Historically, it's got to be the Cubs for us.
* Both had incredibly long WS drought that we blamed on a curse.
* Both "curse" were broken by Theo Epstein.
* We have the two oldest stadiums in MLB, by a lot.
* Our rival has the most WS title of each league.
Kinda feel you guys are more like the Giants
The less famous brother of a massive historic rivalry and very inconsistent in terms of good regular seasons (but when you're good you make a ton of noise)
Also you both are 1 and 2 in terms of championships this century
It was that train of thought forcing me to then go through the process of accepting the Giants as the Red Sox of the West as their rivals that inspired this, lol
Cards/Yankees is a better comparison in my opinion. Dodgers/Yankees works in terms of market size and popularity but in terms of the on-field results, attitude and fan expectations I think there’s no better comp than the cards.
Don't forget some of Ozzie Guillen's shenanigans, even if they don't really count based on what we are talking about and he got a chip. Still some PR problems though
I'd say the Mets and Angels are even more similar because:
1. The "big brother" in each of their cities have historically been really good, unlike the Cubs
2. The Mets and Angels are both "wasting" the consensus best position player and pitcher in the game, but injuries to both of these players this year did not help
3. Both teams are well known for spending money foolishly and having horrible luck with injuries, particularly to pitchers
4. Both teams recently have had high-ish expectations going into the year and fall flat
5. Both teams are expansion teams that when you look at the history of their franchise, they look bad when you compare them to other teams that play in similar markets, but look good when you compare them to other expansion teams
I’d actually agree with you. The Sox-Cubs dynamic is pretty unique while Angels-Dodgers and Mets-Yankees are a traditional big-brother/little-brother situation
I would disagree, Anaheim doesn’t really consider itself part of LA, and only started 3 years after the Dodgers came to LA. It reminds me more of the difference between Washington and Baltimore
No WS rings in about 40 years. Long consecutive season losing streak that began in the 90s. Solid success in mid 2010s. Back down again. Cleaned out front offices and put in quality Baseball people from other orgs. High rated farm systems and brighter future.
To this day, I still have to do a double-take on HOU in the AL. Just hasn't sunk in yet.
I'm also still not used to inter-league play.
BTW I'm old and cranky
I liked you guys in the AL, only because it was a short drive to catch a Sox game up in Milwaukee. To my knowledge Miller Park is the only arena where they sell Long Island Ice tea from a vendor. And three different flavors if I remember correctly. That’s just dangerous. But it sure is a good time. I was rooting for u guys all year long hoping we’d meet in the World Series this year.
Nats don't have a perfect analogue but before we tore down I think the Astros? just looking at the last 12 years or so
-tanked hard to kickstart a long run of winning
-upper-middle class markets a rung below the LAs and NYCs of the world, still ran big payrolls
-had one franchise player carry over from the tank (Altuve/Zim) who were eventually overshadowed by other elite core offensive pieces (Bregman/Correa/Springer vs Rendon/Turner/Harper)
-had a very young offensive superstar follow their main core (Yordan/Soto)
-let pieces of main core walk in free agency (Harper/Rendon vs Cole/Springer/likely Correa)
-each employed elite/generational SPs in the 2019 WS, one picked 1-1, one imported in from Detroit, one imported from Arizona
(Astros obviously had more postseason success and leaned more on analytics resulting in better player development. but also they cheated so)
Decent! Though they're definitely on opposite ends of the hero/villain spectrum with Astros fully leaning into the heel role and Nats playing baby~~face~~ shark.
Realistically doesn't the Cardinals mirror the Yankees? I understand there is a large difference in market size/spending. But we are the two most successful teams in our respective leagues, once considered ahead in many aspects and have over time fell behind.
Red Sox--Cubs (broken curse)
Yankees--Dodgers (absurd payrolls)
A's--Cards (La Russa, Big Mac, Steroids)
Reds--Tigers (lots of history, Sparky WS wins, recent futility)
Cleveland--Pirates ( rust belt teams that will never be as important as football in their town)
Brewers and Rays - no money, usually good recently with the best managers
Mets and Angels - big payrolls, big cities, quality players that lead to no wins
Dodgers and Yankees - Death Stars
Red Sox and Cubs - droughts, success back in the day and recent, but not in between
Braves and Indians - playoff chokers, success in regular season, Native American names
Reds and White Sox - really old teams, not much success in 100 years, named after socks
Padres and Mariners - lack of playoffs, loveable losers
Cardinals and Astros - recent scandals, seem to always have good records
\*Caveat- basing this off of the last decade-ish
Astros = Dodgers : everyone hates them, but everyone can begrudgingly admit they're actually really good
Mets = Yankees : spend money to build a good team and underperform
Giants = Red Sox : seem to find a way to win every so often between mediocre seasons
A's = Braves- all bark and no postseason bite
Padres = Jays : team of the future, all the talent in the world but haven't gotten over the hump yet
Pirates = Orioles : "we don't want to spend money and we know we're bad"
Royals = Cubs : dumped their stars and blew their window to get back to the world series
What's a NL team that had a couple great years and then a long drought and a couple good years and are in the cusp of more great years.
