Batter's Box Interactive Magazine - Who's the ... er, YOUR Favorite?

Who's the ... er, YOUR Favorite?

The divisional races aren't all wrapped up yet, but we have a pretty good idea of who's headed to the post-season.

A.L.

Looks like: Red Sox, Indians, Angels, Yankees
Barely hanging on: Tigers and Mariners still mathematically alive, but magic number is one apiece, so "Looks like" is pretty much "Mark it down and count it."

N.L.

Looks like: Mets, Cubs, Diamondbacks
Battling it out for the Wild Card: Phillies, Padres, Rockies
Barely hanging on: Brewers, Braves, Dodgers

So here's your question(s) ...

Who you rooting for? (To make it in? To do well? To win it all?) And why?
Who you rooting against? (Same as above ...)

Me, I'm a Yankees fan, which I believe makes me a minority of one in these here parts. But I admit, after the Red Sox and White Sox monkey-killers, it'd be nice to see a flag fly over Wrigley Field. wouldn't it?

Posted by Mick Doherty on Tuesday, September 25 2007 @ 11:58 AM EDT.

Who's the ... er, YOUR Favorite? | 24 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

mathesond - Tuesday, September 25 2007 @ 12:23 PM EDT (#174697) #

I'd like to see the Cubs win it all. The 4 years I spent in Chicago - the last 2 very close to Wrigleyville - were some of the best times of my life.

From the AL, Cleveland would be nice - their fans have waited through many lean years (and some nice ones) since 1948

AWeb - Tuesday, September 25 2007 @ 12:39 PM EDT (#174698) #

I'm rooting for the Rockies, although there's little chance they make it to the post-season. I caught a game in Denver once, saw Randy Johnson get rocked by two short HRs that wouldn't have carried any other wall in the majors (possibly the only hits he gave up), sat up by the "mile-high" line before moving down to better seats, and saw a HR robbing catch. Good times.
Assuming the Rockies don't make it (or they lose early), I'm rooting for, in order (including teams that look to make it) the Padres, Brewers/Cubs, Cleveland, Arizona, Phillies, Mets, Angels, Sox, Yankees.

The AL teams are a depressing bunch of top teams that spend a lot of money, except for Cleveland. I don't know if anyone is a favourite in the AL right now, although I'd guess the Yankees will be the trendy pick.

The NL has a more intriguing mix, with the rich teams (Mets, Phillies, Cubs), the young and improving (Brewers, Arizona), and the Padres, with a mix of both. I'd like to see the Padres win, but I don't think I'd mind rooting for anyone but the Mets in the World series.

Worst case WS : Mets/Yankees, or Mets/Red Sox (the inevitable replays and stories for that one make me shudder).

ayjackson - Tuesday, September 25 2007 @ 12:54 PM EDT (#174701) #

I won't be openly cheering for the Mets, but I do love Pete Martinez and Charlie Delgado.

I'd love to see the Rockies in there - that's a nice looking club. The Jays-Rockies series at RC was one of the more entertaining ones of the year. I don't like the Yanks, Sox or Indians, so it's the Angels for me in the AL.

Jevant - Tuesday, September 25 2007 @ 01:08 PM EDT (#174702) #

Angels-Rockies WS would be awesome. Rockies are one of the more exciting teams in baseball right now, and should be only better next year - without their pitching injuries, it's not too hard to think they'd be leading either the WC or divisional standings right now. And their young pitching is only getting better.

Angels are fun to watch because of the speed/pitching factor.

At the same time, I wouldn't mind seeing Delgado get a ring either, so if the Mets win it all, I'll be content.

John Northey - Tuesday, September 25 2007 @ 01:09 PM EDT (#174703) #

Ugh. What horrid choices in the AL.

Red Sox/Yankees = the same thing, both based on tons of cash and arrogance

Cleveland = team with the most disgusting logo in sports - I just cannot understand how anyone can see it as anything but racist. Until it is changes I'd like that team to be like it was in the mid-80's, last place and sinking

Angels = well, I can sort of cheer them on. They just don't interest me much, maybe hope for Vlad to get a ring.

NL - Lots more fun here.

Rockies I'd love to see go all the way. Great fan base, fun team over the years, not expected to be in the playoffs

Diamondbacks: see the Rockies, pretty much the same story

Mets/Cubs: Tons of cash but rarely spent wisely makes both fun to cheer on, but I'd like at least one MLB curse to keep going, while the Mets are in NY, but them winning it all would annoy the Yankees so I can enjoy that.

Phillies: Gillick's new team, I'd prefer them not going all the way though until the Jays get there again :)
Padres: Seem to fall apart whenever they get to the final dance so given the AL choices I'd rather see someone else

Brewers: I find myself cheering for them even though I can't stand Bud. Since he isn't officially involved anymore I can let myself enjoy them

Atlanta: Needs a few more years in the non-playoff wilderness imo - at least they got rid of their mascot years ago

Dodgers: Eh, I can live with them but not a favorite. If they get to the series I'll cheer them on, but all the non-Atlanta NL teams are ahead of them imo.

So my ideal World Series is Colorado vs Anaheim..er..LA with Colorado winning in game 5 at home.

vw_fan17 - Tuesday, September 25 2007 @ 01:18 PM EDT (#174705) #

Well, I guess an all-California WS would be pretty boring for the rest of the country.. And probably for us Nor-Cal folks too :-)

VW

Mick Doherty - Tuesday, September 25 2007 @ 01:23 PM EDT (#174706) #

Cleveland = team with the most disgusting logo in sports - I just cannot understand how anyone can see it as anything but racist.

I agree for the most part that the logo is racist. But are you suggesting that they change the team name? As I understand it, the team picked up the nickname in large part because they had one of the sport's few Native American ballplayers on its roster, Louis Sockalexis, so it was actually in honr of, not to deride, "Indians." (I may be misspelling that name or have the story wrong. Someone please feel free to correct me with a source link, if possible.)

Jdog - Tuesday, September 25 2007 @ 01:52 PM EDT (#174708) #

I will be rooting for the Indians as I have recently relocated to the Cleveland area....lived here all of 1 month. In the national league I am hoping the Phillies get in and do some damage there...I love Delgado but can't see myself ever cheering on a NY team.

John Northey - Tuesday, September 25 2007 @ 02:37 PM EDT (#174711) #

Probably best not to get into the old 'should they change their name' dispute, but as a quick followup ... the story that they named the team after an old player is more rumour than fact and fairly secondary in modern times. Indian should be viewed as the term to use for someone from India (which is where Columbus thought he was) not to be used as a name for a baseball team, be it to honour someone or just to be a nickname (ala Padres who I don't think have had a padre on the team yet).

AWeb - Tuesday, September 25 2007 @ 02:55 PM EDT (#174713) #

I won't speak for others, but I want the Indians to change their team name (it's why I type Cleveland, when I remember, instead of the nickname). The reason it was chosen almost 100 years ago is pretty irrelevant to whether or not it's offensive now. I realize that some polls show something close to an even split about sports team name offensiveness (the SI poll from 2002 that put it closer to 20% was likely dubious, but even 20% offense rate sounds too high), but isn't that way way too high? This isn't taking offense like "Raptors is an offensively stupid name for a team to take", this is closer to personally insulting thousands of people.

Is anyone personally offended by Blue Jays, White Sox, Rockies, etc? Heck, Tampa is getting rid of the "devil" part of their name next year, in part due to the offense some take. It's an easy change, why not make it. For new mechandise alone, I'm surprised they haven't done it yet.

The Washington Bullets changed their name 10 years ago (or so) because bullets had become an inappropriate name for the city (Washington having high rates of shooting deaths). Indians is much worse, IMHO, and should be changed. Past Cleveland teams (from the bbref page) have been called Spiders (the notorious worst team of all time), Infants (huh?), Blues, Forest Citys, Naps (after Nap Lajoie), and Broncos. There are some decent names here. Bring back the Spiders!

Back on topic, I'm surprised to see the support for the Rockies is so widespread. Although having Larry Walker and now Jeff Francis probably makes their profile higher in Canada than almost anywhere outside their area.

King Rat - Tuesday, September 25 2007 @ 04:13 PM EDT (#174714) #

I fall pretty squarely in the middle of the Indians debate: I think the logo is insanely offensive, but I don't think the name is. I realize that people differ on the latter-I don't mean to be rude, but I think anyone arguing against Chief Wahoo being offensive is being intentionally dense. I think Gregg Easterbrook, for once, had a good line of division when he wrote that names like the Braves and Chiefs, referring to honorifics, weren't offensive, while patent slurs like Redskins were. Indians, to my mind, falls in the middle. It's a neutral descriptor, that once was inaccurate due to a misapprehension on Columbus' part. Arguments against in that I can see the point of tend to include the Chiefs and Braves as names that must also go, on the grounds that the Native Americans are the people who we as North Americans mistreated so badly as to place them on a different plane from all of the other people, now gone from history, who get athletic teams named after them. I myself don't buy it, but I can see the argument.

For myself, my rooting chain for the playoffs goes like this: Brewers-Padres-Mets-Indians-Braves-Dbacks-Dodgers-Angels-Rockies-Cubs-Phillies-(Cavernous Gap)-Yankees-(Cavernous Gap, Larger Than Can Be Conceived Of By Mortal Man)-Red Sox.

So, of course, I am predicting an ALCS Of Boston and New York, which Boston will win in irritating fashion prior to sweeping the world series. It ought to be fun.

jeff mcl - Tuesday, September 25 2007 @ 04:23 PM EDT (#174715) #

Go Phillies! They've been my NL team since the early '90s and have enough all-world offensive stars to pummel the crap out of any challenger in the Senior Circuit.

Want to see the Bosox and Yankees eliminated in the ALDS's, for obvious reasons. If they end up playing each other then I suppose I would very reluctantly go for the Yankees to deliver a quick death delow and then get bounced by the Tribe in the ALCS. I'm more anti-Bosox because they were a serious rival to the Jays back when I started watching baseball in the late '80s, that glorious era when the Yankees were a perennial non-factor.

PHI-CLE is my ideal series. Lot's of scoring and a big raspberry to NY and Cali teamst.

jeff mcl - Tuesday, September 25 2007 @ 04:29 PM EDT (#174717) #

Here's an earlier "Chief Wahoo" logo:

http://www.sportslogos.net/logo.php?lo=720

What's up with the nose? I really don't know what to say about this.

GrrBear - Tuesday, September 25 2007 @ 04:58 PM EDT (#174719) #

Red Sox - Uh, haven't they already had their one World Series victory this century?

Yankees - I would enjoy seeing A-Rod weeping uncontrollably, and if they could lose their final post-season game on a ground ball up the middle that is... just out of Jeter's reach, that would be awesome.

Angels - They won in 2002, so give somebody else a chance!

Indians - You have to love a team that wins a division with Joe Borowski as their closer. Is he the next Jeff Reardon or what? Go Tribe!

Mets - Rooting for Delgado while also glad the Mets were the team that gave him that contract.

Diamondbacks - O-Dog is my boy, but I look at that lineup and wonder how the heck this team wins any games. Still, I have to love Arizona for beating the Yankees in '01.

Padres/Rockies/Phillies - Of these three teams, I'd like the Rockies to make it, because of Jeff Francis, the humidor, and the deserving fans. Philly fans love you until you have a bad game, then they throw rocks at you. Padre fans... well, I can't rag on Padre fans, they're good people.

Cubs - Please, if there is a merciful God, let the Cubs win the World Series. If not for me, then for my grandma, who has been fighting to stay alive long enough to see the Cubs win, and I don't know how much longer she can last. My first baseball memory is of my grandma and I watching the Cubs on TV in 1984, and she would tell me the names of the players, what position they played, how good they were ('Oh, that Ryne Sandberg, you watch him close, Robbie, he's a keeper'). I love baseball because of my grandma, and it's about time seventy years of patience and passion gets rewarded.

So I have my fingers crossed for an Indians/Cubs World Series, and that it's won by Chicago in Wrigley Field. (It always sucks when the winner claims victory on the road)

scottt - Tuesday, September 25 2007 @ 07:30 PM EDT (#174720) #

I'd hate to see the Yankees overcoming their lack of starting pitching.

Boston has cooled off a lot lately.

All the AL contenders have killer home records, so I'm predicting whoever gets home field advantage to get to the WS.

I, for one, would like to see an NL team with some offense. Cubs, Phillies, Mets.

CeeBee - Tuesday, September 25 2007 @ 07:34 PM EDT (#174721) #

I'm rooting for the Indians and the Cubs. Underdogs are my thing not to mention I like seeing long not winning a world series streaks broken.

