MLB 2021

[BBTV]

3 minutes ago, Digby said:

how many state capitals aren’t their state’s biggest or most important city? Gotta be more than half. Probably something worth unpacking there. For every Boston or Atlanta or Denver there’s also a Sacramento or a Salem. Always blows my mind that Albany has so much sway in New York City.

harrisburg PA is another one. Phila is far and away the largest city and metro area, and (as I learned during pandemic) basically runs itself autonomously, since it has all its own agencies, as opposed to Pittsburgh and the rest of the state, which are essentially just cities in counties. 
 

it’s a shame that the rest of the state, which is basically Alabama, has any stay at the state level in anything that impacts Phila. Depending on how it’d work from an electoral college perspective, I’d much rather be part of NJ. 

[FiddySicks]

Can’t forget that Nevada’s capital is the metropolitan oasis of… Carson City. 

[WSU151]

1 minute ago, FiddySicks said:

Can’t forget that Nevada’s capital is the metropolitan oasis of… Carson City. 

 

One of my favorite trivia pieces is Carson City, Nevada is west of Los Angeles. 

[FiddySicks]

23 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

 

One of my favorite trivia pieces is Carson City, Nevada is west of Los Angeles. 

That’s actually one of the talking points in my home town. Come to an alpine lake thats further west than Southern California. 

[DarthBrett]

4 hours ago, BBTV said:

 

 I mean no disrespect at all to Cincinnati, but (depending on where you grew up), if they didn't already have the Reds and Bengals, would the average American have any reason to have ever heard of it?  

 

 

 WKRP in Cincinnati! lol I agree with what you said in your post, but had to mention the tv show since I think growing up I knew the city for being home of the Reds, Bengals and the sitcom's locale.

[BBTV]

57 minutes ago, DarthBrett said:

 WKRP in Cincinnati! lol I agree with what you said in your post, but had to mention the tv show since I think growing up I knew the city for being home of the Reds, Bengals and the sitcom's locale.

 

Fair enough.  Replace Cincinnati with Cleveland then (or was there some Cleveland show that I don't know about?)

[_DietDrPepper_]

5 hours ago, BBTV said:

I mean no disrespect at all to Cincinnati, but (depending on where you grew up), if they didn't already have the Reds and Bengals, would the average American have any reason to have ever heard of it?  Even post-steel-era Pittsburgh - there's obviously some historical significance there, but would a kid growing up in California have ever heard of it?

Growing up in central KY, I have always seen Cincinnati as the “big city.” It was our New York. That and Lexington. Louisville was the third option in most cases. So even without the Reds or the Bengals, most people from KY would still know Cincy. Even the Kentucky side of Cincinnati has a lot of things to do, Newport especially.

[Marlins93]

6 hours ago, BBTV said:

 

I think as average Americans, we tend to look to sports teams to judge a city's importance.  I mean no disrespect at all to Cincinnati, but (depending on where you grew up), if they didn't already have the Reds and Bengals, would the average American have any reason to have ever heard of it?  Even post-steel-era Pittsburgh - there's obviously some historical significance there, but would a kid growing up in California have ever heard of it?  Would either be looked at as prime expansion cities if they didn't already have teams?  Jacksonville is another one - I'm fairly certain I would never in my life hear of Jacksonville if they didn't get the Jaguars.  Even Oklahoma City - if not for the bombing, there's no reason for anyone on the east coast to have ever had OKC mentioned in a class growing up or to know anything about it.  Sacramento is usually known because it's a capital city and lots of kids learn those, but as far as where it is actually located, I'd probably not have known that if not for the Kings.)

 

My point is not to disrespect any of those places (eh, maybe Jacksonville), but just to emphasize the importance that having pro sports has to a lot of the smaller cities, and why places like Cincinnati need to bend over backwards just to keep them.   It keeps them relevant to average Joe, which is a shame, because almost all of those places have other great things about them that just don't get the same exposure as their lousy sports teams do.

