Please, the so-called combat zone at this point is a piddling little street with the odd club or porno store and some dingy alleys. Safer than anywhere in New York's 5 boroughs. P
don't take this as an insult but that is complete and utter bullshit.
don't try to defend your city by making baseless remarks about another's
Yep. IME the Boston fans were knowledgeable and enthusiastic like the New York fans but much more civil. I'm not one to blush or find an usher after an occasional off color remark or even if a fan wishes to share with an opposing player some information on that player's sister and her acumen at fellatio well then so be it. But the obnoxious fan ratio was way too high, there was enough rudeness, crassness and loudness at Yankee Stadium that it hurt the experience. I wasn't offended at all, I mean whatever, but at some point it gets tiresome especially when it is not creative and it so it detracts from the fun of the game. I much preferred the cult of victimization of Red Sox fans over the absurd arrogance of Yankee fans as well but that is just a personal predisposition and one that may no longer apply after last year. I mean a lot of that is just NewYorkyness, take or leave it but I'd leave it myself. I also liked the miscellaneous oddities of Fenway as well, saw a triple off the ladder in left and so on. I'd rank Dodger Stadium ahead of Yankee Stadium too in terms of places to see the game (not just the stadium). Worst two fans I ever saw were a pair of Mets fans at a Diamondbacks game although that one ended nicely as they tried to fight the cops when it came time to be arrested and that was a battle that the lost decisively which I didn't mind so much.
1. Red Sox fans are the only ones who will go to a concert and start a chant of Yankees suck. this is both obnoxious and retarded
2. Red Sox fans have a false arrogance that is also obnoxious
3. Red Sox fans are just as obnoxious at a ballgame and just as drunk and crude. ESPECIALLY when going to a game at Yankee Stadium.
4. Red Sox fans and Bostonians in general have a severe inferiority complex (see example above)
It goes both ways man. Both stadiums are filled with assholes.
And Dodger Stadium can not compare to Yankee Stadium for one simple but major reason....history. Dodger Stadium has next to none.
Yeah, they tend not to be too friendly. Or even handed in their assessments. But whatever.
Bronxite, we'll just agree to disagree. Only that I would say is in response to:
Quote:
3. Red Sox fans are just as obnoxious at a ballgame and just as drunk and crude. ESPECIALLY when going to a game at Yankee Stadium.
I think in general the people who would follow their team to a road game where the atmosphere is going to be contentious are usually people who are adversarial or are at least comfortable in an adversarial situation. I would agree that those sorts of fans for all teams can be just as obnoxious. For home fans it is a different story and situation.
You are right, Dodgers Stadium doesn't have the history of Yankee Stadium. But to say it has next to none is a bit off. The Dodgers have had plenty of great players, great teams and they've been involved in their fair share of playoff and World Series games over the last 40 years. Aside from that history isn't everything. Candlestick has more history than SBC, Veterans Stadium has more history than whatever their new stadium is called, Three Rivers had more history than PNC etc. The old Tiger Stadium had a ton of history but it was a dump. There are a lot of htings that come into play in judging how good a ballpark is. To each their own but that is my opinion. Yankee Stadium is up there but I still rank it #3 behind Fenway and Dodger Stadium out of the stadiums I've been to.
You are right, Dodgers Stadium doesn't have the history of Yankee Stadium. But to say it has next to none is a bit off. The Dodgers have had plenty of great players, great teams and they've been involved in their fair share of playoff and World Series games over the last 40 years. Aside from that history isn't everything. Candlestick has more history than SBC, Veterans Stadium has more history than whatever their new stadium is called, Three Rivers had more history than PNC etc. The old Tiger Stadium had a ton of history but it was a dump. There are a lot of htings that come into play in judging how good a ballpark is. To each their own but that is my opinion. Yankee Stadium is up there but I still rank it #3 behind Fenway and Dodger Stadium out of the stadiums I've been to.
the dodgers are nobody without their brooklyn years taken into account though.
and dodger stadium is a rather bland ballpark IMO. but i respect yours as well. everyone will have their bias opinions, much like I do.
