BTW, I really enjoy Jon Miller. "Adios Pelota"!!!

NYCGOBEARS;841904475 said:

---

Without a doubt, Vin Scully is one of the greatest baseball announcers ever. Other than Kruk and Kuip, he's the one I enjoy most. I've had the opportunity to interact with him and he's a complete gentleman. He's the fairest and most knowledgable baseball person there is. He originally started his career with the NY Giants, I believe. All that being said, I don't just hate the Dodgers, I "LOVE" hating the Dodgers. Go Giants! Incredible series.

---

I actually saw him in 1991 at a Rhetoric graduation at Zellerbach (I think he had a niece graduating). He was saying "excuse me" and "thank you" in the courtyard as he was making his way in a crowded space like he was no one famous. Class act and a legend. The L.A. HOF sportscaster trifecta has been Vinny, Chick Hearn and Bob Miller.

NYCGOBEARS;841904478 said:

---

Sorry KAB. 3-0 series sweep with 3 shutouts is complete dominance. No way to spin that since it hasn't happened in however many zillion years to your Doyers

---

Vogelsong is having a great season but not sure the Dodgers could score of Jamie Moyer right now.

KoreAmBear;841904483 said:

---

I actually saw him in 1991 at a Rhetoric graduation at Zellerbach (I think he had a niece graduating). He was saying "excuse me" and "thank you" in the courtyard as he was making his way in a crowded space like he was no one famous. Class act and a legend. The L.A. HOF sportscaster trifecta has been Vinny, Chick Hearn and Bob Miller.

---

I hate the Lakers too but God bless Chick Hearn. He was simply the best.

KoreAmBear;841904491 said:

---

Vogelsong is having a great season but not sure the Dodgers could score of Jamie Moyer right now.

---

^^^
I agree

KoreAmBear;841904491 said:

---

Vogelsong is having a great season but not sure the Dodgers could score of Jamie Moyer right now.

---

They scored 81 runs in 22 games prior to this series (3.68 runs per game). Not great, but far from the worst in the NL. Had they put up their average the last 3 games, they'd be in 11th in the NL, just behind the Giants (9th). It's not a great offense, but they aren't the horrendous. Stop the excuses.


*all stats are for the month of June*

grandmastapoop;841904495 said:

---

They scored 81 runs in 22 games prior to this series (3.68 runs per game). Not great, but far from the worst in the NL. Had they put up their average the last 3 games, they'd be in 11th in the NL, just behind the Giants (9th). It's not a great offense, but they aren't the horrendous. Stop the excuses.

---

Good one!

grandmastapoop;841904495 said:

---

They scored 81 runs in 22 games prior to this series (3.68 runs per game). Not great, but far from the worst in the NL. Had they put up their average the last 3 games, they'd be in 11th in the NL, just behind the Giants (9th). It's not a great offense, but they aren't the horrendous. Stop the excuses.


*all stats are for the month of June*

---

Actually, at this time, it is a horrendous offense. The Giants clearly dominated the series, but you Giant fans should probably tone it down a notch. The game has a funny way of humbling everybody.

chazzed;841904500 said:

---

Actually, at this time, it is a horrendous offense. The Giants clearly dominated the series, but you Giant fans should probably tone it down a notch. The game has a funny way of humbling everybody.

---

Tone it down? You're kidding right? This is the freaking Giants vs Dodgers we're talking about here. It's a big deal for both clubs no matter the circumstances that caused a three game shutout sweep.

grandmastapoop;841904495 said:

---

They scored 81 runs in 22 games prior to this series (3.68 runs per game). Not great, but far from the worst in the NL. Had they put up their average the last 3 games, they'd be in 11th in the NL, just behind the Giants (9th). It's not a great offense, but they aren't the horrendous. Stop the excuses.


*all stats are for the month of June*

---

Aren't you an Angels fan? Excuses? That's usually your expertise for Cal, GMP. :P

The Dodger hitting woes started against the A's on the 19th. I know you know baseball and that hitting slumps can happen for a couple of weeks when everyone presses. This is a horrendous stretch and in my opinion, the Dodger offense made Zito and Lincecum look way better than they are. Time will tell, like everything. Plenty of season left. No one has won anything yet.

6/19 A's - 0 runs
6/20 A's - 1 run
6/21 A's - 1 run
6/22 Angels - 5 runs but all in the first two innings, shut out the rest
6/23 Angels - 3 runs
6/24 Angels - 3 runs

(average 2.17 runs the last six games before Giants series)

6/25-6/27 Giants - 0 runs

I have an honest question for all of you Cal-dodgers-lakers fans out there. Do you find it kind of weird rooting for LA teams and Cal? The dodgers and Lakers (for better or worse) are SOOOO LA. And Cal is basically the antithesis of all things So-Cal. Honestly, I don't see how you can love both at the same time. Because to really, truly understand what it is to love Cal, you almost have to reject everything that so-cal represents. its like, how can you love telegraph and beach balls in the bleachers at the same time?

ducky23;841904534 said:

---

I have an honest question for all of you Cal-dodgers-lakers fans out there. Do you find it kind of weird rooting for LA teams and Cal? The dodgers and Lakers (for better or worse) are SOOOO LA. And Cal is basically the antithesis of all things So-Cal. Honestly, I don't see how you can love both at the same time. Because to really, truly understand what it is to love Cal, you almost have to reject everything that so-cal represents. its like, how can you love telegraph and beach balls in the bleachers at the same time?

---

So kids who are from LA who have grown up as Dodgers/Lakers fans should immediately become fans of Bay Area professional sports teams once they move to Berkeley? That's not how it works. And not everyone who lives in LA is a fan of USC or UCLA. Should Giants fans from the Bay Area who decide to go to college in Southern California switch their allegiances to the Dodgers once they move for college?

I didn't become a fan of the Mariners, Sonics, or Seahawks when I moved up to Seattle for college.

ducky23;841904534 said:

---

I have an honest question for all of you Cal-dodgers-lakers fans out there. Do you find it kind of weird rooting for LA teams and Cal? The dodgers and Lakers (for better or worse) are SOOOO LA. And Cal is basically the antithesis of all things So-Cal. Honestly, I don't see how you can love both at the same time. Because to really, truly understand what it is to love Cal, you almost have to reject everything that so-cal represents. its like, how can you love telegraph and beach balls in the bleachers at the same time?

---

You have to reject sun, good beaches, warm nights and good looking women to be a Cal fan?

GB54;841904568 said:

---

You have to reject sun, good beaches, warm nights and good looking women to be a Cal fan?

---

Like I said before, LA teams represent the "good and bad" of so-cal. You successfully named all the good things and conveniently left out all the bad things; like shallowness, fair-weather, all glam and hollywood, look at me attitude, etc., Nor-cal has its "bad" as well; "leftist, intellectual elitists, yuppie, granola, etc (all characteristics found in niner and giants fans - to a certain degree). Obviously these are gross characterizations, however, such stereotypes do have a bit of truth.

Lets compare the Warriors, Kings and Lakers. You really want to tell me that they are all alike? If I were to give you three adjectives (hollywood, blue-collar, "chip on shoulder") I'm sure you would be able to successfully match up the adjectives to the team without me having to give you the answer.

To deny that each team takes on the character of its local populace is being extremely naive. You can say all you want about how sports fans are all the same. But its just not true. Giants fans are different from dodger fans. Laker fans are different from warriors fans. niners fans are different from raiders fans.

I readily admit that I am a nor-cal type of guy. That's why I identify so much with Cal and the Giants, because they seem to personify what I believe in (leftist, intellectual, but inclusive and diverse as well). That's why I find it so confusing when I hear how a person just LOVES the dodgers and Cal. Its not that its wrong, it just seems like something I couldn't do. For me to love a team, they have to represent me. For instance, I never really loved the niners. I grew up during montana, rice, et al. My Cal-underdog self just could not sum up the passion for a team that won so easily. Hence, why I fell in love with the Giants instead. What can I say, Cal fans love heartbreak.

