play for them.

There are always going to be a few francises that suck, mostly because the ownership is inept, all sports have a couple clubs that are run that way.

I think another advantage the NFL has is that only individuals, not corporations can be owners of teams.

― earlnash, Thursday, 23 October 2003 19:30 (twenty-two years ago)

ten months pass...

memories bump.

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Thursday, 16 September 2004 00:59 (twenty-one years ago)

okay, I'm done now bump.

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Thursday, 16 September 2004 00:59 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.