White Sox-Angels Rooting Interest?

[Guest Edgy DC]

While we watch...

[Guest Kong76]

I'm mildly White Sox, I guess. 1917 was a long time ago.

[Guest cooby]

Def White Sox.

[metirish]

White Sox here, 1917 and all that.

[Valadius]

Mildly Pale Hose... the Angels deserve some props for wiping the smirks off the faces of the MFYs.

[seawolf17]

One point for Timo, one for Ozzie Guillen, one point for Carl Everett and his imaginary dinosaurs, one point each for Jose Contreras and El Duque making Steinbrenner look bad, and one point for the history.

Let's Go Sox!

[metirish]

i remember reading this a few months back..

http://www.slate.com/id/2124605/

[Guest Edgy DC]

Everett is a positive point?

[metirish]

I think only for his crazy quotes , can't be for his views on life and people...

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

I'm pulling for the White Sox to win it all.

[Guest ScarletKnight41]

I could go either way.

[Frayed Knot]

Went for theBoSox last year, might as well pull for the ChiSox this year.
I'm Bi-Soxual!!

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

Frayed Knot - "I'm Bi-Soxual!!"

Apparently, so is Scarlett.

[Guest SwitchHitter]

I have two daughters. The Piazzafan daughter and the K-Rodfan daughter. And although I like Joe Jackson, I gotta go with the Wherever Angels.

[Theoldmole]

Sox. Absent a strong rooting interest, I go for the original 16 teams.

[Elster88]

I don't like Mike Scoisciasciaascisias.

[Guest sharpie]

Sox all the way.

One more reason to root for them: while we are all happy that the MFYs have lost each of the past 5 years, they have always lost to the team that eventually wins the World Series which can and does make them think that they were the second best team in baseball that year. If the Angels are beaten by the ChiSox it is another (minor) dagger in the MFYs veneer. If the ChiSox are then beaten by the NL winner it would be yet another dagger but I'm pulling for Chicago all the way.

[MFS62]

Sox. Absent a strong rooting interest, I go for the original 16 teams.[/quote:3f5oive2]

I never really thought of that, but its an interesting perspective.

This one is a quandry. I always root for the NL team in the series (unless it is one of the LA or SF roadrunners). The tv moguls are looking at this as their last chance to attract viewers from the second and third largest markets. But which one will draw an audience against the Cards or Astros? I'd go with Chicago. After all, the Angels really aren't from LA, are they? But the Halos have the one drawing card - Vlad, last year's MVP and the only name probably recognizable to the casual fan.

BTW- during the ALDS, the announcers kept trying to amaze us with the fact that the White Sox out-homered the Red Sox this season. But they failed to mention that it was by only one stinkin' tater.

Later

[nymr83]

i gotta go with the white sox for a few reasons:

1. the white sox haven't won in awhile, thus i feel bad for their fans and am fairly sure that their fans actually ARE fans. the angels have won recently and half their "fans" are therefore probably frontrunners.

2. i hate the rally monkey

3. i HATE thundersticks and the assholes in anaheim started that trend.

4. i don't like the whole "los angelos angels of anaheim" bullshit. don't want to be the Anaheim Angels anymore? go back to calling yourselves California. changing the city name of a team that doesnt actually move is really dumb.

5. i know an angels fan who i don't particularly like, i know no white sox fans.

[Guest rpackrat]

The Sox are the best story, due to their long history of futility. No pennant since 1959, no WS title since 1917. But I also find it hard to root against the team that knocks of the skanks. Slight preference for the Sox, but I won't be terribly disappointed if the Angels win.

[Guest silverdsl]

White Sox. I'd love to see Contreras and El Duque do well and help the Sox win the World Series.

[Zvon]

And the Angels get ripped off by that silly call on strike 3 in the 9th.

ouch.
I hate when a bad call plays such a big part in the outcome of a game.

[metirish]

i have never seen anything like it, no idea how to even explain the play..Frayed Knot where are you to explain that..jeez talk about being skinned by the ump, Perziensky says he thought the ball hit the ground but the catcher didn't tag him so he ran to first, meanwhile the catcher thought he was called out by the ump(he was twice) so he ran for the dugout, Perziensky seeing this ran to first and was called safe..crazy shit.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Ex-Factor:

Byrd

vs.

Everett Perez

[metirish]

OK on the radio Joe Morgan is saying that the ump first called safe meaning the ball hit the dirt then he called for a SO....this play will live for a long time, credit to Perziensky and sorry for spelling your name wrong.

[smg58]

It looked in the extreme close-up like the ball may have bounced up into the catcher's mitt, so I'm not sure it's as cut and dried as the announcers made it out to be, but I'd hate to WIN a game like that, much less lose it.

[Zvon]

To my eye it bounced up, but within the catchers glove. It hit the leather pocket and not the ground, and bounced off the ground under the leather and up into the heart of the glove.
It was a terrible call, especially since the ump did ring him up.
In a play like that the ump should indicate a strikeout and the ball is in play, in that order.
So he should have rung him up and then waved safe, as in fair ball, in play.

This and the call on Cano in the Yankee series can undermine a game and sometimes a series. Cano should not have been called out, imo, and I was really surprised there wasnt a bigger argument mounted there.
That was a crucial play in a crucial inning at a crucial time.