Nieuwendyk

[rhovorka]

This thread makes my head hurt.  I can't even come close to forming a response that would cover everything I'd want to say.  Time for a list of brain emissions as much as I can:

1) It's OK, and rather easy to root for a player and not a team.  When Joe N. was on the LoneStars (or should it be whoreStars), I couldn't bear to even think about rooting for them.  But at the end of the storm, when I woke up and saw that our guy was Conn Smythe winner, I felt OK to be really happy for him.

2) I'm normally a rational fan.  But the Yanks-Sox rivalry sometimes stirs up such passion in this NYY fan that I sometimes feel silly when I look back at my actions.  One thing I've learned that many Sox and Yanks fans need to do is to respect the rivalry.  I've always wanted to write a book about fan psychology, and the Yankee-Red Sox rivalry would be at its core.

3) With the explosion of the Sports industry in the last 20 years, there is way too much Hate-motivation.  To a certain degree, it's healthy.  But I really can't explain why there is so much these days.  I was told by another member of this forum that there was an espn.com poll last week about "what would you like to see most" over the past weekend.  Most of the choices were positive things, like Palmeiro hitting his 500th HR.  "Lakers losing" was the only negative choice, and was far and away the #1 vote-getter.

4) The NHL discussions here are really my least favorite part of this forum.  This just in...there are NHL teams besides the Isles, Devils, and Rangers.  The arguments that keep erupting over those three teams get tiresome to me.  Boooooring.  ;-)  At least someone had enough sack in this go-round to bring in the Flyers and Bruins.

Well, with the Disney Advertising Team advancing tonight, that means my 3 least favorite teams have made the Stanley Cup Finals in 3 of the last 4 years (yeah...I'm a hypocrite with respect to my "hate-motivation" point above)  I'll be rooting for the East team for sure now.

[ugarte]

At least someone had enough sack in this go-round to bring in the Flyers and Bruins.

The Red Wings are my team of choice, but it is hard to wave the flag after getting swept out.  

I'm with you on the tedious nature of the NHL discussions here, RichH. Everyone takes the silliest, most gratuitous potshots at the Rangers/Devils/Isles so seriously -- even when it is crystal clear that the only reason the swipe was taken was to generate a reaction.

[Greg Berge]

Hey, if anybody has shown sack (as well as lack of sense) the last ten years, it's Islander fans.

As far as the three-team go-round is concerned, that's my very point.  As an Isles fan, my take on the Rangers is roughly even with the other O6 -- I'll root for them over an unobjectionable but more recent franchise like say Pittsburgh or Vancouver.  My take on NJ is that with Joe on the team I'd rather they win than either of the other two teams still in consideration.

[Erica]

I'd have to say, Rich, that while I respect the Red Sox/Yankees rivalry, I don't care any more about those games than I do about any other ones. The best thing about them is that I get to see a Yankees game on TV up here in Boston. (I'm actually going to Monday's game) Sure, I want them to win them more because the Red Sox and Yankees are usually so close in the standings. I actually prefer Mets/Yankees games more because they for some reason always seem to be really close games and don't happen as much. My hatred of the Sox has been magnified because I can't stand the fans and their inane justifications for hating former players. Anyway, I'm certainly as avid a Yankees fan as anyone, as Rich can attest. Geez, when I was a little girl I used to attend Dave Winfield's baseball camp every year and lived down the street from Billy Martin. (He gave out lttle oreos on Halloween.) Ah, those were the days.  I'm also an avid Devils' fan, but I'm from NJ, can you blame me?

[Greg Berge]

[q] I'm also an avid Devils' fan, but I'm from NJ, can you blame me?
[/q]

For which?  ;-)

[Keith K \'93]

There was more player movement before free agency than there is now?  That's certainly counter-intuitive (or at least, my intuition) but you could be right. Certainly, money issues do make player movement difficult now.

The point still holds though.  Pre-free agency the core players on a team didn't move very much and I thikn this served to establish the "culture" of hating the Red Sox on the Yanks, or vice versa.  These core players were somewhat likely to have been "raised" in the organization as well (at least for the Yanks, who always a great farm system through the mid 60's).

