yeah it's a shame, the ball park itself is wonderful....and with kids, it's really family friendly. I've taken my son and wife (left the real little one's home) a few times.........and sadly saw like a grand total of 3 runs scored by the Mets in 3 games.
I've always been a hopeful fan so (i) I think he's going to be great and (ii) I'm often disappointed. _
when has that happened in the NBA? that has nothing to do w/ this argument though. when did an NBA team lose a game then advance? NFL? MLB? CBB? NHL? soccer also has had a WC decided by a shootout which is like a tie game in the SB being decided by a FG kicking contest or MLB being decided by a HR Derby.
when I was a kid and the Yankees stunk I loved going to Yankee Stadium. as an adult I wouldn't want to go to an empty ballpark and see them lose more often than not but as a kid it was great.
You have perverted this argument the entire time so you really don't have a leg to stand on by proclaiming something anyone else says has nothing to do with the argument. I also gave you the year both teams in the Western Conference Final had losing records, I think you could figure out the year a team with a losing record was in the NBA Finals.
what does that have to do w/ this? did those western conference teams lose their last games of the previous rd to advance? obviously the answer is no and you are deflecting as usual.
Probably 4-5 Met games and maybe 6-7 Yankee games. Although I'm a Met fan and Yankee hater, our lawyers have outstanding seats at Yankee and just really really good seats at Citifield so most of the crew opts for the Yankee games. Plus we go to Arthur Ave before every Yankee game so it's more of an event. Still like Citifield 100X more than the Stadium. _
Oh I see. Citifield is much nicer, relaxing, enjoyable, (less jackasses). I would love to see that stadium full house and rocking for a playoff game.
less jackasses b/c there are much fewer people there. if that building was full you'd see more jackasses, they are everywhere unfortunately.
Much nicer and relaxing. Not sure about the jackasses, I fear Junc may be right. It just feels more homey, like an oldtime ballpark, not a shrine like the Stadium. Don't get me wrong, I like the Stadium, it's just a bit over-the-top for my tastes. _
The first look I'll get of the new Yankee stadium will be to watch a soccer game when the NYCFC debut's for MLS ; )
I still have to disagree, ive been to Shea when it was full, if your wearing an opposing teams gear no one says a word. You go to Yankee Stadium wearing anything but a Yankees shirt your gunna get trolled hard. I seen a guy wearing a Lakers jersey get shitted on there.
If you can go early and it's open, try to get into Monument Park and the indoor display just before the park. Even if you're not a Yankee fan, it is very very cool. _
You are the one that keeps diverting from the OP because you were not able to make an argument to back your point, your current argument has nothing at all to do with the OP so for you to accuse others of deflecting is laughable. But I will play your game, Boston Celtics lost the last game of one round in the playoffs but advanced to the next round. What does any of this have to do with "Which is the best sport to watch IN PERSON?" I'll answer for you, absolutely nothing.
I will say that while I'm not a soccer fan (although I am thoroughly enjoying the WC), I think going to one of these WC soccer matches would be incredibly exciting to experience live. One of my regrets when we went to Madrid last year we couldn't get to a Real Madrid match as they weren't playing when we were there. That would have been cool. _
I am deeply offended that Pok-A-Tok was not included in the list. I mean, there is nothing more exciting getting to chop off the head of the opposing captain for sucking. If you haven't seen a match, you really should.
I couldn't disagree more. I love baseball and find it one of the most interesting sports to watch. What I hear in your argument is what I refer to as the "video game mentality" that's so prevalent in the current generation of young sports fans. A quick Pace isn't what makes something interesting for me to watch. I'll take big plays and the gradual buildup of tension and drama, over a fast pace of play. If you think home plate collisions are what makes baseball interesting, you're missing the point. While I agree that bad baseball can be boring to watch, the pace of the game is exactly what makes good baseball interesting to watch. Also, there are also so many elements in baseball that just don't exist in the other run of the mill "linear" sports ... All basically the same at their root --- Our goal is here ... Your goal is there ... We'll go back and forth shooting at eachother's goal while the clock ticks down and whoever has the most goals at 0:00 is the winner. A dime a dozen. If someone invented a sport tomorrow I bet it would follow that same recipe. Of all those linear sports, I have a laundry list of reasons why basketball is the most tedious and boring. I won't go into them right now, but basketball could be played at the fastest pace imaginable, and it would still be the most poorly designed sport in history. By comparison, baseball is a beautifully designed game and once again, I couldn't disagree more with your claim that it keeps changing. A baseball game played in 1914 would look very similar to a game played yesterday. The rules have remained basically the same for over 100 years.
Ok, let me explain it another way: there is more concentrated nothing in a baseball game than in any other sport. More than half the time the ball is hidden in the pitcher's glove as he stares at his catcher. The fielders stand still most of the time waiting for the ball to do something. The number of strategies in a baseball game is pitifully low. Every now and then the defense shifts a bit or a hitter is intentionally walked or a play is put on by the offense on the bases, but most of the time the strategy is vanilla and obvious. I was a huge baseball fan from my first Mets game in 1969 up until the strike in 1994. I actually spent more time playing baseball in my mind in a long-term strat league than most fantasy players do today staring at their league's waiver wire. I knew all the numbers and I had spreadsheets setup from the mid-80's that could tell me exactly what the expected runs-created in any given strat matchup was. Then, as baseball has done numerous times over the decades, everything changed with the strikes of the 80's leading into the catastrophic 1994 season. Baseball pumped up all the hitting stats and we got the home run explosion and none of the numbers meant anything any more. 60 homeruns? 61? Pah! I'll bid 65 and 66 and raise ya ta 73. With the numbers essentially becoming meaningless I stepped back and took a look at the game as a whole and I realized it was a really boring game to watch. It's like watching golf except that none of the standards really exist. People don't win with a 49 or a 99 at the Masters. They win with a fairly predictable number that gives the long procession of seasons meaning. Golf, btw, puts me to sleep in 2 minutes flat when I try to watch it. At least golf has standards though. They're not going to pump up the mound or the baseball or widen the strike zone or change it to change the numbers and make themself more interesting.
