Rockies got smoked, yo

by Dex on Oct 25, 2007 7:55 AM PDT in News Comment 30 comments

I haven't done bullet points that aren't really bullet points in a while. It's time for a distraction. Let's load this mofo up, bitches!

I turned off the "game" after it was very very apparent that the Franchise didn't have his stuff and Beckett had all his stuff. I thought fleetingly before I drifted off to sleep that maybe the Rockies would perform some miracle, but that obviously wasnt' so. I can confidently say that the Padres could've done that. I was trying to listen to some of the fan reaction in Boston after the game, but couldn't get anything intelligible through their thick, and frankly, ridiculous accents. The Rockies reactions were no better through all the sobbing and wailing that heaven has forsaken them.

Where's your God now, bitches!?
Update [2007-10-25 13:44:51 by Dex]: OK. I misread it. Jeez.
Does anybody else think that this horrible showing in game 1 is like fossils of dinosaurs? In other words, it's just God's way of testing the faith of the Rockies?
Here. I'll pretend to be Barry Bonds and you pretend to be anybody else in the world.

You: Hi Barry. How's it go-

Me: WAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!
Hardball Times has some interesting analysis regarding the question, "Have pitchers become more fragile?" I don't know why the Hardball Times would care so much about the influx of Italian pitchers to the MLB, but they do.

I will almost, but not quite, spell this joke out for you: Hmmmm.... Frah-GEE-lay! Must be Italian!

OK, all. Stay safe. Stuff is only stuff. Your safety and the safety of your loved ones is most important.

0 recs | Comment 30 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Red carpet for Bonds in San Francisco

Here's an excerpt from the San Francisco Chronicle's article by Gwen Knapp-

The evening, an hour-long conversation with KGO radio host Ray Taliaferro, was more a tribute to Bonds than an actual interview. Taliaferro, who all but blew kisses at the man he called a close friend, practically hyperventilated as he recited a list of Bonds' career accomplishments, including the all-time home run record he claimed from Hank Aaron this summer. Then Taliaferro asked his first question: "Did you really do all of that?"

Maybe I can actually stop seething with hatred for the Giants now that Barry is no longer with the team. But I'm thinking the fans will still be really stupid.

by SD Chick N on Oct 25, 2007 8:48 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Talk

And talk this morning on Sportscenter of him coming back to the Giants.

by Jonny Dub on Oct 25, 2007 8:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

SC

kept me tuning in. I guess Bonds was at some town hall meeting or something of the sorts, and was being a real ass to the Giant's organization...he ain't coming back.

by Jonny Dub on Oct 25, 2007 8:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was just glad

something was on TV besides the fires. But, yeah, I had to switch it off after the first few innings.

by Jonny Dub on Oct 25, 2007 8:49 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I was actually embarrassed

on behalf of the entire National League. That's the kind of showing that makes all this "the ALCS is really the World Series" stuff hard to shake.

If this is indicative of the rest of the series, then the Red Sox Nation has to officially drop any last pretense of underdog, 'little engine that could' nonsense and admit they are actually worse, so much worse, than everything that they said about the Yankees in the 90's ('buying championships,' arrogant fans etc.).

by goose1 on Oct 25, 2007 9:35 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

and the f#*%ing pink hats

but seriously, they are just as bad as the Yankees in what they are doing to baseball. Only one name needs to be used to cement their status as ruinous team: J.D. Drew. He is Jason Giambi, without the tapeworm. Seriously, he is worth 14 million. I am glad we didn't have to pay the 1987 version of Carmelo Martinez that much.

by dcfriar on Oct 25, 2007 9:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rocky Start

What does that mean? "Rockies Start to Series at Fenway". It's like God not only abandoned the Rockies on the field, but He's also struck dumb their beat reporters.

- Hmm, Read the text of that image again please, it makes complete sense as "Rocky Start...". Who's the dumb reporter now?

by TheDude on Oct 25, 2007 10:23 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I see what you're insinuating

And I still say it's the Rockies. Booyah.

by Dex on Oct 25, 2007 10:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

FREE TACO

too bad i'm a vegetarian.

Let's go drink some beer.

by Sam (sdsuaztec4) on Oct 25, 2007 6:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Come on now...

Come on now guys, is this, "Where's your God now, bitches!?" necessary?

As a Christian, yes, I'm offended.

I like that your site has off-the-wall humor. The language doesn't offend me, but don't disprespect my faith.

-peter

by peterf on Oct 25, 2007 9:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

What's offensive about it?

