December 13, 2013
Who is Shyster?
Or you can search by:
Most Recent Comments
Mike Hargrove Interview (13)
Can they be the California Angels again? (9)
Another great moment in mass transit? (7)
Just another ten-percenter (his mind is like an ocean) (7)
Great Moments in Half-Baked Populism (8)
Shyster's Daily Circuit
Joe Posnanski Blog
Cot's Baseball Contracts
It IS About the Money
Baseball Think Factory
MLB Trade Rumors
Way Back and Gone
Bats -- NYT Baseball Blog
The Biz of Baseball
The Daily Fungo
The Common Man
Jorge Says No!
Baseball Over Here
Monday, October 19, 2009
NBC Comment of the Day
If St. Louis baseball fans are so great and "die-hard" why aren't the Browns still in St. Louis?
-- Commenter "Bamboozled" in "Teh Yankees are the greatest, dood!" post.
I often use this feature to mock, but I can't decide if this one is mock-worthy or brilliant. I'm leaning brilliant. The actual mouth breathers over there probably think that the Browns moved to Phoenix in the late 80s.
Posted by Craig Calcaterra at 7:21pm
Kevin S. said...
The actual mouth breathers over there probably think that the Browns moved to Phoenix in the late 80s.
Craig, what did we decide about making the comment of the day in a “Comment of the Day” post? Excellently done, sir.
Posted 10/19 at 07:27 PM
You continue to be amongst the worst writers with the least amount to say in the business. One can only hope that with the end of the season, you will crawl back under your rock and stay there this time. You suck.
Posted 10/19 at 07:53 PM
Craig Calcaterra said...
God, you’re sexy when you hate, Pylon.
Posted 10/19 at 08:03 PM
Well, Bamboozled, 4 points on this.1. Most people say Cardinals fans, and not St Louis fans. That implies a difference between Cardinals and Browns fans, as there as still many Browns fans around.2. The Browns left town 56 years ago, and it’s a silly point, as well as not being relevant.3. The Cardinals, during the time the teams shared the city (and stadium) consistently fielded good teams and went to the World Series, winning many of them (second only to the Yankees). The Browns were only competitive in about 6 seasons, and only 2 after 1923. Why watch the Browns when the Cardinals were there?4. Bill Veeck owned the team and MLB did everything they could to run him out of the league and give the team to anyone else. If the Browns would have recieved the support from the league the Nationals might have, then it might be a different story. History and the facts are a dangerous combination. They give good answers to silly questions.
Posted 10/19 at 08:06 PM
Why watch the Browns when the Cardinals are there? I guess the NFL runs on a different schedule in St Louis than in other cities. I know here in Atlanta MLB and NFL run at different times of the year…
Posted 10/19 at 08:23 PM
I can’t decide if smsetnor is being serious or facetious? because the comment could be brilliant…
Posted 10/19 at 08:47 PM
Silver King said...
And your little dog sucks too!
Posted 10/19 at 08:48 PM
My response to that:
If New York fans are so great, why did the Giants AND Dodgers leave.
Mets <<< Dodgers + Giants
Posted 10/19 at 08:59 PM
Wow, I had no idea a question so completely and utterly subjective (and unanswerable, right?) could raise the hackles so. Man. You know what? I’m suddenly proud to be from Toronto: home of the indisputably sucky baseball fan.
Posted 10/19 at 09:27 PM
Chris W said...
re: the Cardinals fans vs. STL fans—Bill Veeck claimed that at the time the Browns were forced out of STL he felt like they had a chance to overtake the Cardinals in terms of popularity but since Anheuser Busch bought the team and could operate at a loss in the name of marketing he realize he was whipped.
That doesn’t really undermine the point about STL fans made in the “comment of the day.” On the other hand, it doesn’t exactly validate it either, does it?
Posted 10/19 at 10:40 PM
Vorp Opiescu said...
Pylon’s still angry over the Sidney Ponson thread from months back.
To quote Bill James (inexactly) in the New Historical Baseball Abstract, “Browns management of that era couldn’t read Superman and figure out who Clark Kent was.” Ownership didn’t have (or wouldn’t spend) any extra money to improve the team on the field, so the St. Louis fans, diehards and all, refused to spend their money to watch a dreadful team. No way out of that vicious cycle except to move the team. Anyway, the AL must have wanted to get in on some of the success the sad-sack Braves had found in Milwaukee.
With that having been said, Craig, I think “Bamboozled” is jerking your chain. His post is suspiciously well written, and it hits a lot of the mocking-points we’d invent here.
Posted 10/19 at 10:50 PM
All I really know about sports ownership is this: don’t name you team the “Browns” unless you want it to end up in Baltimore.
Posted 10/19 at 11:41 PM