I think that is a pretty good history for the years since they've been in LA. Obviously the Yankees are in another class but aside from them the Dodgers have been as good as anyone. They rank #2 out of 30 teams in World Series victories and in Pennants. First among all NL teams in that span.
Also, when you talk about their Brooklyn history, a lot of that is based on baseball nostalgia more so than reality. Certainly they won a lot of pennants and they did so at a rate similar to that while in LA with 13 in 74 when they were in Brooklyn versus 9 in 47 years in LA. But for the most part their glory years in Brooklyn consisted of a lot of mediocre teams and then the decade with the great Post WW2 teams which pretty much always lost to the Yankees, 55 excepted of course. There are a few seasons that were exceptions but the Dodgers basically sucked for the 40 years until Durocher took over as manager in the early 40s and that history for most of their time in Brooklen tends to be glossed over. In the 37 World Series from 1903-1940 (minus 04) through they appeared in a grand total of two World Series and lost both and that was at a time when there were only 8 NL teams. In if you look at the first 35 seasons for which the World Series was held, ie prior to Durocher being hired in 39, the Dodgers finished in the bottom half of an 8 team league, so 5th or lower an amazing 80% of the time with 28 of those 35 years having second division finishes. So IMO their "glory years" in Brooklyn are greatly a function of people missing an era when baseball was king and the Dodgers were lovable runners-up, ala the Red Sox, but that perception ignores their Washington Senator-esque history for most of their time in Brooklyn.
Five of their six World Series victories have come in the LA span even though they currently have been in LA for 46 seasons (47 years minus 94) versus 54 seasons (03-57 minus 04) in Brooklyn during which time the World Series was held.
Historical side note, only four teams, the Cubs, White Sox, Indians and Giants, have existed for that entire span and not won a World Series. Of course the Cubs and White Sox are frequently mentioned as losers and everyone knows how bad the Indians were for the 4 decades prior to their revival in the 90s but the Giants don't seem to get much attention in this regard. If I had thought about it it would have occured to me but until seeing the numbers I didn't realize that they hadn't won since the 54 Series when they beat the heavily favored Indians.
Quote:
and dodger stadium is a rather bland ballpark IMO. but i respect yours as well. everyone will have their bias opinions, much like I do.
As you say, everyone has his or her own opinion. I still liked Dodger Stadium better.
I would say the most obvious way to measure who is somebody and who is nobody in a team sport is by team success. World Series Victories from 1958 on:
perhaps it is a difference in views from coast to coast. As a New Yorker, the Dodgers are nobody and the only thing anyone respects of them is when they were from Brooklyn.
They have been mildly successful in Los Angeles. By mildly I mean, they have been successful yet not really consistent. They also benefit from being in a traditionally weak division of the national league.
The Yankees are legendary for their pre 60s years. I feel the Dodgers are legendary in their own sense for the same reason and NOT because of their Los Angeles days.
But yes, at least the Dodgers did better after relocation than the Giants :P
There is a website for the show here There is an old song of ours up, but our new stuff is much better. The other bands are actually pretty freaking cool too. Anyway something different and fun to do in NYC.
Comments
Originally posted by johnq
Please, the so-called combat zone at this point is a piddling little street with the odd club or porno store and some dingy alleys. Safer than anywhere in New York's 5 boroughs. P
don't take this as an insult but that is complete and utter bullshit.
don't try to defend your city by making baseless remarks about another's
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
Yep. IME the Boston fans were knowledgeable and enthusiastic like the New York fans but much more civil. I'm not one to blush or find an usher after an occasional off color remark or even if a fan wishes to share with an opposing player some information on that player's sister and her acumen at fellatio well then so be it. But the obnoxious fan ratio was way too high, there was enough rudeness, crassness and loudness at Yankee Stadium that it hurt the experience. I wasn't offended at all, I mean whatever, but at some point it gets tiresome especially when it is not creative and it so it detracts from the fun of the game. I much preferred the cult of victimization of Red Sox fans over the absurd arrogance of Yankee fans as well but that is just a personal predisposition and one that may no longer apply after last year. I mean a lot of that is just NewYorkyness, take or leave it but I'd leave it myself. I also liked the miscellaneous oddities of Fenway as well, saw a triple off the ladder in left and so on. I'd rank Dodger Stadium ahead of Yankee Stadium too in terms of places to see the game (not just the stadium). Worst two fans I ever saw were a pair of Mets fans at a Diamondbacks game although that one ended nicely as they tried to fight the cops when it came time to be arrested and that was a battle that the lost decisively which I didn't mind so much.
