The Boston Red Sox are MLB Royalty.
The LA Dodgers are really just a transplanted, traitorous east coast team (Brooklyn).
Real baseball fans used to lol at LA Dodgers' attendance. Recently they have managed to corral some fair weather fans but even with a ballpark capacity almost twice that of Fenway Park, they still have a yearly attendance that is less than Boston.
It's time for a real MLB franchise thread.
Boston Red Sox defeated the A's tonight.
Didn't they just blow a 9-0 lead about a week ago?Originally Posted by SixToedPete
They're also a .500 ballclub while the Dodgers are 16-7.
I can't believe you are making comments about the Dodgers' attendance, when they'e had over 2 million fans every year since 1973, and over 3 million fans from 1996-2010, only dipping to 2.95 million in 2011 because of the McCourt (and Bryan Stow) mess.
Boston also didn't break the 3 million attendance mark until 2008.
By the way, Boston has way more than half the capacity of Dodger Stadium. They have a capacity of 37,500, while Dodger Stadium has 56,000.
Thanks to great owners, Fenway Park capacity is @ 37,000. But even before the increase, Boston drew more fans than LA.
Who the hell owns the La La Land Dodgers anyway? Huge scandal/dispute about ownership.
Why don't you just come clean Druff and admit you bought the Dodgers?
No way this is even close to true.
No way this is even close to true.
Like everything he spews, he's completely wrong. Boston is a great baseball town, but they don't outdraw the Dodgers, because the ballpark doesn't allow for it. They outdrew them last year, but the previous years before that look like this. The Dodgers averaged more than Fenway holds going back to as far as I could find in 1974, with the exception of 2 seasons where it's conceivable that they outdrew them if Boston sold out every game those years. Either way, what he said is complete nonsense unless you consider 3 out of 37 years as consistently outdrawing them. Dude is either a total idiot, or a successful troll who likes to state incorrect nonsense emphatically to try and tilt. That he's in every fucking thread spitting stupidity is making the place close to unreadable at this point.
2010 LA Dodgers 81 3,562,320 Boston 81 3,046,443
2009 LA Dodgers 81 3,761,653 Boston 81 3,062,699
2008 LA Dodgers 81 3,730,553 Boston 81 3,048,250
2007 LA Dodgers 81 3,857,036 Boston 81 2,971,025
2006 LA Dodgers 81 3,758,545 Boston 82 2,967,508
2005 LA Dodgers 81 3,603,646 Boston 81 2,847,888
2004 LA Dodgers 81 3,488,283 Boston 81 2,837,304
2003 LA Dodgers 81 3,138,626 Boston 81 2,724,165
2002 Los Angeles 81 3,131,077 Boston 81 2,650,063
2001 Los Angeles 81 3,017,502 Boston 81 2,625,333
No way this is even close to true.
Yes they did my little stat puppet.
Although your reasoning is false, you have actually made my argument for me. Franchise owners know that when all is said and done, MLB attendance stats are all based on capacity. You are the 'total idiot' if you don't know this.
Boston outdrew LA exactly as I stated. You conveniently ignored the capacity of Fenway Park, which is the smallest ballpark in MLB.
Believe it or not, for home games, Boston regularly seats over 100% of its capacity. That is the most accurate, fair measure of attendance. LA does not even come close. The fact that you didn't know Fenway is such a tiny ballpark speaks to your ignorance.
Any true baseball fan knew I meant proportionately but it's even more amazing that last year Boston, with tiny Fenway Park, drew more fans than LA, a ballpark that holds almost 20,000 more fans.
As far as the rest of your nonsense about my other posts, you are a liar and a coward. A blanket statement like yours reveals an inability to effectively respond when I made whatever posts you were citing.
Obviously I'm deep under your thin skin but you will have to improve your intellect and grow a pair of balls if you want to be taken seriously by me.
"AWWW WHO THAA FAAACK CARES ABAWT LA AND THEY-AH STADIUM FILLED WITH DAAAHHKIES TRYING TO STAAAB EACH OTHAH! BAAAHSTAWN IS THE CENTAH OF THA UNIVEAHSE! LOOK AT THIS GAL!"
"MY PAL SIX-TOE DATED HER UNTIL SHE BECAME A WHORE-AH SHOWING OFF HER-AH SKIN."
So if the Cubs built a brand new stadium that held 250,000 fans but consistently only got 200,000 Boston would still have the better fan base because they are at 101% capacity right? Your argument about stadium size and capacity % sold is ridiculous. Im not a Dodgers fan either and will concede that LAST YEAR ONLY Boston made them look silly by outselling them even with a MUCH smaller stadium.Yes they did my little stat puppet.
Although your reasoning is false, you have actually made my argument for me. Franchise owners know that when all is said and done, MLB attendance stats are all based on capacity. You are the 'total idiot' if you don't know this.
Boston outdrew LA exactly as I stated. You conveniently ignored the capacity of Fenway Park, which is the smallest ballpark in MLB.
Believe it or not, for home games, Boston regularly seats over 100% of its capacity. That is the most accurate, fair measure of attendance. LA does not even come close. The fact that you didn't know Fenway is such a tiny ballpark speaks to your ignorance.
Any true baseball fan knew I meant proportionately but it's even more amazing that last year Boston, with tiny Fenway Park, drew more fans than LA, a ballpark that holds almost 20,000 more fans.
As far as the rest of your nonsense about my other posts, you are a liar and a coward. A blanket statement like yours reveals an inability to effectively respond when I made whatever posts you were citing.
Obviously I'm deep under your thin skin but you will have to improve your intellect and grow a pair of balls if you want to be taken seriously by me.
This statement is IMO a very large leap of logic.I know lots of TRUE baseball fans that wouldn't automatically make this assumption. If that's what you mean, then say it. Unless you're trying to start a flame war then, by all means, carry on.
(•_•) ..
∫\ \___( •_•)
_∫∫ _∫∫ɯ \ \
Classic example of making a statement and then finding justifications for why its true. Sorry Pete nobody is buying what you're selling. Now let's forget all this attendance BS and talk about the Red Sox!This statement is IMO a very large leap of logic.I know lots of TRUE baseball fans that wouldn't automatically make this assumption. If that's what you mean, then say it. Unless you're trying to start a flame war then, by all means, carry on.
I write things about poker at my Poker Blog and elsewhere on the Internets
Of all the money e'er I had, I spent it in good company
Yes they did my little stat puppet.
Although your reasoning is false, you have actually made my argument for me. Franchise owners know that when all is said and done, MLB attendance stats are all based on capacity. You are the 'total idiot' if you don't know this.
Boston outdrew LA exactly as I stated. You conveniently ignored the capacity of Fenway Park, which is the smallest ballpark in MLB.
Believe it or not, for home games, Boston regularly seats over 100% of its capacity. That is the most accurate, fair measure of attendance. LA does not even come close. The fact that you didn't know Fenway is such a tiny ballpark speaks to your ignorance.
Any true baseball fan knew I meant proportionately but it's even more amazing that last year Boston, with tiny Fenway Park, drew more fans than LA, a ballpark that holds almost 20,000 more fans.
As far as the rest of your nonsense about my other posts, you are a liar and a coward. A blanket statement like yours reveals an inability to effectively respond when I made whatever posts you were citing.
Obviously I'm deep under your thin skin but you will have to improve your intellect and grow a pair of balls if you want to be taken seriously by me.
You made a dumb statement, and now are trying to spin what you clearly said. Everyone here recognizes that.
An argument about capacity wouldn't have included the statements that, " Recently they have managed to corral some fair weather fans but even with a ballpark capacity almost twice that of Fenway Park, they still have a yearly attendance that is less than Boston.
That is an argument that even hampered by a smaller stadium, you still outdraw them. Which was proven conclusively false, except in an outlier season.
or,
"But even before the increase, Boston drew more fans than LA."
Attendance doesn't have multiple definitions. You wouldn't have said despite having a stadium with almost twice the capacity, that Boston stills draw more fans. That's illogical.
You made simple wrong statements. I've been to Fenway 4 times for playoff series, I know what it fucking holds, which is why your statement was so stupid.
And no, attendance figures aren't ranked by capacity. They are ranked by, wait for it, attendance.
If you would have just left it at the Red Sox are baseball royalty, I would have left you alone, as I agree. If you would have said the Red Sox could draw 50,000 a night if their stadium allowed, I'd tend to agree, as they are a rabid fan base. But your hyperbole is emblematic of how you post no matter the subject.
I'm a Steelers fan, and compared to the Jets, they are certainly NFL royalty, but I would never make the idiotic statement that they outdraw them, because capacity prohibits that from happening.
Lastly, I got an actual laugh at the notion that I would view being taken seriously by you as a positive development. I'm already taken seriously by anyone who is respected with critical thinking skills, because I don't run around making histrionic statements and proclaiming myself right if I'm wrong. I readily admit if I don't know, or erred. You don't seem to have that capacity.
Enjoy your Red Sox thread, I'm done with you. There are a ton of Boston locals here, and out of respect for them, not you, I will leave this thread to discussion of Red Sox baseball.
Red Sox have sold out about a million straight home games UNLESS that ended recently.
If they can get some pen help and the starters pitch OK they will be in the running for a playoff birth. The offense is ridiculous even with Ellsbury and Crawford down.
If Texas, Tampa Bay, Boston, New York or Detroit played in the N.L. they would most likely win any division they played in. Ill even add Anaheim to that lit even though they have started 7-15
No they wouldnt!. This AL vs NL crap always irritates me because it simply isnt true in either regard. If Boston went to the NL they wouldnt be any more dominant because they would lose an offensive weapon! The pitchers would have to hit, thus get removed from games earlier, and the pens would have to be better. How does Boston dominate in the NL when you remove David Ortiz from the lineup and make Beckett hit? For some reason I dont think Cody Ross is providing as much protection for Gonzalez as Ortiz does. So now you have lost Ortiz from the lineup, and Gonzalez doesnt see as many fat pitches. By moving Boston to the NL you effectively just neutralized 2 of thier biggest weapons! And when you get into the 7th and Beckett is having a so so game, you end up pinch hitting for him. Now the pitchers having big games and going deep diminishes and you get into the pen earlier (which any baseball fan knows is the goal of any manager because almost all pens are awful!).
NL baseball is the real sport, its pure fact. AL baseball is retarded. It was simply a rule put in place to provide more offense and make the game more exciting. I prefer the NL variety where a manager actually has to manage, hit and run, bunt, double switch etc. The AL managers just sit around and wait for home runs. Boring! Its also not a surprise that in that last 4 World Series the NL is 16-7 winning 3/4 series.
The back-end of the lineup leaves something to be desired as well, and I doubt Crawford is going to make any meaningful contribution this year... they should have just shut-him-down and opted for Tommy John instead of waiting 3-6 months and doing the same thing.
WITH those two their lineup is devastating: Ellsbury, Pedroia, Gonzalez, Ortiz, Youk, Saltalamacchia, Crawford, and then Aviles and whoever the outfielder du jour is. Without them it's not so good, although Sweeney seems to be a good offensive player and Anderson has some potential, and Ross is streaky good. If Valentine EVER pinch-hits D-Mac for Sweeney (even if its lefty lefty) again I'll probably throw-up.
That said, the bullpen is atrocious and their starting pitching is extremely overrated: Lester is the only consistent pitcher in the rotation: They need to put Bard back in the bullpen and trade for whoever is a hot closer at the trade deadline, which will free up Aceves to be their go-to guy in the middle innings.
I write things about poker at my Poker Blog and elsewhere on the Internets
No they wouldnt!. This AL vs NL crap always irritates me because it simply isnt true in either regard. If Boston went to the NL they wouldnt be any more dominant because they would lose an offensive weapon! The pitchers would have to hit, thus get removed from games earlier, and the pens would have to be better. How does Boston dominate in the NL when you remove David Ortiz from the lineup and make Beckett hit? For some reason I dont think Cody Ross is providing as much protection for Gonzalez as Ortiz does. So now you have lost Ortiz from the lineup, and Gonzalez doesnt see as many fat pitches. By moving Boston to the NL you effectively just neutralized 2 of thier biggest weapons! And when you get into the 7th and Beckett is having a so so game, you end up pinch hitting for him. Now the pitchers having big games and going deep diminishes and you get into the pen earlier (which any baseball fan knows is the goal of any manager because almost all pens are awful!).
NL baseball is the real sport, its pure fact. AL baseball is retarded. It was simply a rule put in place to provide more offense and make the game more exciting. I prefer the NL variety where a manager actually has to manage, hit and run, bunt, double switch etc. The AL managers just sit around and wait for home runs. Boring! Its also not a surprise that in that last 4 World Series the NL is 16-7 winning 3/4 series.
I prefer National League baseball.
I write things about poker at my Poker Blog and elsewhere on the Internets
I prefer National League baseball because I feel it is more strategic than the American League. With that being said, I am a die hard Yankee's fan.
I agree with China saying that if some of the top American League teams changed divisions, they would be at the top of any National League division. But I don't think it is many at all. The Yankees are definitely one simply because taking away their DH, doesn't kill their lineup. The other is maybe the Angels.
Now if you look at it in another way, taking the top 4 National league teams from the previous 4 years, and you put them in the American League? I think they take over every division except the East.
I don't think people realize how big the roll of a DH is, and how big of a difference having one more hitter in the lineup makes.
Of all the money e'er I had, I spent it in good company
Instead of spending money on the likes of Ortiz and DH they would just spend money in other areas and adjust their rosters.
I prefer National League baseball.
Tampa and Texas have developed young players and are deeper with young talent than just about any NL team. Texas is now spending money as well. New York and Boston will just outspend everyone.
That said it isn't a given that the A.L. will win the world series cause any team could win a 7 game series but let's just look at some recent history here
Interleague Play Total Wins
AL-1939 NL 1773 Winner American League
Interleague Play Seasons Won
American 11 (7 in a row) wins ,national 4 wins Winner American League
Last 20 Years of World Series
American League 12 wins National 8 Wins Winner American League
All Star Games last 20
American 15-5 Winner American league
Salaries
5 of the top 6 team salaries in Baseball are from the American League
The American league has clearly been the better league in recent history
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote
