No kidding. I'd still love to see the Rockies or Dbacks switch places with the Astros. It's not like they have a history in the NL to contend with, after all. #kissourassesselig
I think I'm here with you--tolerating. But as soon as someone asks me about, F the DH, F the AL, and F Bud Selig. OMG NO! Honestly though--you and another poster here (can't remember who) state this with a dogmatic certainty. Are you putting pieces together and drawing conclusions, or do you know something the rest of us don't? Not asking this confrontationally; I don't pay attention to anything anymore other than my Astros' games as I simply don't have the time. Just curious--when did you become an Astros fan? This is all so subjective, and much of it depends on experience. I, for one, *still* hate the Giants, Dodgers, and Braves. Hate them, and love it when my Astros play them. Indeed. Selig's legacy consists of: * gross mistreatment of the Astros and their fanbase ("home" game in Milwaukee? * the Steroid Era ("There's not a problem... There's not a problem... There's not a problem... ... ... OMG there's a problem...") * taking away half of the things that made MLB unique to the other great leagues: interleague play every day now, three rounds of playoffs, etc.
It was probably me. Nothing will be done before the next labor negotiations... but if the DH isn't going away, and inter-league play isn't going away, and pitchers continue to get injured on the base paths, and NL teams continued to get dominated in AL ballparks... you can see where this is going. There's not a lot of NL teams that would put up a huge fight against it either to fix the competitive balance that currently exists between leagues. While the Astros have had several long-standing ties and battles against NL teams... the main point was that no other NL team ever considered the Astros their main rival. Even when they were "good", all those teams you just mentioned (including the Cardinals) were never considering the Astros as their #1 rivals. Its sort of like Rockets vs. Jazz now.... or Rockets vs. Mavs in the 90's. Sure, there are times where those matchups were amazing, but when one team is bad... or you just don't play each other in the playoffs... these matchups fizzle. You're seriously getting up for Giants/Dodgers/Braves games? You "hate" any player that puts on those uniforms for what happened in the 80's? Ok. Agree on the first two... but the last point can't be really argued against if its drawing in more fans and creating more races at the end of the season. Once they introduced the wild card, future playoff expansion was an inevitability... especially when they wanted to re-create importance of division titles over wild cards (which they now have with the 1-game wild card playoff). And once they had interleague play at all... having a series everyday doesn't mean a whole lot. There aren't that many more interleague games per team.... just that they're not all happening at the same time now.
thanks for explaining your logic (probably repeating). Seems reasonable; I just hate it. You're right. It's just that I couldn't care less what those other teams or fan bases think. I'll never pretend that the old NL West clashes have any historical significance to anyone outside of Houston. But this is Houston. And it matters to us. And for anyone outside of Houston to say that doesn't matter is complete @#÷×@#&€£(;/$. You seriously aren't? You seriously don't? Ok. all completely reasonable and sensible. And, I don't expect others to feel the way I do--I liked the two-division, four-team playoff. The regular season *meant* something (as opposed to 82 nearly meaningless games in the NBA). But I understand that most folks really enjoy the current setup, and I can see why. To each his own. Hah. Oh, and F Bud Selig. ;-)
I like the DH because I didn't like it when Pitchers would get hurt or get tired on the bases. I use do root against a pitcher getting hit that was not an RBI. I like the fact that the managers can manage the pitchers without having to worry about them batting. I never thought we had good managers and I don't like yelling at the TV about when to take a pitcher out. AL is much more stress free.
This wouldn’t remotely register outside of Astro fans who are at least 30 years old. May I ask you a sincere question: why are you seemingly so against baseball evolving? Especially at such a critical time for the sport - an already old audience getting progressively older while fewer and fewer kids are watching/playing is a death sentence. There’s a chance baseball won’t be here in 20… 25 years if it doesn’t address some glaring issues. Fortunately, there are some obvious quick (potentially long-term) fixes to address some of these issues (increased technology, expanded playoffs, universal DH, shorter games) - and yet, inevitably, a loud, angry outcry greets each and every inch of recommended progress, making it a much tougher battle than it should be. And since you’ve often been one of those “loudly” expressing disdain (F this and F that, etc.), I’d really love to hear your perspective. Would you honestly prefer the game die than evolve into a less recognizable version? Again, I hope you don’t read this as indictment: you’re obviously not alone in having very entrenched, passionate feelings - that's why I’m asking. I’d love to have a greater insight into the midset.
