I think geographic proximity enhances and expedites the emergence of a rivalry, especially two towns like Dallas and Houston that are already rivals on other fronts as you point out.
But we weren't rivals in basketball for decades. The Texans & Cowboys aren't rivals. Cowboys fans just think the Cowboys are awesome, and everyone else in the world hates them.
Cause the Mavericks sucked forever. And Texans & Cowboys play every four years. I think, especially once the Astros are respectable again, a Rangers/Astros rivalry could be pretty good.
So how does your geographic proximity theory work for rivalries such as New York and Los Angeles? The Rockets and the Jazz? Sure most rivalries are between two close markets geographically. However, some rivalries happen sporadically and basically randomly over time. Maybe something happened during one game between two teams (McHale vs Kurt Rambis, Stockton's Game 7 winning 3 pointer). Rivalries die and emerge, mostly now because of media overhype...
my mistake, it was cannonball who said it.. i didnt quote anybody on the initial post that you responded to. perhaps that created the confusion.. regardless, i look forward to the potential of a rivalry that could form. seeing as how it stems from things bigger than baseball.. it doesnt have to be yankees/red sox. i rivalry in texas is all it has to be and all it ever will be...
It can be. If the Rangers and Astros are both good at the same time. You can't force it. The Lakers/Celtics is an iconic rivalry despite playing twice per year and being on opposite ends of the country. Because they were both so good so frequently. Patriots/Colts was a great rivalry in the NFL for a while because they were meeting in the playoffs. Rivalrys are based on history and competing for championships.
have fun pretending they didn't exist. and btw, this old geezer isn't going anywhere. one day when you get hair on your schmekel you'll understand a thing or two.
Your rivalry is whoever you are playing that day, and for 51 seasons that was a NL team (obviously inter-league silliness excluded). I have no interest in this change and baseball is just about dead to me now.
I'm sad for you, and others like you. My dad has promised to not follow the Astros the AL. I can't let them go, and I certainly can't switch to those NL teams I've despised all these years. I hope they reserve a special place in Hell for Bud Selig where he is anally raped with a flaming penis for the rest of eternity.
Where did I say they couldnt happen otherwise? I merely suggested they happen easier and more abundantly under the conditions that fit Houston and Dallas.
The Mav's didnt exist till 1980. Were not any good until 1983. And by the mid to late 80's, id say a rivalry existed. The Texan's didnt exist until 2002 and were not good until last year.
Major League Baseball is just about dead for me also, and I really like the sport of baseball. I followed the Astros religiously from the late 60's all the way up until the last couple of years. I don't like the fact that a team can spend as much as they want, and buy up all the best players. The '94 strike really left me sour. All the players that we now know were on the juice has forever stained the sport. However, I now watch more college baseball than I ever have, and I always enjoy watching the Little League World Series games every summer. I've watched almost no Major League baseball this year, and I really haven't missed it that much. I think when I look at the sports page in the newspaper this next year, and I see the baseball standings, I'll probably be watching the national league standings more closely than the American League.
I love baseball too, but hate MLB. For now my ineterst is essentially historical. I also have a goofy hobby - table top sports games (like Strat-o-matic). This will be my focus from here on. Perhaps when Bud Selig dies, I may revisit MLB by following the Astros or just picking an NL team, but for now the wounds still sting.
I am still confused as to why you don't think the Astros have/had rivalries in the past since that seems to be the most compelling part of the move to the AL. Regardless of what you think there HAVE been rivalries. There is nothing wrong with anyone liking or disliking the move, but your reason should at least be accurate. There is nothing wrong with you preferring an Astros/Rangers rivalry to any previous or existing NL rivalry. Just quit pretending that rivalries have never existed. It's a shame you weren't alive during the Astros/Dodgers mini-playoff in 1981 or the Astros/Mets in 1986. Those games led to great rivalries over the ensuing years. Regular season games were more intense. Things were so intense, that in 1986, Tommy Lasorda pinch hit for his pitcher in the 3rd inning of a meaningless September game so that Deshaies would have a more difficult time trying to set the record of striking out the first 9 batters in a game. Every Astro-Dodger game in the 80s was a treat due to the outstanding pitching that each team had.
I don't see how this could be good for MLB as it royally inconveniences fans of NL baseball. Think about this: there are now zero NL teams from Atlanta to Phoenix.
The Astros were in the NL for 50 years. I am still trying to wrap my head around the concept that the Cardinals, Cubs, Mets and Dodgers will no longer be coming to town n a regular basis. These are teams that we built rivalries with over a half century. You cannot simply replace that overnight. This move sucks, and those who made the decision should be charged with treason.
Yes, that's true. On the other hand, "Yes, that's true" is what I said when one of my friends made that statement in the mid 1970's. Guess I was wrong.