 

For many places in the country, it's the only reason a lot of us recognize where these places are (which is a good thing in a way, since collecting baseball cards as a little kid helped me learn geography, as I used to plot cards from each teams on the floor relative to where they appear on a map.)  Hell - watching hockey helped me learn Canadian geography, and when I took "Geography of the US and Canada", I felt like I had a bit of a leg up.

 

I definitely think that the presence of big four sports teams can elevate a city's prestige and recognition. But among those cities that don't have a team, some feel more "worthy" than others. I want to again emphasize how all subjective this is, but placing teams in Austin or Albuquerque wouldn't feel strange to me from a branding standpoint.

 

I think Anaheim feels obscure because nobody really talks about it much. Maybe if I were a SoCal person I'd think differently, but people refer to Orange County all of the time, but rarely Anaheim in particular. 

[SFGiants58]

I go back and forth all the time on whether or not I prefer "Los Angeles" or "Anaheim" ("California" is never in the discussion). My only take is that the Anaheim Angels won (or Dusty Baker lost, depending on your perspective) the 2002 World Series. The Los Angeles Angels, meanwhile, have made a business of wasting the prime years of star players. I understand fan's emotional connection to Anaheim. Heck, if/when the Angels get a "city connect" jersey, I kind of hope it's Disneyland-themed or has an interlocking "OC"  on it. 

 

I'm pro-Anaheim at the moment, since I get the impression that the fans prefer that name.

[bosrs1]

3 hours ago, Digby said:

how many state capitals aren’t their state’s biggest or most important city? Gotta be more than half. Probably something worth unpacking there. For every Boston or Atlanta or Denver there’s also a Sacramento or a Salem. Always blows my mind that Albany has so much sway in New York City.

 

Not sure about some of the states, but for California it was a conscious choice to make a somewhat rando city like Sacramento the capital. At the time it was selected in 1854 it was close to the center of the Gold Rush (which was still ongoing in 1854) and the center of the state. Both of which were also important considerations in a state as large as California. It also had one of the larger more settled populations during that time. The fact that CA has developed into a very bi-polar Bay Area v LA state over the years hasn't hurt either with a "neutral" city being the capital rather than one of the two heavyweights. 

 

 

[DarthBrett]

1 hour ago, BBTV said:

 

Fair enough.  Replace Cincinnati with Cleveland then (or was there some Cleveland show that I don't know about?)

Haha Well, it just so happens the Drew Carey show was and the theme song was all about Cleveland, "Cleveland Rocks". 

 

 

[Ben in LA]

4 hours ago, bosrs1 said:

The directional highway signs on Interstate 5 for example, for decades northbound said “Los Angeles” when going northbound and “San Diego” when going southbound. But in the ‘90’s they covered the ones north and south of Santa Ana with “Santa Ana”. As if Santa Ana is somehow notable? Which makes for an interesting drive as all the guide signs in San Diego County still say “Los Angeles” and then switch to “Santa Ana” until you hit Santa Ana and then they switch back to “Los Angeles”.  

Driving south on the I-5 the signs ALWAYS said Santa Ana until you went past Santa Ana. The reason why is because that city is the county seat of Orange County. Coming northbound on the I-5 the signs also say Santa Ana between 1-405 and the city as well before switching to Los Angeles.

 

Non-sports related I know…but I’m also kind of a freeway nerd lol  

[DarthBrett]

50 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

I go back and forth all the time on whether or not I prefer "Los Angeles" or "Anaheim" ("California" is never in the discussion). My only take is that the Anaheim Angels won (or Dusty Baker lost, depending on your perspective) the 2002 World Series. The Los Angeles Angels, meanwhile, have made a business of wasting the prime years of star players. I understand fan's emotional connection to Anaheim. Heck, if/when the Angels get a "city connect" jersey, I kind of hope it's Disneyland-themed or has an interlocking "OC"  on it. 

 

I'm pro-Anaheim at the moment, since I get the impression that the fans prefer that name.

 

I'm not an Angels fan much, born and raised a Dodger fan in an all-Dodger family, but I definitely think Anaheim Angels is the better name for them and just makes way more sense. It also rolls off the tongue more naturally and easily and also is not redundant and/or nonsensical like Los Angeles Angels is. 