1. Red Sox fans are the only ones who will go to a concert and start a chant of Yankees suck. this is both obnoxious and retarded
2. Red Sox fans have a false arrogance that is also obnoxious
3. Red Sox fans are just as obnoxious at a ballgame and just as drunk and crude. ESPECIALLY when going to a game at Yankee Stadium.
4. Red Sox fans and Bostonians in general have a severe inferiority complex (see example above)
It goes both ways man. Both stadiums are filled with assholes.
And Dodger Stadium can not compare to Yankee Stadium for one simple but major reason....history. Dodger Stadium has next to none.
Bronxite, we'll just agree to disagree. Only that I would say is in response to:
3. Red Sox fans are just as obnoxious at a ballgame and just as drunk and crude. ESPECIALLY when going to a game at Yankee Stadium.
I think in general the people who would follow their team to a road game where the atmosphere is going to be contentious are usually people who are adversarial or are at least comfortable in an adversarial situation. I would agree that those sorts of fans for all teams can be just as obnoxious. For home fans it is a different story and situation.
You are right, Dodgers Stadium doesn't have the history of Yankee Stadium. But to say it has next to none is a bit off. The Dodgers have had plenty of great players, great teams and they've been involved in their fair share of playoff and World Series games over the last 40 years. Aside from that history isn't everything. Candlestick has more history than SBC, Veterans Stadium has more history than whatever their new stadium is called, Three Rivers had more history than PNC etc. The old Tiger Stadium had a ton of history but it was a dump. There are a lot of htings that come into play in judging how good a ballpark is. To each their own but that is my opinion. Yankee Stadium is up there but I still rank it #3 behind Fenway and Dodger Stadium out of the stadiums I've been to.
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
You are right, Dodgers Stadium doesn't have the history of Yankee Stadium. But to say it has next to none is a bit off. The Dodgers have had plenty of great players, great teams and they've been involved in their fair share of playoff and World Series games over the last 40 years. Aside from that history isn't everything. Candlestick has more history than SBC, Veterans Stadium has more history than whatever their new stadium is called, Three Rivers had more history than PNC etc. The old Tiger Stadium had a ton of history but it was a dump. There are a lot of htings that come into play in judging how good a ballpark is. To each their own but that is my opinion. Yankee Stadium is up there but I still rank it #3 behind Fenway and Dodger Stadium out of the stadiums I've been to.
the dodgers are nobody without their brooklyn years taken into account though.
and dodger stadium is a rather bland ballpark IMO. but i respect yours as well. everyone will have their bias opinions, much like I do.
the dodgers are nobody without their brooklyn years taken into account though.
Hmmm. By what standard?
