Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Padre tradition? Angel tradition? Astro tradition? Yes indeed!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Padre tradition? Angel tradition? Astro tradition? Yes indeed!

    I have always liked the teams with the long-standing traditions: The Tigers, Pirates, Reds, Sox (both White and Red)...and, yes, even the (rrrr!) Yankees! :cap:

    But the other day I got to thinking: the teams I generally think of as "new" teams without much tradition, like the Padres, Angels, Astros, etc. have now been around a long, long time.

    Somehow I don't equate the word "tradition" with these teams. But it's interesting to note that the Angels and Astros have been around almost as long as the AL St. Louis Browns were!

    I guess I just got old real fast. When I was a kid, these teams hadn't been around all that long, and the words "tradition" and "Padres" didn't belong in the same sentence.

    But now, you'd have to say these teams have carved out their own traditions in the history of our national pasttime, and it's time for an old fart like me to adjust my thinking!!!
    "Hey Mr. McGraw! Can I pitch to-day?"

  • #2
    It's a shame nobody posts on their team forms though, especially San Diego. Are there any Padres, Angels, or Marlins fans here on BBF?

    Comment


    • #3
      Yes, the Angels, Padres (and NY Mets) are approaching 50 years of existence in 2011 and 2012 repsectively. I think it's tough to attribute "tradition" to these teams because they do not have a long history of success. They've had there ruhn of success but never really an era when they dominated over a several seasons.
      Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

      Comment


      • #4
        A few of those teams have decent enough traditions.

        The Mets are the NL team from New York, putative replacements for the Dodgers and Giants, winners of 2 World Series (my honesty is causing me to get a little queasy h), and all around ultimate underdogs, with a perpectual chip on their shoulders.

        The Astros have a number of HOFers in their past and took part in several truly transcendently great postseason series (the '80 and '86 NLCS, among others.)

        The Angels have a Series title under their belts and a decent tradition of winning and contention. For a long time they also seemed a bit like a west coast version of the Red Sox: forever cursed with personal tragedy (Lyman Bostock, Donnie Moore) and professional heartbreak ('82 and '86 ALCS.)
        3 6 10 21 29 31 35 41 42 44 47

        Comment


        • #5
          Angels tradition: changing the city/state name every few years to sell more jerseys.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by BenHertz View Post
            Angels tradition: changing the city/state name every few years to sell more jerseys.
            Thats another thing. Teams like the padres seem to change their uniform and logo every 5 years or so.
            http://soundbounder.blogspot.com/

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
              Yes, the Angels, Padres (and NY Mets) are approaching 50 years of existence in 2011 and 2012 repsectively. I think it's tough to attribute "tradition" to these teams because they do not have a long history of success. They've had there ruhn of success but never really an era when they dominated over a several seasons.
              The Padres have been around almost 40 years - since 1969.

              1961 - LA Angels, Washington (now Texas)
              1962 - NYM, Houston
              1969 - KC, SD, Montreal (now Washington), Seattle (now Milwaukee)
              Last edited by Brian McKenna; 04-24-2008, 07:14 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
                Yes, the Angels, Padres (and NY Mets) are approaching 50 years of existence in 2011 and 2012 repsectively. I think it's tough to attribute "tradition" to these teams because they do not have a long history of success. They've had there ruhn of success but never really an era when they dominated over a several seasons.
                Using your "era when they dominated" criteria, almost NO ML teams would then have "tradition".
                Phillies ?
                Cubs ?
                Red Sox ?
                Indians ?
                White Sox ?
                etc... ?

                So, in my opinion, that's a false argument for what constitutes "tradition".
                Not every team had the successes of the Cards, Yanks, NY Giants, LA Dodgers.

                Comment


                • #9
                  And this is the 16th season for the Rockies and Marlins and the 11th season for the Diamondbacks and Rays. I went to the inugural games of both the Rockies and the D-Backs, and they don't seem like nearly that long ago. I'm feeling old now...

                  Awhile back, I posted something about how one team and only one team from each of the expansion seasons has won World Series titles. I had hoped that the Rockies would break that, but the Red Sox didn't cooperate.

                  1961 - Angels (1 WS title), Senators/Rangers (0)
                  1962 - Mets (2 WS titles), Astros (0)
                  1969 - Royals (1 WS title), Pilots/Brewers (0), Padres (0), Expos/Nationals (0)
                  1977 - Blue Jays (2 WS titles), Mariners (0)
                  1993 - Marlins (2 WS titles), Rockies (0)
                  1998 - Diamondbacks (1 WS title), Rays (0)
                  Rockies fan living in Texas

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by whoisonit View Post
                    Using your "era when they dominated" criteria, almost NO ML teams would then have "tradition".
                    Phillies ?
                    Cubs ?
                    Red Sox ?
                    Indians ?
                    White Sox ?
                    etc... ?