 

I should ask my GF what name she prefers since she actually is an Angels fan! 

[SFGiants58]

If anything, the Dodgers should’ve adopted the Angels name upon moving to LA. Likewise, the Giants would become the Seals.

[DarthBrett]

On 7/6/2021 at 9:23 AM, SFGiants58 said:

All the "Los Angeles" Angels have done is waste the career of the least-engaging superstar in MLB history. They're looking to utterly waste the career of their next (far-more engaging) superstar, too. Hopefully Ohtani has more of a spine than Trout and flees Arte's team as soon as he can.

Sorry, I meant to respond to this yesterday and forgot to! I have the utmost respect for Trout for staying loyal to the team that drafted him, but man if they don't make the playoffs again this year or next I can't help but think he missed out on playing for a winner and possibly getting a ring during his peak years. He's probably only got 2 or 3 peak seasons left in him and it would be great to see him in the post-season again. He deserves it, as he does seem like a genuinely nice guy and has proven he works hard to be a better hitter and outfielder. His proneness to injuries now for the past 5 seasons is very concerning though and I can't help but think of how similar he is to Griffey now where his best and 100% healthy years may be behind him already.  Hopefully he can play another 2 or 3 seasons without landing on the IL though. 

[DarthBrett]

8 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

If anything, the Dodgers should’ve adopted the Angels name upon moving to LA. Likewise, the Giants would become the Seals.

Right? 

 

BTW, you guys are killing it this year! Any team that has stellar pitching in the offensive era we are in  demands a lot of respect and attention. And I thought Posey would be rusty after missing out last year, but the guy is a stud and having a comeback player of the year season. And this could possibly be the first time we face you guys in the playoffs this year just like last year was with the Padres! 

[PrimalCookie]

5 hours ago, Digby said:

how many state capitals aren’t their state’s biggest or most important city? Gotta be more than half. Probably something worth unpacking there. For every Boston or Atlanta or Denver there’s also a Sacramento or a Salem. Always blows my mind that Albany has so much sway in New York City.

Tallahassee made sense when all of Florida's population was within 50 miles of the Georgia/Alabama border, but it really doesn't anymore. Everyone either lives south of I-4 or right on it (excluding Jacksonville), but the capital is way up in South Alabama and has nothing but the government and FSU in it.

 

Anyway, back to the Angels, I don't have a problem with them using Los Angeles as the identifier. They're clearly in the LA metro. It's no different than an East Rutherford team using New York, Fort Lauderdale team using Miami, or Arlington team using Dallas. Anaheim Angels does sound better due to alliteration, but no one that doesn't follow sports or live in California knows what Anaheim is - ask them where Disneyland is and they'll probably say LA (or Orlando, which is the easiest way to get someone from here mad at you). Being the Los Angeles Angels will get you a lot more recognition than the Anaheim Angels, even if everyone thinks of the Dodgers first when LA baseball teams come up.

[GhostOfNormMacdonald]

2 hours ago, Marlins93 said:

I definitely think that the presence of big four sports teams can elevate a city's prestige and recognition.

Not baseball related, but I would have no idea about Jacksonville if not for the Jaguars. The only time outside of Football that city gets mentioned is when people like to mention how Miami isn't the biggest city in Florida during bar trivia.

[BBTV]

3 hours ago, DarthBrett said:

 I have the utmost respect for Trout for staying loyal to the team that drafted him,

 

He didn't "stay loyal" - he made a smart business decision.  He's told numerous people that he wants to at some point play for the Phillies, but he obviously couldn't turn down the contract they put in front of him (and it's not a coincidence that in addition to wanting to play in Philadelphia, his buddy Bryce just happened to sign there shortly before that contract came to be.)

[damnyoutuesday]

5 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

If anything, the Dodgers should’ve adopted the Angels name upon moving to LA. Likewise, the Giants would become the Seals.

This seems so blasphemous, but I kind of agree. Particularly for the Giants. And by no means would I ever want to see these teams change names now