They lost because the White Sox scored more runs

wunnuy wrote:
> My point was they didn't lose because of umpiring. They lost due to
> their own bad play. Angels fans want to blame everyone but the guys
> responsible: The Angels.

Angels fans do blame those responsible: The White Sox.
 >> Stay informed about: They lost because the White Sox scored more runs 

wunny:
>My point was they didn't lose because of umpiring. They lost due to
their own bad play. Angels fans want to blame everyone but the guys
responsible: The Angels.<

rmjon23:
First of all, about 1/500,000 (a very rough estimate) of Angels fans
post here. But if you even READ the posts, MOST (that's more than 50%,
Jack) do not blame the umps or anyone else.

Eric Ramon:
>Angels fans do blame those responsible: The White Sox.<

rmjon23:
Exacta-mundo, Eric. Wunny: you'd appear less dumb if you were more
careful with your choice of words. Namely, "choke." The BoSox,
defending World Champs, get swept by a team that won 99 this season.
The Angels eliminate the Yankees, then, with a decimated pitching
staff, win the first game in Chicago, only to run into a ChiSox
pitching juggernaut that rolls over them the next four games. "Choke"?
If that word is to retain any meaning at all, it must be used
carefully. For EX: the Yankees going up 3-0 to the BoSox last year,
then losing four straight. Now THAT qualifies as a "choke"!

The Angels may have played poorly, but it simply doesn't amount to a
"choke." They were creamed by a very, very good team.

The White Sox were better. And I want them to win the WS in 2005.

-rmjon23
 >> Stay informed about: They lost because the White Sox scored more runs 

rmjon you'd appear less dumb if you learned how to spell the name of
the person you're responding to and a little more about baseball.

If the Angels whitesox games were close, it woudn't have been a choke.
But when you bat .171 in the ALCS, your big bats do nothing, it's a
called a choke. You might want to watch a little sporting news or
listen to some talk radio to get some in depth coverage on how big a
choke that was by the Angels. Don't take it from me. Take it from the
millions of others who say so. And stop the insults. When you're trying
to make a point, you lose all impact when you start out with insults.
It makes YOU look dumb. Ask Dave the Nationals fan.
 >> Stay informed about: They lost because the White Sox scored more runs 

wunnuy wrote:

>
> If the Angels whitesox games were close, it woudn't have been a choke.
> But when you bat .171 in the ALCS, your big bats do nothing, it's a
> called a choke.

This is a definitional problem. Wunny is defining a "choke" as a team
performing badly without any consideration as to the ability of the
opponent. The rest of us are defining "choke" in a more traditional
sense, which is a failure to perform under pressure as a result of
pressure. Under Wunny's definition if the Little League Champion Team
from Hawaii played the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim in a one game,
winner take all, 10 million dollar and failed to get a hit, they would
have "choked" becuase they failed to get a hit. In contrast, most of
the rest of us would attribute this to the skill of the Angels. If,
during this same game, Figgins failed to get a hit (picking Figgins
becuase he is someone that likely would get hits) (and everyone else on
his team we can assume would essentially never make an out) because he
swung wildly at all of the pitches, we would all agree that "Figgins
had choked".

We all agree on the facts. Its the language which describes the facts
which are the problem. Wunny is "correct" when he says that the Angels
choked so long as he insists on using his definition of the term choke.
But his definition of the term "choked" essentially renders the term
meaningless and turns it into a synonym for the word "failed" and
eliminates the part of the word "choked" which says that the failure
was the result of the pressure on the party that failed and not the
result of the opponent.
 >> Stay informed about: They lost because the White Sox scored more runs 

Instead of looking for someone to blame (umpires, Vlad, Scioscia,
Figgy, the guy sitting down the line in right, or whoever), why not
look for someone to credit. The White Sox. They are impressive. Hey, we
managed one win off them, which is better than the allegedly superior
Red Sox could manage.

