Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the
Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.
Friday, May 26, 2006 |
A Reminder Of The Angels' Salad Days
Forget the bitchy kvetching you sometimes find elsewhere, these are great days for the Angels. Sure, they're below .500 and trailing the division, but take a percoset for the pitching and some haldol for the hitting and sidle up for a moment. Today's Prospectus Matchups has this to say about the weekend's Orioles series:
Meanwhile, the Angels are shaping up to be the biggest disappointment of 2006. A win total in the high 80s was about the consensus and it looks as though they'll struggle all year to make .500. The nice thing about being an Angels fan these days is that even if they don't make it back to the hunt this year, we can almost guarantee they won't finish under .500 in 2007. There is enough talent in the system and enough desire by the owner to use his resources to ensure it won't happen twice in a row. The last time Angels fans had to endure back-to-back losing seasons was over a decade ago and they won't have to revisit that anytime soon.Hear that, kids? These are all growing pains. I don't think the Angels are going to be stuck with a losing record for a while; and remember, that losing record happened before Disney got hold of the team.
Comments:
I don't know if I agree with your logic
FACT: we used to be lousy, then we were great, now it appears we are lousy again, even though it may only be temporary.
THEREFORE: Because the lousiness is temporary, not permanent, we shouldn't complain.
I used to never get laid. Then I got laid a lot. I complain now whenever I don't get laid, even though it is likely I will get laid in the near future. Why not complain, it only undrescores how important getting laid is to me.
FACT: we used to be lousy, then we were great, now it appears we are lousy again, even though it may only be temporary.
THEREFORE: Because the lousiness is temporary, not permanent, we shouldn't complain.
I used to never get laid. Then I got laid a lot. I complain now whenever I don't get laid, even though it is likely I will get laid in the near future. Why not complain, it only undrescores how important getting laid is to me.
# posted by 
: 5/26/2006 03:39:00 PM
: 5/26/2006 03:39:00 PM
It's the difference between not being able to get a date on the one hand, and having plenty, but needing to invest a certain amount of time, money and emotion into capturing the prize.
# posted by : 5/26/2006 04:03:00 PM
: 5/26/2006 04:03:00 PM
Are there fans as quick to jump off the bandwagon as Angels fans?
It's the middle of May and they're only five games out of first. Many championship teams got off to slow starts or hit a speed bump in the middle of the year.
I saw some guy on another board say he "expected" -- his word -- the Angels to score 15 runs a game and if they didn't something was wrong. It goes to show you some people have their heads crammed way too far up their rectal cavity.
It's the middle of May and they're only five games out of first. Many championship teams got off to slow starts or hit a speed bump in the middle of the year.
I saw some guy on another board say he "expected" -- his word -- the Angels to score 15 runs a game and if they didn't something was wrong. It goes to show you some people have their heads crammed way too far up their rectal cavity.
# posted by : 5/26/2006 04:23:00 PM
: 5/26/2006 04:23:00 PM
I think it's a little presumptious to label all Angel fans as bandwagoners. This is not an Angels only phenomenom.
My guess is that they have the same propensity as any other fans. This is especially evident in the digital age when you can essentially look at the number of blogs and equate it with team success (and obviously weight for popularity). When a team is doing well, more people are willing to talk about them (increase in number of blogs) and when they do poorly, people don't want to for many reasons. I think the only consistent loser in baseball to actually sell out games is the Cubs. Even the Yankees, with their big "Nation," were relatively quiet before in the late 80s and early 90s.
I think you will find most people in general find better things to do with their time than follow a losing team. When it starts winning again, they go back to it. Granted, giving up in May unless you are a Royals fan is a little ridiculous, but just because some people enjoy the pessimistic side of fandom doesn't mean they are bad fans.
My guess is that they have the same propensity as any other fans. This is especially evident in the digital age when you can essentially look at the number of blogs and equate it with team success (and obviously weight for popularity). When a team is doing well, more people are willing to talk about them (increase in number of blogs) and when they do poorly, people don't want to for many reasons. I think the only consistent loser in baseball to actually sell out games is the Cubs. Even the Yankees, with their big "Nation," were relatively quiet before in the late 80s and early 90s.
I think you will find most people in general find better things to do with their time than follow a losing team. When it starts winning again, they go back to it. Granted, giving up in May unless you are a Royals fan is a little ridiculous, but just because some people enjoy the pessimistic side of fandom doesn't mean they are bad fans.
Newer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.