Who I'm rooting against... that's easy. The Yankees in both leagues ;)

Nick Holmes - Tuesday, September 25 2007 @ 07:42 PM EDT (#174722) #

I think John Northey has summed up my take on it, but I have the nagging fear it'll be the Yanks over the Cubs in four (after the Cubbies are shaken up in a bizarre hotel flood/airline mixup/earthquake etc.)

Mike Green - Tuesday, September 25 2007 @ 09:03 PM EDT (#174724) #

George Carlin might well be rooting for the Indians, and so am I. And if the Cleveland Indians ever face off against the Dallas Cowboys in one of those multi-sports extravaganzas like Superstars that the networks used to run (Billie Jean King vs. Bruce Jenner in shuffleboard- whee), I will be cheering on the good guys.

I wish that O-Dog was healthy so I could root for a real underdog, the D'Backs.

ANationalAcrobat - Tuesday, September 25 2007 @ 09:48 PM EDT (#174725) #

It seems like AJ is in way too long virtually every freakin time. Today, the Jays are up by 7 and yet AJ is left in to throw 119. I would have liked to see him out after 5 innings given the size of our pen (callups), our place in the standings, the score, and evidently Burnett's injury history.

scottt - Tuesday, September 25 2007 @ 11:30 PM EDT (#174728) #

I would have liked to see him out after 5 innings given the size of our pen (callups), our place in the standings, the score, and evidently Burnett's injury history.

He's usually pretty good in September and it would take a major injury to affect him next spring.

Would it be that much worse to lose him for the next season now or in April 2008?

TamRa - Wednesday, September 26 2007 @ 02:34 AM EDT (#174730) #

My needs are simple:

As long as bad things happen to the Yanks and Red Sox, I'm at peace with whatever else happens.

rpriske - Wednesday, September 26 2007 @ 08:54 AM EDT (#174733) #

For the AL it is easy: the Angels.

For the NL, I would have liked the Dodgers so I guess I will say either the Rockies or the Padres.

John Northey - Wednesday, September 26 2007 @ 12:34 PM EDT (#174740) #

Jeff mcl - thanks for the link. Cleveland somehow has managed to become more offensive over the years rather than less. From 1915 to 1927 their logo was a C, then a symbol similar to what you'd see for the Blackhawks from 1928 to 1932, a bit more cartoon styled from 1933-1945, gross from 1946-1950, and the modern one since then. Weird.

As to standings, unless the Yankees lose every game and Detroit wins all their games the Yankees are in (hey, don't laugh, the Jays did it vs the Tigers in '87). Colorado & Philly just one back of SD, Atlanta & Milwaukee practically out of the wild card race now. All 3 NL divisions have magic numbers of 4 (weird) with Philly, Milwaukee, and San Diego 2 games back of the Mets, Cubs, and Diamondbacks.

Wow. NL race city, AL boring.

FYI: if the NHL/NBA method was used (16 in the playoffs) then the Jays would now be 7th, 3 games up on Minnesota (8th place) and 5 1/2 ahead of Oakland. In the NL it would be a heck of race between Milwaukee & LA (1 game between them) for the last slot, everyone behind them is way, way, way back (7+ games behind LA).

Under the pre-division days (1 winner per league) we'd have a heck of a race in the AL with Boston & Cleveland tied, LA one game back, and NY 3 back. The NL also would be tight with Arizona in first, the Mets 1 back, SD 2 back, Philly & Colorado 3 back. This situation would also be a factor for a 16 team playoff as best record gets home field advantage until the World Series (bigger factor the more rounds there are).

The idea of adding a wild card in each league, then having the two wild cards fight it out in a one game winner stays alive situation would mean Detroit is 2 up on Seattle and the Red Sox/Yankees would be fighting a lot harder for that top slot in the East. In the NL it would be pretty much the same dogs breakfast it is today (namely 6 teams with any of them being able to be knocked out).

Dave Till - Wednesday, September 26 2007 @ 05:45 PM EDT (#174762) #

I am rooting against the Yankees, the Yankees, the Yankees, and the Yankees.

And I'm not wild about the Red Sox, either. Hmph.

Who's the ... er, YOUR Favorite? | 24 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.