[Al DeFlorio]

Keith K '93 wrote:

...(at least for the Yanks, who always a great farm system through the mid 60's).

Wasn't that farm system called the Kansas City A's?

[Greg Berge]

[q]There was more player movement before free agency than there is now? That's certainly counter-intuitive (or at least, my intuition) but you could be right. Certainly, money issues do make player movement difficult now.
[/q]

Yep.  Bill James goes on about this in several of his books, and demonstrates it very well.  It has held steady since about the 8th year of free agency, after the counter-weight of a measure of fiscal reality contrained everybody except George and the occasional quickie (c.f., Marlins) from playing checkers with their roster.  Even George has learned, at that -- he started The Dynasty when he stabilized his core.

The "free agency has ended the days of long careers with one team" is one of those myths that hangs on despite constant refutation, like "face shields cut down on injuries," "bond-funded stadiums are good for the local economy," and neconservatism.  :-D



Post Edited (05-17-03 16:51)

[ugarte]

Greg wrote:

[q]There was more player movement before free agency than there is now? That's certainly counter-intuitive (or at least, my intuition) but you could be right. Certainly, money issues do make player movement difficult now.
[/q]

Yep.  Bill James goes on about this in several of his books, and demonstrates it very well.  It has held steady since about the 8th year of free agency. . .

The big difference, of course, is not the quantity of movement but the reason why players switch teams.  Prior to free agency there was player movement because MLB was just a rotisserie league run by millionaires.  Now players have a say in where they will go.



Post Edited (05-17-03 18:33)

[Al DeFlorio]

Returning to topic, Joe won 18 of 25 faceoffs in today's (Saturday's) big Devil win.

[Rich Stamboulian]

Well, what are some examples of star players who have spent their entire careers with one team since free agency....say like Mantle and Yaz did, among many others?

Not Clemens, Bonds, Piazza, Winfield, Glavine, Maddox, Carter, etal.

Off the top of my head, I can think of Mattingly and Puckett.

[Al DeFlorio]

Rich Stamboulian wrote:

Well, what are some examples of star players who have spent their entire careers with one team since free agency....say like Mantle and Yaz did, among many others?

Ripken?  Gwynn?

[ugarte]

Rich Stamboulian wrote:

Well, what are some examples of star players who have spent their entire careers with one team since free agency....say like Mantle and Yaz did, among many others?

Not Clemens, Bonds, Piazza, Winfield, Glavine, Maddox, Carter, etal.

Off the top of my head, I can think of Mattingly and Puckett.

Ripken and Gwynn.

[Greg Berge]

off the top of my head -- and perhaps they spent a year with somebody else at the end of their careers:  Yount, Molitor, Brett.

Guys whose careers spanned a good portion of time on both sides of the changeover: Stargell, Schmidt.

Guys who spent all but maybe a token couple seasons with one club include Edgar Martinez, Sosa, Smoltz.

There's also an independent factor that the star system before free agency was centered on the big money clubs.  At least half the good examples of star players who spent their careers with one team before FA comes from the 3 NY clubs out of 20 ML clubs.  It was hardly the "good old days" unless you happened to live in NY.

[rhovorka]

Greg wrote:

off the top of my head -- and perhaps they spent a year with somebody else at the end of their careers:  Yount, Molitor, Brett.

Guys who spent all but maybe a token couple seasons with one club include Edgar Martinez, Sosa, Smoltz.

Molitor spent 3 seasons with Toronto, and 3 seasons with Minnesota.  Sosa has played with Texas, the White Sox, and the Cubs.  Edgar Martinez has spent all 17 years of his career with Seattle.  

Current players with 10+ years of experience all with one team that I can think of:  Edgar Martinez, Barry Larkin, Bernie Williams, John Smoltz, Carlos Delgado, Frank Thomas, Tim Salmon.  

So it's not like Ripken was the last of the one-team career players as so many people like to rant about.  Spending an entire career with one team wasn't even that common in the days before Free Agency, as Greg and Big Red Apple implied.  Just ask Curt Flood.



Post Edited (05-19-03 04:08)