If the language isn't bothering you, what is? There's a sense that the Rockies have dubbed themselves "God's team" because of their faith and miracle wins (one of which was against the Padres). Now they're losing. So it's totally appropriate to question their arrogance in assuming divinity was on their side and no one else's.

by SD Chick N on Oct 25, 2007 10:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Direct or Implied?

Has anyone on the Rockies come out and said they are God's team? And if they haven't what have they said that implies this?

I'm asking because I haven't followed this very closely. But using the language of faith and miracles in no way implies by itself that you believe you are God's team.

by Jacojre on Oct 26, 2007 7:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

in reference to this...

quote from Charlie Monfort:

"I don't want to offend anyone," he said, "but I think character-wise we're stronger than anyone in baseball. Christians, and what they've endured, are some of the strongest people in baseball. I believe God sends signs, and we're seeing those."

Other references in that article as well. I'm not trying to offend anybody. I was raised Catholic and I still hold those beliefs closely. However, I get offended when somebody implies that God is helping them do something completely and utterly ridiculous and/or selfish, like win a baseball game... or genocide Jews... or cure people infected with "the gay".

So... Sorry if I was offensive, Peter. I just hate when people imply that their religious beliefs make them better than people who don't share those beliefs. It probably makes me unnecessarily aggro.

by Dex on Oct 26, 2007 8:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Monfort Quotation

Thanks for answering my question Dex.

To play apologist for the Rockies, these claims still doesn't imply that God is exclusively on the Rockies side. What is logically implied (as opposed to conversationally implied) is the following:

(1) The Rockies are the strongest character guys in baseball.

(2) Claim (1) may be due to their being so many Christian players on the team.

(3) Some non-Christians are also the strongest character guys in baseball.

(4) Some of the Rockies players believe they are seeing signs from God.

None of these in isolation or together implies that the Rockies are God's team, or that God favors them over any other team. It does seem to imply that God does approve of the Rockies.

What about this do you see as troubling? Certainly not (3). (1) might be controversial, but teams say this all the time. If someone believe (1) because of (2), that might be controversial, but let's be honest: if any team followed the precepts of Christianity (or most other world religions) they'd be strong character guys (i.e. self-sacrificing, doing their best, etc.).

The only thing that looks worrying to me is (4). What are the nature of these signs that the Rockies are seeing and what do they mean? Do you have a quotation that might answer that? That would be really interesting -- and I think the key to our problems.

Thanks again Dex!

by Jacojre on Oct 26, 2007 9:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

man... that's some kinda breakdown

My response. I'm offended by the combination of all 4 except that for what you've defined as #3, I think his statement implies (logically and conversationally) that non-Christians are not as strong in character as Christians.

How I conclude this: There's an unspoken assumption that the Rockies have more Christians than other teams in baseball. He also says that "character-wise", the Rockies "stronger than anyone in baseball". Although he qualifies this somewhat by saying that Christians are "some" of those that have the strongest character, the logical conclusion is: The Rockies are stronger character-wise than other teams in baseball because they have more Christians. Therefore, any team that has fewer Christians on it than the Rockies is weaker, character-wise, because of the lack of Christians. Therefore, any individual Christian is stronger, character-wise, than any non-Christian.

The implication that God approves of the Rockies is fine. However, when it comes to sporting events, one team wins and one team loses. Does this mean that God disapproves of the teams that the Rockies beat? I find that troubling as well.

by Dex on Oct 26, 2007 9:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm going to have to disagree

[q] "I don't want to offend anyone," he said, "but I think character-wise we're stronger than anyone in baseball. Christians, and what they've endured, are some of the strongest people in baseball. I believe God sends signs, and we're seeing those." [/q]

I think the difference between conversational implication (see H.P. Grice) and logical implication are very different. Logical implication involves whether or not one statement necessarily follows from another (set) of statement(s), which conversational implicature involves what a ordinary person would reasonably infer or expect from what someone says.

Nothing necessarily follows from the claims that

(a) The Rockies are stronger character-wise than anyone else and baseball.

and

(b) Christians are some of the strongest people in baseball.

Nor does (a) follow logically from (b), even in the quotation. The key qualifier is "some". Because of that qualifier it is consistent to believe that some non-Christians are also some of the strongest people in baseball. In order to get the implication that the Rockies are the best character team because they're Christians, we'd also need something like

But the quotation doesn't come out and say it. It explicitly acknowledges that you can be a non-Christian and be someone who equally strong character-wise.