                    So, in my opinion, that's a false argument for what constitutes "tradition".
                    Not every team had the successes of the Cards, Yanks, NY Giants, LA Dodgers.
                    It's not a false argument.

                    Philles 1976-83 (1 WS title, 2 NL Pennants, 6 playoff appearances)
                    Cubs 1906-1913 (2 WS Titles, 4 NL pennants, 116 win season, more wins over a decade than any other team in history)
                    Red Sox 1903-1918 (5 World Series titles)
                    Indians late 1940s-1950 (The Yankees owned the '50s but the Indians had very good teams at this time)
                    White Sox- I'll give you this one.

                    Also, these teams have all had legendary players as part of their "tradition". Do the Angels, Padres, or Mets have any players that played a majority of their career with them and had a no-doubts HoF career?

                    Padres-Tony Gywnn
                    Angel-???
                    Mets-???
                    Astros-Jeff Bagwell, Craig Biggio

                    Only Bagwell would be considered one of the greatest at his position meaning amongst the top 5 all time (Perhaps Gwynn as well). Another thing is that though these teams are approaching 50 years they are still considered "new" teams compared to the original franchises. There are no grainy black and white photos and film of dead ball Astros, Angels, Mets, or padres players.
                    Last edited by Honus Wagner Rules; 04-24-2008, 08:09 AM.
                    Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
                      It's not a false argument.
                      I believe it is, I'll re-quote you;

                      I think it's tough to attribute "tradition" to these teams because they do not have a long history of success. They've had there ruhn of success but never really an era when they dominated over a several seasons.
                      Philles 1976-83 (1 WS title, 2 NL Pennants, 6 playoff appearances)[
                      Also notable for being one of the loosingest teams in the history of sport. Which "tradition" is more dominant ?
                      METS: '69-73 - 1 WS title 2 NL Pennants, over 5 year period. 2WS, 4 Pennants, 6 playoffs, 30 year span, '69-00. {how many franchises would kill for that ?}
                      Cubs 1906-1911 (2 WS Titles, 116 win season, more wins over a decade than any other team in history)
                      Almost 100 years of 'lovable losers'. Which is their "tradition" ?
                      Red Sox 1903-1918 (5 World Series titles)
                      ibid. {pre 2004 !}
                      Indians late 1940s-1950 (The Yankees owned the '50s but the Indians had very good teams at this time)
                      You said "dominant", not very good. Don't change the rules now !
                      White Sox- I'll give you this one.
                      LOL. I'll take Detroit & Pittsburg too please, (figurtively, NOT literaly )
                      Also, these teams have all had legendary players as part of their "tradition". Do the Angels, Padres, or Mets have any players that played a majority of their career with them and had a no-doubts HoF career?
                      Hey - you're changing the rules again !
                      Padres-Tony Gywnn
                      Angel-???
                      Mets-???
                      Astros-Jeff Bagwell, Craig Biggio
                      What happened to Tom Seaver ?
                      The Angels I'll give you.
                      Only Bagwell would be considered one of the greatest at his position meaning amonst the top 5 all time (Perhaps Gwynn as well).
                      See Seaver again.
                      Another thing is that though these teams are approaching 50 years they are still considered "new" teams compared to the original franchises. There are no grainy black and white photos and film of dead ball Astros, Angels, Mets, or padres players.
                      So you're adding to the criteria this ?
                      Basicaly you're saying "tradition" means "old". ( alot of dead ball era players were as useless as some of todays knuckleheads. As Warner Wolf used to say "let's go to the video tape !")

                      Where does that leave the Baltimore Orioles ? There's no grainy black and white clips of them, but they more than qualify for all your other criteria. They too are "new".
                      There are no grainy black and white photos and film of ... Mets players
                      No, but there is plenty of color film of totaly 'dead ball' Mets players !

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by whoisonit View Post
                        I believe it is, I'll re-quote you;
                        You are simply wrong. My initial posts were made with the Angels and Padres and Astros in mind. However, I did show that the other "old" teams had a dominant era.

                        Also notable for being one of the loosingest teams in the history of sport. Which "tradition" is more dominant ?
                        So? They (Phillies) still had that great run remembered fondly by their fans. When did the Angels and Padres ever had such a run?

                        METS: '69-73 - 1 WS title 2 NL Pennants, over 5 year period. 2WS, 4 Pennants, 6 playoffs, 30 year span, '69-00. {how many franchises would kill for that ?}
                        Again so? You are linking to Mets' eras 30 years apart. Also the 1969-73 Mets had these records:

                        1969 100-62
                        1970 83-79
                        1972 83-79
                        1973 82-79

                        You consider that a dominant era? I sure don't.

                        Almost 100 years of 'lovable losers'. Which is their "tradition" ?
                        ibid. {pre 2004 !}
                        So? I gave you an example of the Cubs having a dominant era. You can't just dismiss it because it refutes your position. From 1906-13 the Cubs had one of the most dominant runs in history.

                        1906 116-36 (.763)
                        1907 107-45 (.704)
                        1908 99-65 (.643)
                        1909 104-49 (.680)
                        1910 104-50 (.675)
                        1911 92-62 (.597)
                        1912 91-59 (.607)
                        1913 88-65 (.575)

                        Over this eight year run the Cubs were 801-431 (.650). The average record comes out 100-54!


                        LOL. I'll take Detroit & Pittsburg too please, (figurtively, NOT literaly )
                        Well, perhaps you can do the research for us.


                        What happened to Tom Seaver ?
                        I simple forgot about him. He certainly qualifies as an all-timer.


                        So you're adding to the criteria this ?
                        Basicaly you're saying "tradition" means "old". ( alot of dead ball era players were as useless as some of todays knuckleheads. As Warner Wolf used to say "let's go to the video tape !")
                        Ok, and? That's part of what I consider "tradition".

                        Where does that leave the Baltimore Orioles ? There's no grainy black and white clips of them, but they more than qualify for all your other criteria. They too are "new".
                        What about them? They are too new? I thought the franchise is over 100 years old? According to what I've read the current Orioles go all the way back to 1901.
                        Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Los Bravos View Post
                          The Astros have a number of HOFers in their past and took part in several truly transcendently great postseason series (the '80 and '86 NLCS, among others.)
                          I don't think there are any "primary" Astros in the HOF. I imagine Biggio will be the first.
                          sigpic

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by OleMissCub View Post
                            I don't think there are any "primary" Astros in the HOF. I imagine Biggio will be the first.
                            I think Jeff Bagwell will probably get in before Biggio. Bagwell becomes eligible in 2011, Biggio in 2013.
                            Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
                              You are simply wrong.
                              No I'm not.
                              Having dispensed with that, I've been rereading the posts and I would like to retract my use of the term "false argument" and replace it with "flawed argument". 'False is kind of harsh and doesn't properly reflect my end of the conversation. False implies dissmisal, which I'm not doing, just questioning it because I believe it's flawed.
                              My initial posts were made with the Angels and Padres and Astros in mind. However, I did show that the other "old" teams had a dominant era.
                              No. Actually you did not mention the Astro's in your initial criteria, (which I feel is flawed). You did mention the Mets.

                              So? They (Phillies) still had that great run remembered fondly by their fans. When did the Angels and Padres ever had such a run?
                              re: "So?". That's one heck of a "so" you're brushing aside there, don't you think ?
                              No, the Angels & Pads never had a run like that. Do they therefore have no tradition ?





                              So? I gave you an example of the Cubs having a dominant era. You can't just dismiss it because it refutes your position. From 1906-13 the Cubs had one of the most dominant runs in history.

                              1906 116-36 (.763)
                              1907 107-45 (.704)
                              1908 99-65 (.643)
                              1909 104-49 (.680)
                              1910 104-50 (.675)
                              1911 92-62 (.597)
                              1912 91-59 (.607)
                              1913 88-65 (.575)
                              I'm not dismissing it. I'm saying to you that when one says "Cubies", one does not think of 1906-1913. One thinks ' "tradition" of loosing fo 100 years '. Maybe not in 1925, but definitly in 2008 ! Besides, in 1925, all the teams were "new", so according to you, there was no "tradition".
                              I simple forgot about him. He certainly qualifies as an all-timer.
                              Happens to the best of us.
                              Ok, and? That's part of what I consider "tradition".
                              "...and?" thats fine, but it wasn't stated in your original criteria, thats all. It's you're criteria, you can make it whatever you want.

                              What about them? They are too new? I thought the franchise is over 100 years old? According to what I've read the current Orioles go all the way back to 1901.
                              Come on now, gimme a break ! No way.

                              _
                              Now, what about the KC Royals ? Are they not "new" ? Did they not have a sustained run of dominance in the '70's & '80's ? Is George Brett not an all timer ? I defy you to say the Kansas City Royals do not have a tradition of winning and excellence. But according to your "grainy black & white" criteria, they don't have "tradition".

                              What I'm saying is that a team does not have to have "winning tradition" in order to have "tradition", nor do they have to be one of the original franchises.
                              Last edited by whoisonit; 04-24-2008, 10:59 AM.

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X