Someone's opinion, expressed quite reasonably and without any saltiness or rudeness, which happens to differ from yours, shouldn't at all "diminish your enjoyment of the sport." If it does, I'm not the fault lies with the person expressing the opinion. Please, allow us to continue this conversation with our diverse viewpoints. I don't see things your way at all, but I have enjoyed reading your perspective.
There's nothing in the post you quoted that says or implies that I am affected by your opinions one way or the other. Please re-read my post and rest assured, my day will be fine regardless of what opinions you choose to post. I enjoy the chance to talk with fellow Astros fans, and I don't expect you to agree with me. Have a great day.
There’s more ways to honor somebody vs retiring their number. some things should be elevated above others based on the player being honored... true for all sports, not just baseball. retiring every number for every great player of every era will end up diluting the honor... participation ribbons.
The term of "participation ribbon" is laying it on a little thick, right? Berkman played 12 seasons for the team - the vast majority of his career. He was traded away in the end because the team sucked, not because he James Hardened his way out. He was top-5 in MVP balloting 4 times. He was a big-game player. If it matters, a native Texan and a good guy who was active in charity and was never a distraction with off-the-field stuff. The top-5 career WAR for the team is Bagwell-Biggio-Cruz-Cedeno-Berkman. Oswalt is 6th. I'm not saying those two are on the level of Bagwell or Biggio's career, but they arguably produced more for the team than every one of the 7 other players whose number was already retired. There's no doubt in my mind Berkman was a more important Astro than Jimmy Wynn. And Oswalt had a better Astros career than Nolan Ryan.
I agree... I loved Berkman-Oswalt. However at some point, the Astros needed to stop retiring every number of every great player that played for them. I like the Astros HOF and Berkman/Oswalt were worthy second class inductions. The comment about participation ribbons is that once you start retiring every meaningful Astros’ number... which now at this point, using flimsy criteria, you’d likely be adding Altuve-Bregman in a few years, nostalgia may impact adding Springer and/or Verlander (who had a run similar to Scott’s, with a championship, CYA, and no-hitter), and if they really do make the expected effort to re-sign Correa, etc, etc.... you end up lowering the bar significantly for who deserves the greatest honor you can bestow, along with simply starting to run out of numbers. In the end, a franchise as relatively young as the Astros really shouldn’t be competing with historical franchises that have existed 50-60 years longer on # of retired numbers. Make it as elite a club as truly possible.
I remember that day, Berkman (who was always a great public speaker) had said he looked forward to the stadium being packed up to the rafters again, cheering playoff baseball. That stuck in my head because at that point I had really started to miss exciting Astros baseball. Fast forward two seasons the playoff series against KC. Packed house and Springer, Correa, and Altuve balling out and starting their era. I specifically remember Altuve's homerun in Game 4 when the crowd started chanting "AL-TU-VE!" and it reminded me of the "BI-GI-O!" chant, and I immediately thought back to Berkman's speech that day in 2013. That's when I knew, "I think we're back"
The turnout and fan response y'all are talking about for the Puma/Wizard honoring reminds me of the late-90s "Save the Oilers" rally. If there was ever a sentiment for saving the city's football team, it had long since passed after the team let Warren Moon leave, proceeded to tank on the field, and then decided to move to Nashville. The timing for the so-called rally was awful. And the Astros were mistaken if they thought fans hadn't largely tuned the entire organization out during the 100 loss seasons.
I agree that it was horrible timing but I think it mightve been a desperate try to get more fans in during those sad attendance days. It was just beyond sad that half of the 25% couldnt even give them an applause and the respect they deserved.
That's just more reflective of Houston sports fandom. Front-running town. Unlikely to support any of the teams in earnest or perpetuity when wins aren't there.
It’s pretty hard to not sell out an NFL game. It’s 8 games a year... usually on a weekend... and a vast majority of those tickets are sold before the season or are bought up by corporations/businesses to be given away. The 90’s Oilers had some issues for bad opponents, but the NFL popularity has grown exponentially since.... and when that team was rolling, it was as hot a ticket as possible. Houston hasn’t really been passionate about the Texans since 2012. Fans still tailgate, diehards still get in their seats early... but the decibels at NRG aren’t what they were in their hey-day, fans actively choose to rather stay in the lounges or simply tailgate if its a nice day, and you can pretty much get a ticket for less than face value for any game you want (including playoffs).
That's most cities. Only a few of the bigger cities have die-hard fan bases. I'm actually okay where Houston falls on the spectrum. Those sad sacks who went to every game when the cubs when through their era of mediocrity, just felt bad for them. Flip side, the Hollywood people who only come out to be seen when the Lakers are good, that's also trash.
I'd actually say the smaller cities tend to be more overly supportive, especially when they have less pro teams (Portland, Sacramento, Utah, Nashville, St. Louis, OKC, San Antonio, New Orleans)... but those cities are also at risk of losing teams if they don't bend over backwards and constantly take care of the owners, whether its renovations, free land, new arenas, etc. Houston is a top 10 media market, but is likely the softest overall sports market of all in the top 10 (edit, Atlanta now in top 10 so maybe second softest). Partly due to transplants. Partly due to how the city is designed. And partly due to the still relatively young age of all the teams. The direct comparisons to Houston are Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, Phoenix, and Tampa.... all "newer" big cities in the midst of sprawl where people move to. Houston fans are probably in the middle of the pack amongst these cities, and its actually gotten better largely due to the last 7 years of Astros success and the Rockets putting out a potential contender each/every year. That being said, when those teams start becoming bad.. its not just less fan support, its almost ZERO fan support... like MIA fan support. Cities that defy all the above (garner support/passion for teams, multiple pro teams) include Denver, Boston, Minneapolis, Cleveland (gag), Pittsburgh, Indy, Baltimore. Then you have the ultra big, ultra historic cities that will always have fans of their teams good/bad - NY, Chicago, Philly, LA, Bay Area. Not sure where to put DC in all of this... but it remains a top 10 market, despite competition from Baltimore and a good number of pro teams in the area. If the Rockets eventually trade Harden, will be very interesting to see what happens to their attendance. They haven't had many years in the Toyota Center where they don't have a top-tier superstar. And obviously the final years of the Summit were mostly tremendous attendance following the championships, then Barkley, then Yao. But prior to all of that, even with Akeem/Hakeem, there were 9,000 fans/night in the early 90's... including some early season games in the actual championship season (93-94), along with that memorable "mothers day" game in the playoffs.
Maybe if Berkman got a steady diet of Maddux/Glavine/Smotlz/Millwood/Brown, maybe he wouldn't have. Maybe, maybe no