I would say the most obvious way to measure who is somebody and who is nobody in a team sport is by team success. World Series Victories from 1958 on:
#1.Yankees 9
#2.Dodgers 5
#3.A's 4
#4.Reds 3
#4.Pirates 3
#4.Orioles 3
#4.Cards 3
#8.Mets 2
#8.Tigers 2
#8.Marlins 2
#8.Blue Jays 2
#8.Twins(/Senators) 2
#13.Red Sox 1
#13.Angels 1
#13.Diamondbacks 1
#13.Braves 1
#13.Royals 1
#13.Phillies 1
#19.Devils Rays 0
#19.Rockies 0
#19.Mariners 0
#19.Rangers(/Senators) 0
#19.White Sox 0
#19.Cubs 0
#19.Indians 0
#19.Nationals(/Expos) 0
#19.Astros 0
#19.Brewers 0
#19.Padres 0
#19.Giants 0
Another stat, World Series Appearances from 1958 on:
#1.Yankees 16
#2.Dodgers 9
#3.Cards 7
#4.A's 6
#4.Reds 6
#4.Orioles 6
#4.Braves 6
#8.Red Sox 4
#8.Mets 4
#10.Pirates 3
#10.Twins(/Senators) 3
#10.Phillies 3
#10.Giants 3
#14.Tigers 2
#14.Marlins 2
#14.Blue Jays 2
#14.Royals 2
#14.Indians 2
#14.Padres 2
#20.Angels 1
#20.Diamondbacks 1
#20.White Sox 1
#20.Brewers 1
#24.Cubs 0
#24.Nationals(/Expos) 0
#24.Astros 0
#24.Devils Rays 0
#24.Rockies 0
#24.Mariners 0
#24.Rangers(/Senators) 0
I think that is a pretty good history for the years since they've been in LA. Obviously the Yankees are in another class but aside from them the Dodgers have been as good as anyone. They rank #2 out of 30 teams in World Series victories and in Pennants. First among all NL teams in that span.
Also, when you talk about their Brooklyn history, a lot of that is based on baseball nostalgia more so than reality. Certainly they won a lot of pennants and they did so at a rate similar to that while in LA with 13 in 74 when they were in Brooklyn versus 9 in 47 years in LA. But for the most part their glory years in Brooklyn consisted of a lot of mediocre teams and then the decade with the great Post WW2 teams which pretty much always lost to the Yankees, 55 excepted of course. There are a few seasons that were exceptions but the Dodgers basically sucked for the 40 years until Durocher took over as manager in the early 40s and that history for most of their time in Brooklen tends to be glossed over. In the 37 World Series from 1903-1940 (minus 04) through they appeared in a grand total of two World Series and lost both and that was at a time when there were only 8 NL teams. In if you look at the first 35 seasons for which the World Series was held, ie prior to Durocher being hired in 39, the Dodgers finished in the bottom half of an 8 team league, so 5th or lower an amazing 80% of the time with 28 of those 35 years having second division finishes. So IMO their "glory years" in Brooklyn are greatly a function of people missing an era when baseball was king and the Dodgers were lovable runners-up, ala the Red Sox, but that perception ignores their Washington Senator-esque history for most of their time in Brooklyn.
Five of their six World Series victories have come in the LA span even though they currently have been in LA for 46 seasons (47 years minus 94) versus 54 seasons (03-57 minus 04) in Brooklyn during which time the World Series was held.
Historical side note, only four teams, the Cubs, White Sox, Indians and Giants, have existed for that entire span and not won a World Series. Of course the Cubs and White Sox are frequently mentioned as losers and everyone knows how bad the Indians were for the 4 decades prior to their revival in the 90s but the Giants don't seem to get much attention in this regard. If I had thought about it it would have occured to me but until seeing the numbers I didn't realize that they hadn't won since the 54 Series when they beat the heavily favored Indians.
and dodger stadium is a rather bland ballpark IMO. but i respect yours as well. everyone will have their bias opinions, much like I do.
As you say, everyone has his or her own opinion. I still liked Dodger Stadium better.
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
Hmmm. By what standard?
I would say the most obvious way to measure who is somebody and who is nobody in a team sport is by team success. World Series Victories from 1958 on:
perhaps it is a difference in views from coast to coast. As a New Yorker, the Dodgers are nobody and the only thing anyone respects of them is when they were from Brooklyn.
They have been mildly successful in Los Angeles. By mildly I mean, they have been successful yet not really consistent. They also benefit from being in a traditionally weak division of the national league.
The Yankees are legendary for their pre 60s years. I feel the Dodgers are legendary in their own sense for the same reason and NOT because of their Los Angeles days.
But yes, at least the Dodgers did better after relocation than the Giants :P
Originally posted by trick fall
Hey, my band will actually be playing at Sin-e on August 17th so come on down and have a beer......
Hmmm... why not? Where is it and any info on the band (music style)?