What we need then is some evidence that the Rockies believe something like (c). (If we get this evidence, it's probably from a lot of different quotations, some behaviors, etc.). And I'm not saying that the Rockies (or some of them) might not believe (c). But at the same time I think we owe it to people to give them the benefit of the doubt -- even Rockies, Diamondbacks, Broncos, etc...

Oh and to clear it all up -- as we all know, God's favorite team is the Padres. ;)

by Jacojre on Oct 26, 2007 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Over Complicating the Matter.

You Sound like some of my philosophy professors. If you want proof that the rockies think they are g-d's team, watch the NLCS trophy presentation when the Rockies owner clearly states his beleif that his team is g-d's team playing in g-d's stadium. No need for equations and shit anymore.

Let's go drink some beer.

by Sam (sdsuaztec4) on Oct 26, 2007 6:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

As a Christian...

...I hate it when people say, "God is on my side," (as it pertains to athletic events).

However, I think Huddle's point wasn't that God was on his side, but that Christians tend to be high-character people (I'd hope that is the case - but obviously we can think of people who call themselves Christians who were not high-character)... Now that said, while character counts in baseball (not giving up, putting team first, etc.), talent matters more. And Boston (whether they have less character, the same character, or more character) is the more talented team.

-peter

by peterf on Oct 26, 2007 1:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Huddle???

Seriously, who cares. This isn't a Christianity blog. And don't say that you're a baseball fan because you think that the Rockies manager is named Huddle

Let's go drink some beer.

by Sam (sdsuaztec4) on Oct 26, 2007 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hurdle/Huddle

It's a logical fallacy to dismiss an argument because of a mistake (in this case a typo)...

And yes, I'm a baseball fan.

-peter

by peterf on Oct 26, 2007 5:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Can't we all agree...

...to hate the Rockies not for their religion, but for who they are? A bunch of playoff stealers with bad facial hair (sorry, but Helton looks like he has a dead chipmunk on his face). Besides, I think God has a sense of humor and doesn't mind a jab or two. Right now I bet God's probably eating his free taco and laughing real hard at the photo of Josh Fogg on MLB.com. And wearing his Padres jersey, of course.

by SD Chick N on Oct 26, 2007 6:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

come on.

conversational and logical implications aside, he was asking for exactly the type of response a lot of us here at GLB gave. the minute you even hint at divine causation with regard to the outcome of a baseball team's season, whether direct or indirect, you're asking for trouble. give me a f*cking break.

by motoole on Oct 27, 2007 12:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Holliday

Picked off at first in the eighth inning = karmic balance is restored.

by Winfield's Ghost on Oct 26, 2007 7:46 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Yep. He didn't touch first either.

He sort of sucks at touching bases, come to think of it.

by goose1 on Oct 26, 2007 8:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

haha

That should have been Sledge getting picked off!

Let's go drink some beer.

by Sam (sdsuaztec4) on Oct 26, 2007 6:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Watching this series

I find myself rooting entirely situationally. I don't want either team to win--if they could both lose, that'd be great. But I have a player-based system:

When Holliday is up, I want him to strike out.
When Manny is up, I don't care what kind of out he makes, I just want him to look ridiculous doing it.
I root for Papelbon to blow saves. His face is stupid.
Okajima I like. Hold that game, kid with the jerking freak head!
Schilling I want to get lit up.
Mike Lowell is allowed to get hits. As is Todd Helton (he helped Uncle Milty get those umps. after the fact, anyway).
Dustin Pedroia, for some reason, annoys me.
Coco Crisp might end up in our CF next year (shudder) so I might as well start trying to root for him, no matter how bad at non-defense related baseball he is.

The list goes on. But it's the only way I can watch the games. It gets pretty complicated when, say, Papelbon is facing Holliday.

by goose1 on Oct 26, 2007 8:26 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm the same way.

Mostly, I root for Alex Cora to get into the game.

by TheThirdGonzalez on Oct 26, 2007 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm rooting for...

...spring training to arrive.

Geoff
Ducksnorts, Knuckle Curve

by Geoff on Oct 26, 2007 12:38 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Me too

by Winfield's Ghost on Oct 26, 2007 5:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Speaking of

I'm going for sure, we should start planning a Spring Training GLB meet up. We can meet at Sean Burroughs plaque or something. We should have a planning party, 18 y/o posse can bring the ciggs and porn since they are newly able to purchase such items.

Let's go drink some beer.

by Sam (sdsuaztec4) on Oct 26, 2007 6:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs