So if we're not contending. . .

who are you rooting for? Anyone?
I'm not trying to write the Tribe off prematurely or anything, but this season is quickly going the way of 2006--our bullpen may be as bad as it was then, and our offense is certainly much worse. If we do decide to punt, this season will become interesting for different reasons than we'd hoped (the C.C. Sabathia sweepstakes), and if you want to watch meaningful August and September baseball, you'll be watching another team play it.
My question to LGT is this: will you take a rooting interest in another team, or do you already have one? Of course, any support I give other MLB teams will be subordinate and a distant second to my love of the Tribe, but if your team is going to be as soul-crushingly boring and disappointing as the Indians have become this year, I don't see what's wrong with having a bit of an open relationship with it.
My picks:
1.) Atlanta. This is going to be my new home starting in August, and I'm going to be residing there for at least three years (and probably more). Outside of a handful of games in 1995, I've always found a lot to like about the Braves--I've always admired the way they run their organization and fuel their success through homegrown talent, and their rosters are always filled with been toolsy, athletic types who are fun to watch. Bobby Cox is great, Chipper Jones' flirting with a .400 BA is awesome, Brian McCann has been a beast for my fantasy team, and Jeff Francouer just seems cool as hell (and I have to make the customary mention of his cannon throwing arm). Also, one of their TV announcers--I think their play-by-play guy--did a chat on Baseball Prospectus not long ago, which is awesome. Plus, they're a National League team, and I can appreciate the symmetry of rooting for both an AL and an NL team with a vaguely racist name. They're 4.5 games back in a bunched-up NL East, so they're right in the mix of things, and most importantly, their fans aren't obnoxious, which is huge (this is keeping me from liking the Cubs). So, yay Braves!
2.) Tampa Bay. Duh. This team is young, full of awesome talent, has a smart, stats-friendly FO, and most importantly, is making life absolutely miserable for the established powers of the AL East. They start fistfights with the Red Sox and Yankees, Kazmir and Shields are sick, Joel Maddon is weird and a great manager, BJ Upton is great and really underrated, and the Troy Percival comeback is a really cool story. If they make the playoffs, that means either Boston or New York doesn't, so ipso facto, I like this team.
3.) Oakland A's. Basically, I want to see Billy Beane get a ring, so guys like Bill Plaschke can shove it.
What do you all think? Anything?
0 recs |
208
comments
Comments
I need a copy editor, apparently. Meant to say, re: Braves: “Their rosters are always filled with toolsy, athletic types”.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jun 26, 2008 11:30 AM EDT 0 recs
You can always edit your own FanPost, you know. There’s an Edit button right above the comments.
by Jay on
Jun 26, 2008 2:32 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I agree with Tampa Bay. I joked with my buddy that I was giving up on the Indians and buying an Evan Longoria jersey, but that’s looking more and more true as the losses pile up. I would also like to see the A’s win it all for the exact reason you mentioned, but I don’t see that happening this year.
As long as it’s an AL team (and not the Yankees, Red Sox, or anyone from the Central) that would be fine with me.
by Buckeye Brad on Jun 26, 2008 11:32 AM EDT 0 recs
I’ve got a financial interest in the Rays winning the World Series, and I’ve have one foot on the bandwagon since their most recent rumble with the Red Sox.
So, uh… GO RAYS!!!! (?)
You know Selig? Ombudsman.
by rolub on Jun 26, 2008 11:33 AM EDT 0 recs
I’m not rooting for another team. I don’t have the energy to care for another team besides Cleveland.
Here’s what I’m rooting for:
1) A return to health and form for Carmona. Carmona is huge for the Tribe.
2) An eventual return of Asdrubal to Cleveland with much improved hitting success (and hopefully more time at SS).
3) A resurgence of power from Gutierrez. I love watching Gutz play. I would like him to turn into a solid, if not cornerstone, OFer.
4) Two weeks of Travis Hafner annihilating AAA pitching, followed by a callup to Cleveland with renewed (if not completely dominating) hitting success
5) A trade of CC that gives us a few more guys to be excited about on the cusp of the majors (disclaimer: CC has been my favorite Indian since his rookie season. I own a Sabathia jersey. CC is clearly our best pitcher and probably one of the top 3 pitchers in the AL. We’re a worse team without CC. We should still trade him if the market for him is good, which all signs suggest it will be.)
6) No more significant injuries
7) 2nd-half devastation from Weglarz and Mills
8) No setbacks in Westbrook’s recovery
by APV on Jun 26, 2008 11:34 AM EDT 0 recs
I think it’s time to start the “Is CC the best Indian Pitcher since Rapid Robert” conversation.
by gte619n on
Jun 26, 2008 11:46 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Gaylord Perry? Dennis Eckersley?
"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay
by mauichuck on
Jun 26, 2008 2:28 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Sorry, but 8 years of CC is better than 3 each of Eck or Perry. Perry’s numbers were better overall than CC’s, but CCs numbers are better than Ecks and he’s been here for 8 years, which in my eyes gives him the nod over both of those guys.
by talonk on
Jun 26, 2008 3:18 PM EDT
up
0 recs
The Lord and Eck are both in the HoF. CC’s got a shot, but he’s no shoo-in.
"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay
by mauichuck on
Jun 26, 2008 3:36 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Yes I know they are in the Hall, but CC has been a better pitcher for the Tribe than both of them. The Hall has nothing to do with it. That’s like saying Eddie Murray was a better Tribe player than Belle.
by talonk on
Jun 26, 2008 3:38 PM EDT
up
0 recs
That’s for sure a good argument, but I guess I don’t really think of those guys as Indians though.
by gte619n on
Jun 26, 2008 3:39 PM EDT
up
0 recs
This list is the correct answer. Also, I will be rooting for the Indians.
by dgcambridge on
Jun 26, 2008 5:49 PM EDT
up
0 recs
too late. i think at this point it’s best to just place adam miller out of your mind until next season
by APV on
Jun 30, 2008 2:03 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Much too optomistic. Just fergetaboutit altogether.
"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay
by mauichuck on
Jun 30, 2008 2:09 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Adam Miller? Who’s that?
I did a Google image search for "Andy Marte." It turned up zero results.
by emd2k3 on
Jun 30, 2008 3:38 PM EDT
up
0 recs
They’re on the wrong site. They must have wandered over here from Let’s Go Arts!
by Jay on
Jun 30, 2008 8:09 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Hope he doesn’t hurt his girl-parts dancing. (Is that an acceptable alternative, Ryan?)
I did a Google image search for "Andy Marte." It turned up zero results.
by emd2k3 on
Jul 1, 2008 12:34 PM EDT
up
0 recs
The Cubs are having a decent year and I’d like to see them get that monkey off of their back.
by elsandito on Jun 26, 2008 11:42 AM EDT 0 recs
No! BOOOOOO CUBS!!!
Burn on, big river, burn on...
by Turkmenbashi on
Jun 26, 2008 12:48 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Yeah, what?
Get the monkey off their back so they can shut up about it?
Worked great for the Red Sux.
by still ill on
Jun 26, 2008 12:49 PM EDT
up
2 recs
My perspective is, if I were sharing a foxhole with someone, I’d be thrilled if they were a baseball fan, so we could shoot the breeze. And I see all baseball fans as comrades. So, I sympathize with Cubs fans because they have a decent shot at making noise this year and they’ve waited so long. It’s not like I’m rooting for an AL club.
by elsandito on
Jun 26, 2008 2:50 PM EDT
up
0 recs
You do realize that if the cubs do win the Series, the Tribe then becomes the team with the longest active drought in mlb? That alone should make you root for the Cubbies to lose.
by talonk on
Jun 26, 2008 3:22 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Unless that also means that we’re bound to break ours soon.
Burn on, big river, burn on...
by Turkmenbashi on
Jun 26, 2008 3:31 PM EDT
up
0 recs
If only it was that easy. Our streak of 60 years is still quite short of the 86 the Red Sox had and the 100 the Cubs still have going.
by talonk on
Jun 26, 2008 3:35 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I don’t like playing second fiddle to anybody.
Go Cubbies!
"It's hard to win when you don't score." Cliff Lee, 9/28/05.
by Harry Doyle on
Jun 26, 2008 3:44 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I hate the Cubs. In fact, I hate Chicago teams generally. Maybe even more than Boston teams (Boston FANS are another matter!).
by peter m on
Jun 26, 2008 4:07 PM EDT
up
0 recs
why not let them have a good year? then it’ll finally be our turn. right? isn’t that how this works all the teams with curses worse than ours get to win first? so yeah, go cubs
by tribetimenow24 on
Jun 29, 2008 6:15 PM EDT
up
0 recs
yeah, I’ll be on this wagon soon enough, the way this baseball season is going…although if they can get rid of the boring vets on this team and field a team of prospects for the stretch run (ala 2006) it would be nice….oh and andy marte getting regular playing time.
by hans on
Jun 26, 2008 11:59 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Yes, go Browns….and Buckeyes! I’m already looking forward to Sept. 13. OSU v. USC. 8 pm on ABC. Winner has the inside track to the National Championship Game.
by Buckeye Brad on
Jun 26, 2008 3:15 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Yeah, go Browns and Buckeyes and take the Cavs with you too!!
"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay
by mauichuck on
Jun 26, 2008 3:16 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Nothing against you personally, but I can’t stand the Buckeyes because of the fan base… and comments like the one you made about having the inside track to the National Championship game after one victory, regardless of who it’s against. Maybe you have the inside track against the Trojans, but there’s about 12 other teams who will have something to say about that even before the convoluted and biased BCS system decides who plays for the title.
OT rant over.
You know Selig? Ombudsman.
by rolub on
Jun 26, 2008 3:33 PM EDT
up
0 recs
That comment about having the inside track to the championship game is not from me, but from about every college football writer who’s been talking about the upcoming season. They both will be preseason top 5, so whoever wins that game will probably be in the top 2 and definately make the championship game if they go undefeated. I’m not saying that will happen, but that’s the way the college system works.
by Buckeye Brad on
Jun 26, 2008 3:56 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I am a Buckeye alum, but, I have to tell you, the writers love to hype the upcoming season. A couple of mediocre showings against lesser teams and we will fall out of the top 2. Early season victories are heavily discounted in December when the polls count.
by elsandito on
Jun 26, 2008 4:08 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Not victories against USC. This ain’t Kent St. or Cincinnati we’re talking about. I was at the OSU-Texas game a few years ago, and the atmosphere there was unbelieveable (second only to the Michigan game in ‘02 and ‘06). Texas’ victory that year propelled them to the NC Game just like OSU’s victory in Texas the following year moved them to #1 and propelled them to the NC Game.
by Buckeye Brad on
Jun 26, 2008 4:32 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Yeah, well, when I was going to OSU and one year they beat Northwestern by “only” three TDs the pissing and moaning in the Dispatch was unbearable. To think that the vaunted Buckeyes couldn’t beat them by at least 35 points was outlandish!
Buckeye fans are the Yankee fans of the Big Ten. Sheesh they can’t even count in that conference.
"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay
by mauichuck on
Jun 26, 2008 4:42 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Wait a minute…..comparing me to a Yankees fan is a low blow!
Every Indians fan I know is also a Buckeyes fan, so I’m not sure about your comment.
by Buckeye Brad on
Jun 26, 2008 6:21 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I do know many Indians fans, but they’re all native northern Ohioans like myself who are also Buckeyes and Browns fans (except for my one idiot friend whose an Indians and Steelers fan).
by Buckeye Brad on
Jun 26, 2008 7:46 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I’ll do another of my many old man routines for you. Waaaaaay back when – like in the ‘70s – OSU football rarely made the front sports page of either paper. That’s back when Cleveland had two major newspapers for you whippersnappers. Concern for OSU sports in general was at most tepid for most Clevelanders. If you’ll look back to that era you’ll note that a surprisingly high percentage of star Cleveland football players went to other universities, like Notre Dame, Michigan and Northwestern. In my age group that would include Dan Dierdorf and Jim Mandich to Michigan, the Golic brothers to ND and Jack Rudney to Northwestern.
Clevelanders following OSU football is a 90s and 00s phenomenon.
"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay
by mauichuck on
Jun 26, 2008 7:31 PM EDT
up
0 recs
And with all the Glenville players going to OSU under Tressel, I’m sure that’s increased the following in Cleveland.
by Buckeye Brad on
Jun 26, 2008 7:47 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I don’t know, my Dad has been a diehard Buckeyes fan more or less his whole life from what I can tell, and since he was born in 1942, that pretty much covers not only the 70’s but all of the 60’s and most of the 50’s in terms of being an active fan.
Now, maybe that was just him, I don’t know. It also could be that OSU is less important to someone in downtown Cleveland than in the outlying areas — Dad was in Akron. But the local Indians fan base is a lot bigger than just Cleveland proper.
by Jay on
Jun 27, 2008 11:44 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Forgot to add, OSU mania never really caught on with me at all. I used to be a diehard Browns/Cavs guy, now more of a casual fan.
by Jay on
Jun 27, 2008 11:44 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Clevelanders following OSU football is a 90s and 00s phenomenon.
I disagree. Born and raised in Cleveland and knew lots of OSU football fans (myself included.) A strong memory I have is how many adults were completely saddened when Woody Hayes died. I was in high school – he was a bit before my time, but it made a strong impression on me.
by ganatz on
Jun 27, 2008 4:49 PM EDT
up
0 recs
My 85 year old Uncle Tony would vehemently disagree, Chuck.
Burn on, big river, burn on...
by Turkmenbashi on
Jun 27, 2008 8:35 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Hi, my name’s Rob. I’m a huge Indians fan, and I very much dislike the Buckeyes, so much that when that godforsaken Hang On Sloopy song is played and people do their own YMCA with OHIO, I proceed to do the UF Gator chomp with my arms.
You know Selig? Ombudsman.
by rolub on
Jun 27, 2008 9:20 AM EDT
up
0 recs
I’m a Tribe Lifer, but a relative newcomer to OSU fandom.
I only began to root for the Buckeyes when they hired Jim Tressel. I was not a fan of John Cooper’s, and when they went 6-6 in one of his final seasons, I was pretty pleased. My father is a Youngstown alum, so I’ve seen plenty of Tressel teams that have played with honor and class and still won big many times. I sense that’s the type of teams he’s trying to build at OSU now.
Can’t say the same about all the Buckeye fans, however. Some are unbearable (much like Yankees or Sawx fans), but most are just rooting for the hometown team because that’s as close to pro football as they’re going to get in C-BUS. For years (prior to the Jackets) they were the only viable sports ‘franchise’ in town.
I did a Google image search for "Andy Marte." It turned up zero results.
by emd2k3 on
Jun 27, 2008 9:22 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Which major football conference would you suggest as a bastion of higher education?
by elsandito on
Jun 26, 2008 6:25 PM EDT
up
0 recs
PAC Ten – where they can at least count. USC, Stanford, Cal Berkley – all superior schools. The Big Ten has Northwestern and Michigan and Wisconsin pretty decent schools, the rest is pretty meh academically.
OSU has only one school that’s the best in it’s own state. And that’s only because no other university in Ohio has a vet school. Other than that, every department/college at OSU is inferior to at least one other school in Ohio. All and all a pretty mediocre university.
"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay
by mauichuck on
Jun 27, 2008 10:24 AM EDT
up
0 recs
I’m not sure I’d put USC on a list of academically superior schools. Pretty notorious party school, actually, as is Wisconsin, at the undergraduate level anyway. UCLA has some really strong programs, so the argument for the PAC Ten could still be made.
by peter m on
Jun 27, 2008 10:34 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Cal Berkely > Stanford > Michigan > UCLA > NW > Wisconsin > PSU >> OSU
"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay
by mauichuck on
Jun 27, 2008 11:17 AM EDT
up
0 recs
your individual skills and commitment to education>>>chuck’s vague inequality assessment.
group identity = dumb identity.
and it’s NU, not NW.
by joeee on
Jun 27, 2008 12:50 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Yeah, sorry about the incorrect initials for Northwestern – shouldda known that.
And I talkin’ about how strong the competition is. Look, the smartest son of a bitch I – or any of my colleagues – ever met went to OSU. But gettin’ an "A" in OChem at OSU and gettin’ an "A" in OChem at Berkley are two different things
"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay
by mauichuck on
Jun 27, 2008 12:56 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Well, depends on the grading. Some schools with elite reputations hardly ever issue grades lower than B- on the assumption that all their students are smart. That’s why Bush and Kerry’s bad records in Ivy League schools are so impressive—it’s hard to do that!! But, if they grade organic chem on a curve in those two schools, you may be right. Or, it might be that the better students at both schools self-select into the toughest courses/majors, so the populations in the two courses may be more similar than you think. Sounds like the kind of statistical measurement problem sabermetrics people love to argue about!
by peter m on
Jun 27, 2008 2:00 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I once received a -12 on an OChem midterm out of a possible 200. I think the median was 6/200. I still find humor in this after 40 yrs.
by elsandito on
Jun 27, 2008 4:22 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Just wanted to comment that Illinois is also a fine institution, approximately on par with Wisconsin in education and only slightly behind in public drunkeness.
by Chemo on
Jun 28, 2008 2:33 AM EDT
up
0 recs
“Cal Berkely > Stanford > Michigan > UCLA > NW > Wisconsin > PSU >> OSU”
That’s a consumerist point of view. A proper education would have shaken your faith in the institutional myth. I would love to hear you explain the extent to which anyone of these schools, taken as a whole, is measurably superior to another in any way apart from your knowledge of “Dude X” who got into one and not another.
I, of course, think your list is garbage, but your idea is unfortunately a common one. I’m not oblivious to it. I’ll have to live with the fact that I will prejudged throughout my life according to the school(s) I attended, and those pre-opinions aren’t completely unfair either. It’s not like I ever had the option to turn down a Yale or Harvard for generic state-school just to prove a point.
Even though I was a total dolt at 18, I understood very well what would be imagined about my education down the road as a result of not achieving at a level of the upper-tier high school graduates. I had scarcely learned a thing, and yet I already knew all about this imaginary list.
That’s why I regard your list as juvenile. My college years have come and gone, and I’ve met a lot of people from different schools, and I’ve disposed of “the list”.
I accept that it might be possible to fairly compare departments of a high degree of specialty-if two departments are of the same species-and resolve a hierarchy. This would have to be accepted knowledge by insiders, of course, and this information would really only be relevant to insiders.
Unless you’re a “smart shopper”, these second-hand rankings serve no purpose and say nothing.
If your rankings are meant to apply to undergraduate schools, remind yourself that their admissions staffs aren’t exactly Harvard-educated geniuses1, and of the frailty of the evaluation mechanisms (and the attentions of 18 year olds) in the first place.
1as everybody knows, admission into Harvard is not necessarily related to genius.
by jhon on
Jun 28, 2008 5:47 PM EDT
up
2 recs
Some interesting points.
I would submit to you that given the extravagant expense of a college education, the idea that universities should be judged primarily on anything but a consumerist basis is a lot of high-minded elitist nonsense. The fact that the quality of a university’s brand isn’t living up to the quality of its academics just means the institution really badly needs to get its act together in the PR and marketing departments, because they’re cheating their paying customers — excuse me, “students” — out of five-or-six-figure’s worth of ROI.
I mean, seriously … you don’t really think this isn’t all about money, do you?
As you suggest, we are all judged somewhat by the school we attended, i.e., got into, and since the leading U.S. institutions have need-blind admissions and need-based scholarships, most of us go to the best school we can get into. I know plenty of Ivy Leaguers, and most of them didn’t learn a hell of a lot in class, yet that’s how we’re all going to be judged — it is what it is.
For those who actually select an educational experience — of any type or length — for the purpose of learning about, preparing for and/or aspiring to something or other, I really salute them. But most folks go to college because that’s just what everyone tells them they’re supposed to do, and it’s not like we can think of any better ideas at 17 — particularly for those who’ve already discovered beer. And for those people, whatever time and money — theirs and the taxpayers — gets expended on college is returned only in the form of warehousing and anesthetizing the post-pubescent for a few years, the receipt of a B.A. or B.S. credential (pun intended) to put on a résumé, and the quality of the institutional brand that is awarding that credential. And that’s pretty much it.
So if the general population really does think that …
Cal Berkely > Stanford > Michigan > UCLA > NW > Wisconsin > PSU >> OSU
... then for the vast majority of college graduates, that perception is the reality.
by Jay on
Jun 28, 2008 6:22 PM EDT
up
0 recs
It absolutely is about money. Money is a source of anxiety for me, as it is for everyone else. Money is most definitely at stake here.
So while “gettin’ an “A” in OChem at OSU and gettin’ an “A” in OChem at Berkley” are not two different things, the diplomas those two schools award are very different. And the difference is money and access. Access to the Bay Area, vs. access to places mostly in Ohio.
I am grateful to have been warehoused, and it’s a good thing for my community that I passed the time in a remote, insular place that no sober person watched.
by jhon on
Jun 28, 2008 7:04 PM EDT
up
0 recs
It seems that people like Chuck are correlating that “list” to actual standards of education or intelligence, and not seeing for what it is – branding. It’s fair to accept that list as a brand, but not as a metric for the education you received.
And since when do you “receive” and education? Learning is not passive.
by joeee on
Jun 28, 2008 7:09 PM EDT
up
0 recs
To the extent that it is more difficult to get into Northwestern or Stanford, I would say the level of competition for grades is tougher when you get there. It is up for debate as to whether this translates into on the job excellence. Perhaps these same exceptional students would have excelled on the job regardless of where they had gone to school.
by elsandito on
Jun 28, 2008 8:14 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Not perhaps. Definitely. There is no statistical difference for people with the same test scores, different school prestige, and 20 year income. And I have the study to prove it. Two Harvard economists did it with the HS class of 1976 – they found that being able to get in to a good school was all that mattered, not actually going there.
by joeee on
Jun 28, 2008 8:26 PM EDT
up
0 recs
That’s an interesting finding, but I would suspect that — not unlike McCracken’s initial study about BABIP — those broad, sweeping conclusions don’t hold as well once you start segmenting the population by certain key attributes.
by Jay on
Jun 28, 2008 8:44 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I have no doubts about this. If one graduates from a prestigious school AND has or develops the right connections, equivalent performance on the job is more likely to lead to an inside track. The cachet one acquires from a prestigious school means only as much as the people impressed by the school. However, the inability to perform equivalently or at a higher level, will, in time, take its toll.
by elsandito on
Jun 28, 2008 10:24 PM EDT
up
0 recs


