Re: the Difference between Reds and Cardinals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MikeThierry
That's an interesting question. He will still get some boo's but on a whole I think Cardinals fans have gotten over it. Most would probably want him on our team if we had the chance to get him.
I would almost guarantee that even those Cards fans that still boo him every chance they get would LOVE to be able to call him "one of theirs". Not only that, but were he to ever end up a Card (heaven forbid), he would probably become a fairly instant "fan favorite".
Re: the Difference between Reds and Cardinals
Re: the Difference between Reds and Cardinals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mikdavrut
I would almost guarantee that even those Cards fans that still boo him every chance they get would LOVE to be able to call him "one of theirs". Not only that, but were he to ever end up a Card (heaven forbid), he would probably become a fairly instant "fan favorite".
This is absolutely true. And I haven't boo'd Phillips since 2011, but now having been to Cards/Reds games at both ballparks, I'd have to say the booing is more or less the same for Phillips and Yadi.
Honestly I always liked Cueto less than Phillips, anyway. But again, wouldn't mind having him pitch for the Cards.
Re: the Difference between Reds and Cardinals
I'm going way back (to show y'all how old I am). As a Sixers fan in basketball, I lived and died when Dr J's teams played the Celtics. Larry Bird was El Diablo himself as far as I was concerned...but if he was ever in a Sixers uniform, I would have welcomed him with open arms!
I feel the same way about DatDude.
Re: the Difference between Reds and Cardinals
Just curious, but when the Reds aren't playing the Cardinals, do they play any other teams besides the Cubs and the Marlins?
Re: the Difference between Reds and Cardinals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CARDINALred
Just curious, but when the Reds aren't playing the Cardinals, do they play any other teams besides the Cubs and the Marlins?
Funny. With the Cards schedule over the next ten days you ask that? With the Cards playing the Royals while Reds get Indians you ask that? LOL...it does show team bias in fans of all teans just like the ridiculous "Cards are lucky" posts from Reds fans. The other team always gets the breaks has a softer schedule etc. Ii know you were joking...here's to an exciting race
Re: the Difference between Reds and Cardinals
Royals are pretty solid this year.
Re: the Difference between Reds and Cardinals
The Royals are not 'pretty solid' this year. They haven't been a 500 team since may 11th. A week ago they were 9 games under 500. Its taken 6 games vs the Twins and Astros to get to being 'only' 3 games under 500. That is not being 'pretty solid."
As far as the Reds playing bad teams, a Reds fan has already posted (in this thread I believe) that the reds are something like 7 games below 500 against above 500 teams so they know they haven't played to well vs the better teams but when its all said and done the cards will play the Marlins and Cubs just as often as they will. So there should be no strength of schedule bias. It will all even out because Cleveland and KC have the same record.
Re: the Difference between Reds and Cardinals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RedlegJake
Funny. With the Cards schedule over the next ten days you ask that? With the Cards playing the Royals while Reds get Indians you ask that? LOL...it does show team bias in fans of all teans just like the ridiculous "Cards are lucky" posts from Reds fans. The other team always gets the breaks has a softer schedule etc. Ii know you were joking...here's to an exciting race
Overall it mostly evens out over the course of a 162-game season, it just seemed to me so far the Reds have played easier teams more often than the Cardinals had.
Re: the Difference between Reds and Cardinals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Strike3Called
The Royals are not 'pretty solid' this year. They haven't been a 500 team since may 11th. A week ago they were 9 games under 500. Its taken 6 games vs the Twins and Astros to get to being 'only' 3 games under 500. That is not being 'pretty solid."
As far as the Reds playing bad teams, a Reds fan has already posted (in this thread I believe) that the reds are something like 7 games below 500 against above 500 teams so they know they haven't played to well vs the better teams but when its all said and done the cards will play the Marlins and Cubs just as often as they will. So there should be no strength of schedule bias. It will all even out because Cleveland and KC have the same record.
Personally, I don't think they're all that much worse than the Indians... my only point.
Re: the Difference between Reds and Cardinals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CardsFanBob
Personally, I don't think they're all that much worse than the Indians... my only point.
According to the standings, only .001 separates the two teams in winning percentage, and apparently the Indians are on an 8-game losing streak while the Royals are currently on a 6-game winning streak, for whatever that's worth.
Re: the Difference between Reds and Cardinals
If that's your point then I agree. KC = Cleveland. Both teams are bad.
Re: the Difference between Reds and Cardinals
This whole discussion proves my point about strength of schedule. At the time the Reds and Cards played the Indians and Royals, the Indians were 27-23 and the Royals were 21-27. Now both are a few games below .500. I imagine their records will change a few more times over the course of the season.
Re: the Difference between Reds and Cardinals
I agree with you. SoS is a very meaningless over the course of 162 games. Some Reds here have said the Cards have the easier sked year in and year out because of KC. Some Cards fans here seem to say the Reds have 'so far' played an easier sked. But it all evens out in the end and I don't see how anyone could deny that.
Re: the Difference between Reds and Cardinals
We all ought to agree that over the course of 162 games these things tend to even out, and that the Indians and Royals are both below-average baseball teams.
Right?