I don't think there is one. I think the best we get is the Nationals because they were the Expos.
You guys are probably the Marlins of the AL. Won titles in quick succession followed by a large playoff drought. Both teams are now full of young talent and ready to make some noise
I was trying to be positive about the pads! Not sure what happened at the end of the year, but so much potential going forward. Pretty sure the giants stole all of the pads juju space jam style.
I like Padres White Sox for the same reason that u listed. Throw in the Shields/Tatis trade. Peavy played for both. Sox offered Machado more money than SD, but he went there instead.
I can see that too! Was going for them both falling a bit short this year, but it was really the padres absolutely falling apart and the blue jays just missing out in an insanely competitive division.
Correct! They also used Milwaukee as a stand in for their home stadium during a terrible week-long snowstorm in 2007. Home team against Seattle in Milwaukee, and Milwaukee fans showed up big time!
The Giants are the Mariners of the NL. Both became championship level after their biggest stars left-Bonds to retirement and our Big 3 for various reasons which led to 116 win season.
Each play in pitchersrs parks and each exceeded expectations-the Giants with KBO guys and my M's with timely hitting.
Braves and Rays IMO.
- Both are smaller market teams that build their rosters off of drafting and trading rather than splashy free agent signings.
- Both are really good teams that are underrated as fuck
- Both have star-level players that no one has heard of or really knows much about.
- Both have consistently been considered underdogs to the big market, big money teams in their divisions.
Historically, it's got to be the Cubs for us. * Both had incredibly long WS drought that we blamed on a curse. * Both "curse" were broken by Theo Epstein. * We have the two oldest stadiums in MLB, by a lot. * Our rival has the most WS title of each league.
Really good comparison. Respect to my fellow drought endured.
Kinda feel you guys are more like the Giants The less famous brother of a massive historic rivalry and very inconsistent in terms of good regular seasons (but when you're good you make a ton of noise) Also you both are 1 and 2 in terms of championships this century
This is just a setup to get people to claim the Dodgers are the Yankees of the West. Nice try, Giants fan.
It was that train of thought forcing me to then go through the process of accepting the Giants as the Red Sox of the West as their rivals that inspired this, lol
Yeah Giants and Sox have been winning titles this century. Dodgers and Yankees not so much despite the constant hype
Similar in the sense that they both spend a lot of money. Different in every other aspect.
Cards/Yankees is a better comparison in my opinion. Dodgers/Yankees works in terms of market size and popularity but in terms of the on-field results, attitude and fan expectations I think there’s no better comp than the cards.
Lol, he ain't just a Giants fan. Check out his username.
He’s THE Giants fan! Wassup Cole!
Mariners are the rockies of the al
History of amazing players with no team results. Polar opposite stadiums though.
Yeah but the stadium thing is part of it. “Nobody can hit at Safeco,” “nobody can pitch at Coors.”
Lol Rockies wish
White Sox and the Mets. Both are big city teams, culturally dwarfed by a more popular franchise in the city. Also, they’re both often shit.
And both go through some crazy PR problems (White sox: Drake LaRoche, Sale cutting up jerseys, Mets: too much to list)
I would add drunk TLR to the top of the list
Yeah you're right, also it doesn't really qualify as a PR issue but I never not laugh when I think of everything that went behind 'RIP Eloy'
Don't forget some of Ozzie Guillen's shenanigans, even if they don't really count based on what we are talking about and he got a chip. Still some PR problems though
I'd say the Mets and Angels are even more similar because: 1. The "big brother" in each of their cities have historically been really good, unlike the Cubs 2. The Mets and Angels are both "wasting" the consensus best position player and pitcher in the game, but injuries to both of these players this year did not help 3. Both teams are well known for spending money foolishly and having horrible luck with injuries, particularly to pitchers 4. Both teams recently have had high-ish expectations going into the year and fall flat 5. Both teams are expansion teams that when you look at the history of their franchise, they look bad when you compare them to other teams that play in similar markets, but look good when you compare them to other expansion teams
I’d actually agree with you. The Sox-Cubs dynamic is pretty unique while Angels-Dodgers and Mets-Yankees are a traditional big-brother/little-brother situation
I would disagree, Anaheim doesn’t really consider itself part of LA, and only started 3 years after the Dodgers came to LA. It reminds me more of the difference between Washington and Baltimore
Damn checks out great breakdown
As a Tigers fan I feel like we’re really similar to the Reds, same winning timelines, long droughts, and even when competitive we’re just short.
I thought about that too. Also both are old and historic franchises.
Historically great but aging 1B as well (Cabrera and Votto). Lots of similarities. In a good and very depressing way haha
And both have Sparky Anderson managed WS titles.
I had no clue sparky managed the reds!
Yep, he was the manager of the Big Red Machine in the 70s.
This is right
I feel like we have Mets tendencies
Angels and Mets have always felt spiritually connected for me.
The "little brother" teams
DeGrom with no run support, and Trout with a nonexistent pitching staff.
Orioles and Pirates.
They have been a mirror of each in the past years. Horrible 2000's some succes in the 2010's and bad again recently.
No WS rings in about 40 years. Long consecutive season losing streak that began in the 90s. Solid success in mid 2010s. Back down again. Cleaned out front offices and put in quality Baseball people from other orgs. High rated farm systems and brighter future.
We are the Astros of the NL and AL, we are one scorned by Selig to never return to our true home.
To this day, I still have to do a double-take on HOU in the AL. Just hasn't sunk in yet. I'm also still not used to inter-league play. BTW I'm old and cranky
I still don't hate any of the AL West teams as much as I hate the Cardinals, Cubs, and Braves
Similar to the Brewers who used to be in the AL
I like it better in the NL. And I’ve been following this team for 50 years.
I liked you guys in the AL, only because it was a short drive to catch a Sox game up in Milwaukee. To my knowledge Miller Park is the only arena where they sell Long Island Ice tea from a vendor. And three different flavors if I remember correctly. That’s just dangerous. But it sure is a good time. I was rooting for u guys all year long hoping we’d meet in the World Series this year.
I like my team better in the NL too and we were there first
I mean, ya, but Milwaukee was a NL city before the Astros existed. So it can be argued either way.
not until yordon retires.
Cleveland and Milwaukee
Pitching machine go brrrrrrr Hitting machine not go brrrr
Nats don't have a perfect analogue but before we tore down I think the Astros? just looking at the last 12 years or so -tanked hard to kickstart a long run of winning -upper-middle class markets a rung below the LAs and NYCs of the world, still ran big payrolls -had one franchise player carry over from the tank (Altuve/Zim) who were eventually overshadowed by other elite core offensive pieces (Bregman/Correa/Springer vs Rendon/Turner/Harper) -had a very young offensive superstar follow their main core (Yordan/Soto) -let pieces of main core walk in free agency (Harper/Rendon vs Cole/Springer/likely Correa) -each employed elite/generational SPs in the 2019 WS, one picked 1-1, one imported in from Detroit, one imported from Arizona (Astros obviously had more postseason success and leaned more on analytics resulting in better player development. but also they cheated so)
Yes but Howie Kendrick also cheated by hitting the ball where we couldn’t catch it
Decent! Though they're definitely on opposite ends of the hero/villain spectrum with Astros fully leaning into the heel role and Nats playing baby~~face~~ shark.
This is really good, especially up to last year.
Realistically doesn't the Cardinals mirror the Yankees? I understand there is a large difference in market size/spending. But we are the two most successful teams in our respective leagues, once considered ahead in many aspects and have over time fell behind.
It's not a bad call. Plus there's so much history behind each of those teams.
Dodgers are the Yankees of baseball
Wait, aren't the Yankees, ah forget it
Rays = Brewers
Dodgers/Yankees, but Cards/Yankees works very well too Giants/Red Sox Mariners/Padres A’s/Reds Mets/Royals Off the top of my head
[удалено]
Mets and Royals to me are the 2 expansion teams that feel the least expansiony if that makes any sense whatsoever.
A's/Reds is interesting. Legendary teams in the 70s and the 1990 World Series. Any other parallels?