Doesn't make it any less part of that old prune's legacy. Folks from my generation can barely remember Watergate; does that make Nixon an OK guy? (and yes, the latter was *far* more serious and devastating than the former) I feel like the question paints people who feel the way I do in the worst possible light. The question feels a bit unfair. From my side, it would be equally unfair if I were to say something like, "Why do you brats oppose everything that makes baseball beautiful and want to change every ****ing detail until we can't even recognize it anymore? Next year you'll have damn robots pitching!" The thing is, the same rhetoric was thrown around in the 80s and again in the 90s, and again last decade. "Baseball is dying! Baseball isn't America's pastime anymore! We won't have baseball by {insert future-feeling date here}." Yes--things do need to evolve and change. Every sport has undergone rule changes, most of them for the better (and then there's the NFL's ridiculous pass reception rules, but I digress). I'm not against evolution. Baseball could speed up the pace of the game, find a way to balance the exciting steroid-induced offense of the previous decade against the superior pitching and defense we're seeing now (it's the return of the early 80s!), expand replay, hold umpires more accountable with electronic judging of the strike zone, etc. I'm sure there's more; there's a reason I'm not in charge. Agreed. The more the playoffs expand, the less meaningful a division championship becomes. It's already watered down with expanded divisions. I do understand how most people like the idea, and I won't try to dissuade anyone. Just explaining my unique feelings on the deal. The extreme of expanded playoffs is the NBA, where teams under .500 routinely earn the right to get rolled in a supremely boring waste of time known as the first round of the Eastern Conference playoffs. Snore. Suck all regular season, and you still have a shot to make the playoffs in a league where more than 50% of teams qualify! I hope MLB never approaches this. It's ok for the Western Conference, where we have more than like two good teams every year, but in general the NBA playoffs are too long to pay attention to. For me, anyway. Oh God, no. How about kill that abortion instead? Agreed, to an extent. Picking up the pace for me is a better solution. *Some* games will be shorter, maybe even more than half. But long games have never been a problem for the NFL. I only tend to b**** about the DH and my fear of 26 teams making the playoffs one day. There are only three things I throw my capital 'F' at: Bud Selig, the DH, and the AL--because they have the DH. But not really; actually, it's because my Astros were forced over there by a bunch of ingrates who pretend 50 years of history don't matter. As I said earlier, I believe that is really an unfair characterization of how I (and the admittedly very small number of fans with similar dispositions) feel. But I will say this: baseball is alive and well. Little leagues are kicking in every town. Pony leagues, select leagues, and even community and church softball leagues are still flourishing all over the place. I even have a 57-year-old friend who plays in a senior hardball (not softball!) league in Katy. No, my friend. Baseball ain't dying in my generation. Or yours. So please spare me the post-apocalyptic questions. I appreciate that. I hope my responses don't come across as combative in any way.
A sincere question for you: do you really believe, honestly, that the water-cooler talk that goes on in this arena or others, or on call-in radio waves, has *any* influence whatsoever? Seriously? For me, it seems there is no battle here, much less any battle begging "much tougher... than it should be." Three years ago we b****ed and moaned and signed petitions and screamed on the radio, and we all knew damn well it would accomplish exactly nothing. It didn't even slow down the process: the Astros are an AL team now. This here, on this wonderful corner of th' Internets--thanks Clutch--this here is an innocent discussion on sports, and for many of us, an escape from the reality of work and stress. I'm not trying to effect any change (how delusional would that be). Just sharing our different perspectives and enjoying the discussion. So yeah, I miss the old NL West and I hate the DH. But, I love baseball. Always have, always will. And if the robots are pitching next year, I'll still tune in.
Have to bring this back up. With the lineups we throw out there night in and night out, who can say that theyre still mad at the switch in leagues?
Raises hand, though I would not want to go back as I know the current league. Flip flopping leagues sucks. I think I do a really good job of following the league the Astros are in as well as top teams in other league. There are just some teams in NL that I just don't know much about.
I hated it when our 7-8-9 couldn't break .200. Now that our 7-8-9 is better than a lot of teams' 3-4-5, I love it.
I grew up watching the National League and I never considered a pitcher NOT batting. Now? I can't fathom why anyone would want them to. It's like having a punter play QB every fifth offensive series; it makes no logical sense to me. Also, allllllllllllllllllllllllllllll those fans who griped and complained that you couldn't manufacture a rivalry....... I'd say the Astro-Ranger rivalry has already surpassed any other rivalry the franchise has ever known because both teams are fully invested in it. Yeah, sure - we had some terrific years v the Dodgers - but the Giants were always their true rival. Cardinals and Cubs, too -but they had each other well before they had us. But this Astro-Ranger match-up feels like a sustainable hatred that has the potential to spread across generations on both sides.
This. The Rangers are the first team in baseball who've ever considered the Astros as their biggest rival. Of course, the Dallasites would probably try to claim that Anaheim is still their's... because 30thousanddollarmillionaires, LAofTexas, etc. And the AL still dominates the NL in interleague every single year... because night-in/night-out, their lineups are better situated to cause damage than the average NL lineup.
I like the DH, but I'd rather play the Cubs and Cardinals 19 times a year instead of the A's and Mariners
But doesnt' playing the Rangers, and having them consider the Astros their biggest rival, somewhat mitigate that? Neither the Cubs nor Cardinals fans gave 2 ***** about the Astros... even when they were in the heat of battling for the division or the NL. I also certainly don't miss having to play Cindy, Milwaukee or Pittsburgh 19 times a year. To me, the A's/Mariners/Angels games have just as much intensity as those "other" games ever had (I guess the Reds had a brief flirtation with being a Stros rival... much like the Cubs/Cards did).
DH has an affect, but AL teams are just run better as well. NBA is much worse regarding front office disparity. Of the 8 teams typically regarded as slow to embrace "Moneyball" in 2015, 6 resided in the NL. Oddly, if you sort team leaders in SBs for leadoff hitters, 7 of those 8 teams are in top half.
Didn't think it'd be good but I've thoroughly enjoyed AL ball. -No more burning your bench and screwing up the batting order on stupid double switches. -No more base-running related pitcher injuries (still salty over Carlos Hernandez's injury). Honestly it seems like more entertaining baseball to me. Can your nine best hitters outhit my nine best hitters? 24th and 25th men don't have as big of an impact, meaning the better players have more of an impact (the way it should be). And for all the hubbub of the NL being more of a thinking man's game, I read something somewhere that made a lot of sense. [In NL ball] when the pitchers' spot in the order is due up, the manager has to make a decision on subbing a pitch hitter for a reliever. It's a defined decision point. Whereas in AL baseball, the manager and pitching coaching just have to be aware/vigilant of when to pull the reliever.