I hope the White Sox win the World Series. There is no shame or blame
in being the second best team in the best league.
 >> Stay informed about: They lost because the White Sox scored more runs 

I do not think the word means what he thinks it means...

(sorry, couldn't help myself)

Yeah,
It's all in the definitions.

....And I've been searching Google News, and I can't find one person who
has used the word "choke" in regards to the Angels loss. I believe
wunnuy (it has 2 u's) when he says he heard some guy on the radio using
the term to get people to call in, but I can't find where he put the
opinion in writing. In fact the only place I have heard folks using
the term is here.
 >> Stay informed about: They lost because the White Sox scored more runs 

I, and the rest of the country say the Angels choked. I'm not sure why
Angels fans in this group are so hung up on semantics. Call it whatever
gets you through the night. They choked. They gave up. They didn't play
well. They all of a sudden lost the ability to hit when it counted.
They stunk up the joint. Either way, they're home now because they
didn't do what they were supposed to do.
 >> Stay informed about: They lost because the White Sox scored more runs 

wunnuy wrote:
> I, and the rest of the country say the Angels choked. I'm not sure why
> Angels fans in this group are so hung up on semantics. Call it whatever
> gets you through the night. They choked. They gave up. They didn't play
> well. They all of a sudden lost the ability to hit when it counted.
> They stunk up the joint. Either way, they're home now because they
> didn't do what they were supposed to do.

Who else says they "choked"? Can you give us links to five reputable
sources?

Can you give us one reputable reference source that backs up your
definition over the definition found in the The American Heritage®
Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition?
 >> Stay informed about: They lost because the White Sox scored more runs 

Uh, how many times do we have to go over this? Live in your candy
coated world. The Angels did great in the ALCS. In fact, they didn't
choke, they won it all. They're playing the Astros in the world series.


Meanwhile, the rest of the world doesn't need a "dictionary" (I love
the little ® you put in it, what an idiot) to see the .171 BA, how
Figgins, Guerrero and Anderson choked big time. Call it what you like.
The rest of the world lives in reality. I feel sorry for you. You must
really be depressed.
 >> Stay informed about: They lost because the White Sox scored more runs 

If you can't back up your statements with reliable sources they are not
facts - they are your personal opinions and should be stated as such.
 >> Stay informed about: They lost because the White Sox scored more runs 

Randall Bart wrote:

>
> How many teams batted .171 against the ChiSox? How many teams did the
> Angels bat .171 against? The Angels did not perform up to their
> potential.

Or the White Sox performed far over their "potential". Under your
theory, no pitcher ever has a "good game", the other team simply
choked. No pitcher is responsible for pitching a no hitter. The
other team choked. And that's a load of bunk.
 >> Stay informed about: They lost because the White Sox scored more runs 

David the Nationals Fan wrote:
> Randall Bart wrote:
>
> >
> > How many teams batted .171 against the ChiSox? How many teams did the
> > Angels bat .171 against? The Angels did not perform up to their
> > potential.
>
> Or the White Sox performed far over their "potential". Under your
> theory, no pitcher ever has a "good game", the other team simply
> choked. No pitcher is responsible for pitching a no hitter. The
> other team choked. And that's a load of bunk.

Why is it you think a pitcher isn't responsible for throwing a
no-hitter? I've never heard of such a dumb thing.

Don't just throw out comments, provide some support. (Not that
you will, you seem to specialize in inane comments which are factually
unsupported. You make Maynard look smart... and that's hard to do)
 >> Stay informed about: They lost because the White Sox scored more runs 

Wheeitsme RemoveThis @yahoo.com wrote:
> If you can't back up your statements with reliable sources they are not
> facts - they are your personal opinions and should be stated as such.

Poor guy. Frustrated because the world saw the Angels choke? You might
want to do a door-to-door project where you tell every baseball fan in
America the Angels didn't choke, okay? Maybe if you can convince enough
people, you'll sleep a little better. Don't get mad at me because they
choked. Get mad at the Angels.
 >> Stay informed about: They lost because the White Sox scored more runs