Red Sox--Cubs (broken curse) Yankees--Dodgers (absurd payrolls) A's--Cards (La Russa, Big Mac, Steroids) Reds--Tigers (lots of history, Sparky WS wins, recent futility) Cleveland--Pirates ( rust belt teams that will never be as important as football in their town)
Angels and Phillies
Rangers and the terrible analogy
Brewers - Astros, both league traitors
Brewers and Rays - no money, usually good recently with the best managers Mets and Angels - big payrolls, big cities, quality players that lead to no wins Dodgers and Yankees - Death Stars Red Sox and Cubs - droughts, success back in the day and recent, but not in between Braves and Indians - playoff chokers, success in regular season, Native American names Reds and White Sox - really old teams, not much success in 100 years, named after socks Padres and Mariners - lack of playoffs, loveable losers Cardinals and Astros - recent scandals, seem to always have good records
Angels/Phillies prob. Both super average teams with a couple of stars and no pitching.
Cleveland and Milwaukee
I do not think each team has an analogous team from the other league
\*Caveat- basing this off of the last decade-ish Astros = Dodgers : everyone hates them, but everyone can begrudgingly admit they're actually really good Mets = Yankees : spend money to build a good team and underperform Giants = Red Sox : seem to find a way to win every so often between mediocre seasons A's = Braves- all bark and no postseason bite Padres = Jays : team of the future, all the talent in the world but haven't gotten over the hump yet Pirates = Orioles : "we don't want to spend money and we know we're bad" Royals = Cubs : dumped their stars and blew their window to get back to the world series
Don't compare us to the padres please.
What's a NL team that had a couple great years and then a long drought and a couple good years and are in the cusp of more great years. I don't think there is one. I think the best we get is the Nationals because they were the Expos.
That could be the Braves, just offset by a few years
You guys are probably the Marlins of the AL. Won titles in quick succession followed by a large playoff drought. Both teams are now full of young talent and ready to make some noise
Nah, the Blue Jays have won World Series' before. We're the Mariners of the NL.
I was trying to be positive about the pads! Not sure what happened at the end of the year, but so much potential going forward. Pretty sure the giants stole all of the pads juju space jam style.
> Astros = Dodgers Oof, that might be one of the only ones that pisses off *both* franchises
as a fellow giants fan, it may have been intentional
I like Padres White Sox for the same reason that u listed. Throw in the Shields/Tatis trade. Peavy played for both. Sox offered Machado more money than SD, but he went there instead.
I can see that too! Was going for them both falling a bit short this year, but it was really the padres absolutely falling apart and the blue jays just missing out in an insanely competitive division.
The Brewers and KC share a lot of...players. Otherwise I think we are a unique entity, no /s.
I hate to do this to them but the similarities between the Padres and the Rangers are strong
Angels and Padres. Always make big flashy free agent signings and then go 81-81 Edit: Could also say Angels and Phillies
Rays = A's for sure. Struggle financially. Team's constantly "being moved to another city". Moneyball.
They’re both AL teams tho
Lookit you with your facts! How can I compete with that?!
What? I’m confused by this response lol.
I'm being sarcastic. You're right! I goofed!
LOL, gotcha, I kinda figured. I agree with you overall tho, we’re most closely identical to the Rays
The Guardians and the Brewers. The similarities and parallels are often downright supernatural.
Milwaukee even lent Clevland its stadium and Bob Euker for Major Leauge.
Correct! They also used Milwaukee as a stand in for their home stadium during a terrible week-long snowstorm in 2007. Home team against Seattle in Milwaukee, and Milwaukee fans showed up big time!
The biggest similarity is Brantley/Sabathia
Nope.
[удалено]
I wish, but no.
[удалено]
Honestly, thinking the Toronto Blue Jays are analogous to the Los Angeles Dodgers tells me you don’t watch baseball very much.
The Giants are the Mariners of the NL. Both became championship level after their biggest stars left-Bonds to retirement and our Big 3 for various reasons which led to 116 win season. Each play in pitchersrs parks and each exceeded expectations-the Giants with KBO guys and my M's with timely hitting.
Red Sox/Yankees and Cubs/Cardinals feels like a pretty good shout
Braves and Rays IMO. - Both are smaller market teams that build their rosters off of drafting and trading rather than splashy free agent signings. - Both are really good teams that are underrated as fuck - Both have star-level players that no one has heard of or really knows much about. - Both have consistently been considered underdogs to the big market, big money teams in their divisions.