If I had to move to LA for work, and had to become a fan, I would probably choose to be a Clippers fan and not a Lakers fan because that's just who I am. If I had chosen to go to LA for school, I would have enjoyed UCLA (obviously I would never go to SC) but I wouldn't have LOVED UCLA because I prefer the grungy feel of Berkeley more than the beautifully manicured oasis of westwood. that's simply a personal preference.

Now I suppose I went about this question the wrong way. I understand that once you grow up in a certain place, there is no way to change that. I never said that if you move up to nor-cal you should stop liking the lakers/dodgers. Not once did I even imply that. So I guess the better question is; why did you so-cal people choose Cal over UCLA? Don't say better academics, cause that's a lame answer. We can joke all we want, but the difference between Cal and UCLA isn't that great. So then why? Why do so-cal people choose Cal over UCLA? I'm actually asking honestly, cause this has always been something I've wondered. Is it just to get away from home? Just for a change of scenery? Or is it because all-things Berkeley truly appeal to you?

Wow Ducky didn't expect such an impassioned treatise in respond to my pithy comment. As a transplanted Easterner I am unqualified to debate these arcane points. I will say I always think the SoCal Nocal debate is mostly gross stereotyping-mostly by people from northern California. People from both California's are a lot closer to each other than they are to the rest of the country

BowDowntoWashington;841904551 said:

---

So kids who are from LA who have grown up as Dodgers/Lakers fans should immediately become fans of Bay Area professional sports teams once they move to Berkeley? That's not how it works. And not everyone who lives in LA is a fan of USC or UCLA. Should Giants fans from the Bay Area who decide to go to college in Southern California switch their allegiances to the Dodgers once they move for college?

I didn't become a fan of the Mariners, Sonics, or Seahawks when I moved up to Seattle for college.

---

May dad grew up in LA and came to northern california eventually going to Cal. He has always disliked LA and most things associated with it. I was raised by him to be a Cal, Giants/A's, and Raiders/49ers fan. Oh and a Warriors fan. Clearly there is a difference between those that come to Cal as part of an intentional effort to divorce oneself from southern Cal and those who are just using Cal for the degree opportunity and as a result became a Cal football fan. Cal is not just an academic institution, it is a distinctly northern California institution because you will never find a city anything like Berkeley in SoCal. And please don't say Venice Beach. However, there are many other towns in Northern Cal that are similar to Berkeley including parts of S.F., Santa Cruz, areas along the Big Sur coastline, parts of Marin county, Mendocino, Humbolt, Ferndale etc.

The question is are you a so. Cal at heart or a Nor. Cal at heart? If you are So. Cal at heart, then you are just an academic mercenary with no real allegiance to what Berkeley stands for.

heartofthebear;841904605 said:

---

May dad grew up in LA and came to northern california eventually going to Cal. He has always disliked LA and most things associated with it. I was raised by him to be a Cal, Giants/A's, and Raiders/49ers fan. Oh and a Warriors fan. Clearly there is a difference between those that come to Cal as part of an intentional effort to divorce oneself from southern Cal and those who are just using Cal for the degree opportunity and as a result became a Cal football fan. Cal is not just an academic institution, it is a distinctly northern California institution because you will never find a city anything like Berkeley in SoCal. And please don't say Venice Beach. However, there are many other towns in Northern Cal that are similar to Berkeley including parts of S.F., Santa Cruz, areas along the Big Sur coastline, parts of Marin county, Mendocino, Humbolt, Ferndale etc.

The question is are you a so. Cal at heart or a Nor. Cal at heart? If you are So. Cal at heart, then you are just an academic mercenary with no real allegiance to what Berkeley stands for.

---

ok, you were able to put it better than i did.

As an Angel fan, all I have to say is Mike Trout is the truth.

ducky23;841904611 said:

---

ok, you were able to put it better than i did.

---

You inspired me. You hit the nail on the head on what was bothering me about all these norcal dodger fans all along. I just couldn't put it to words until you spoke up. And BowwowWash is a piece of work: a dodger fan, a UW fan, and has nothing to say about Lincecum, plus posts on this board regularly. Either, he's confused or keeps getting kicked out of his home town.
Either way, his posting here doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

ducky23;841904584 said:

---

Like I said before, LA teams represent the "good and bad" of so-cal. You successfully named all the good things and conveniently left out all the bad things; like shallowness, fair-weather, all glam and hollywood, look at me attitude, etc., Nor-cal has its "bad" as well; "leftist, intellectual elitists, yuppie, granola, etc (all characteristics found in niner and giants fans - to a certain degree). Obviously these are gross characterizations, however, such stereotypes do have a bit of truth.

Lets compare the Warriors, Kings and Lakers. You really want to tell me that they are all alike? If I were to give you three adjectives (hollywood, blue-collar, "chip on shoulder") I'm sure you would be able to successfully match up the adjectives to the team without me having to give you the answer.

To deny that each team takes on the character of its local populace is being extremely naive. You can say all you want about how sports fans are all the same. But its just not true. Giants fans are different from dodger fans. Laker fans are different from warriors fans. niners fans are different from raiders fans.

I readily admit that I am a nor-cal type of guy. That's why I identify so much with Cal and the Giants, because they seem to personify what I believe in (leftist, intellectual, but inclusive and diverse as well). That's why I find it so confusing when I hear how a person just LOVES the dodgers and Cal. Its not that its wrong, it just seems like something I couldn't do. For me to love a team, they have to represent me. For instance, I never really loved the niners. I grew up during montana, rice, et al. My Cal-underdog self just could not sum up the passion for a team that won so easily. Hence, why I fell in love with the Giants instead. What can I say, Cal fans love heartbreak.

If I had to move to LA for work, and had to become a fan, I would probably choose to be a Clippers fan and not a Lakers fan because that's just who I am. If I had chosen to go to LA for school, I would have enjoyed UCLA (obviously I would never go to SC) but I wouldn't have LOVED UCLA because I prefer the grungy feel of Berkeley more than the beautifully manicured oasis of westwood. that's simply a personal preference.

Now I suppose I went about this question the wrong way. I understand that once you grow up in a certain place, there is no way to change that. I never said that if you move up to nor-cal you should stop liking the lakers/dodgers. Not once did I even imply that. So I guess the better question is; why did you so-cal people choose Cal over UCLA? Don't say better academics, cause that's a lame answer. We can joke all we want, but the difference between Cal and UCLA isn't that great. So then why? Why do so-cal people choose Cal over UCLA? I'm actually asking honestly, cause this has always been something I've wondered. Is it just to get away from home? Just for a change of scenery? Or is it because all-things Berkeley truly appeal to you?

---

*Warning* this is hecka long.

Ducky this is an very interesting topic, more interesting than what the Dodgers did the last three games (LOL, at least for me - very encouraged that the Dodgers are signing this Cuban prospect named Yasiel Puig, I hope he's at least as good as Cespedes). Anyway, my take on the So Cal/No Cal thing:

I grew up in Koreatown L.A. and the SF Valley. Honestly I did not like the Valley culture growing up. It was a suburban cesspool of strip malls and housing developments with ZERO cultural activities. For all the hipster association it got back in the day (Valley girl, Fast Times at Ridgemont High), it was pretty redneck in that no one seemed to have any ambitions for higher ideology or culture. All I saw were people just content to live out their existence in a very boring place.

So yes, I wanted out of L.A., partly due to wanting to free myself from the grip of my Asian overlording dad (who I love to death but you know what I mean) but also to experience new and exciting things. I actually wanted to go to G-town or Columbia but got rejected at one and wait listed at the other. It was good I didn't go or else I may still be paying to go there to this day (whereas anything incurred at Cal was paid off by graduation).

I grew up a fan of the Dodgers (during "The Infield" days - Garvey, Lopes, Russell, Cey), L.A. Kings, L.A. Rams and yes, UCLA over $C. I wasn't a huge fan of the Lakers, and maybe it is the one time that the ethos of an organization entered into my mind, as you seem to say. I felt that the Lakers had way too many fans and I was more of an underdog type. To me the Rams actually fit that mold, even though they were pretty good, they never got over the hump. Same with the Clippers who I liked but they were so bad it was hard to be too interested. Other than that, as a kid, you don't pick teams based on politics, ideology or even the players themselves per se (it may be different now in the roto world), you root for whatever team you are blessed or cursed with. I know a cousin who is a shape-shifting fan. He grew up in OC with the Angels, moved to Philly so Philly was his team, then now in SF so the Giants are his team. Each rooting interest coincided also with a period of success for them. I personally think that is more unprincipled (just in a sports sense, not a moral sense, all this is about sports, games) to be a shape-shifter than to be in allegiance to a team you perceive to be Hollywood, if you will.

Going up to Cal in 1988, I easily rejected my not so great allegiance to UCLA and wound up being a Cal sports nut from my freshman year. I had to beg people in my dorm to go to football and basketball games as I really wanted a team that I could root for. There was nothing about Cal sports that represented some kind of cultural or sociological significance in my mind. I was just really proud to be a student at Cal and I wanted my sports experience to match that ambition (which it nearly did in 1991 for football).

Meanwhile, my love for the Dodgers, Rams (I loved them until Georgia moved them to St. Louis, ugh) and Kings never faded. I never associated the Dodgers with Hollywood and some kind of bad L.A. ethos. I associated them with my childhood, the O'Malleys, Sandy Koufax, Jackie Robinson, and back then a fan base that would always show up for games -- they always lead the majors in attendance and Dodger Stadium was really for an L.A. sports fan, the Magic Kingdom (pun intended).

One of my fondest memories was watching Game 1 of the 1988 World Series with a bunch of So Cal undergrads in my dorm and after the Gibby HR, all of Unit I was rocking. I think most of the A's fans went home for the weekend. There was nothing that made my allegiance to the Dodgers conflict with anything about Cal or Berkeley or whatever they stood for. I doubt anyone goes too deeply about that in their sports teams. I think if someone was really bent on taking on the Berkeley ethos, they may reject sports altogether as being too corporate and mainstream anyway (see the Tree People). So to tag an L.A. sports team with the complete ethos of L.A., and something to reject because of that, is a bit much in taking sports that seriously. I completely understand about the Dodgers have historically thrown around money obtaining free agents like Daryl Strawberry, Eric Davis, etc. whenever they wanted to. I think the Giants-Dodgers dynamic is very similar to the Bosox-Yankee dynamic. But people in all parts of the political and ideological spectrum and can and do like all four of these teams.

All this said, while I had disdain for the SF Valley and much of the L.A. culture, it is still home to me. My parents are there, it still houses the biggest Koreatown in the world and there are plenty of things I like about L.A. I particularly like the San Gabriel Valley area and Pasadena (there is much more history and culture compared to the rest of L.A.). There is much of L.A. I still hate (traffic, superficial Hollywood types, cost of living, how things are so sprawling). But there are things in the Bay area that's not so great too (traffic, cost of living, snobby uber liberal types). Every town, every community, every school, every class - has strengths and weaknesses. I love living in Honolulu but certainly there are things that I am missing here. Btw, Honolulu seems to more associate with the Giants than the Dodgers, FWIW.

What I find great about sports is allegiance to teams no matter what. I really admire Cubbie fans who have stuck it out for decades. At the same time I pity them. I'm sure fans of other schools feel the same way about us. Did we disavow Cal because SAHPC and new CMS represent some corporate power move and we should be more aligned with the Tree People? I think most of us don't think that way, and I don't think of the Dodgers that way either. And that's why as a fan, I'm proud of being a loyal Dodger fan no matter what. Baseball is very sentimental to me and so are the Dodgers. Turns out, I am more passionate about Cal sports because I feel it directly involves me more and I have more friends that I talk to about it (and then there's Bearinsider, LOL). But there's no conflict there at all.

KoreAmBear;841904451 said:

---

Wow Adrian, you are usually not this delusional when it comes to Cal stuff. Who is jumping off the bandwagon? I just checked, the Dodgers are still in first place along with the Giants. It's called trying to use some self-deprecation, which then is met with condescension. OK then. The division is pretty bad though -- you could rack up wins v. Rockies, Pads and D-Backs pretty good this season. Did you see the Dodgers how they played against the A's and Angels? There's more evidence that this is an anamoly for Zito and Lincecum in their last few starts than the Dodgers coming up against a buzz saw. This is an unprecedented hitting slump and the Giants are definitely lucky to be catching the Dodgers during this time. Not sure why you can't just say that. Sure the Giants are pretty good but the Dodgers just made them look a lot better this series. They are certainly not a dominant team. Two good pitchers right now. Sorry. But neither are the Dodgers a dominant team and even when they had that big lead (lots of NL West teams have struggled) they were certainly not going to blow people away with journeymen starters overachieving.

---

KAB, you have to admit - there have been a surge of bandwagon Dodger fans after the Lakers dropped out of the playoffs proclaiming the Dodgers as the best team in MLB. I blame ESPN for this a little bit. But now that the extremely large lead you guys had on us has dropped to 0, most of those original bandwagoners jumped off the wagon for you guys. Im not saying you are a bandwagon fan and Im not saying the Giants are bandwagon-free (trust me we have a TON of bandwagon fans). What Im saying is, Dodgers Nation is in a decline.

That being said, you can't really tell me the NL West sucks now that the Dodgers suck. Like I said, the NL West is always going to be competitive. You see this all the time in the 2nd half of the season. One team, usually in the bottom, comes out of the middle of nowhere and has a crazy surge. Im calling it now, the division is going to come down between all the teams except the Padres (who have basically hit rock-bottom). The NL West is still competitive.

I think this drop for the Dodgers really shows your main weakness - you are too dependent on Kemp. Sort of like how the Colts were too dependent on Manning, the Dodgers need to make moves ASAP.

Adrian The Cal Bear;841904656 said:

---

KAB, you have to admit - there have been a surge of bandwagon Dodger fans after the Lakers dropped out of the playoffs proclaiming the Dodgers as the best team in MLB. I blame ESPN for this a little bit. But now that the extremely large lead you guys had on us has dropped to 0, most of those original bandwagoners jumped off the wagon for you guys. Im not saying you are a bandwagon fan and Im not saying the Giants are bandwagon-free (trust me we have a TON of bandwagon fans). What Im saying is, Dodgers Nation is in a decline.

That being said, you can't really tell me the NL West sucks now that the Dodgers suck. Like I said, the NL West is always going to be competitive. You see this all the time in the 2nd half of the season. One team, usually in the bottom, comes out of the middle of nowhere and has a crazy surge. Im calling it now, the division is going to come down between all the teams except the Padres (who have basically hit rock-bottom). The NL West is still competitive.

I think this drop for the Dodgers really shows your main weakness - you are too dependent on Kemp. Sort of like how the Colts were too dependent on Manning, the Dodgers need to make moves ASAP.

---

That's fair. There are a lot of bandwagon Dodger fans for sure. I think there is a bigger core of "Diehard" Giant fans (the battery chucks LOL). Sounds like you're still young but if you grew up going to Candlestick, I consider you a diehard haha. Yup Dodgers are too dependent on Kemp and Ethier but hopefully this Cuban kid will be something (signing him today). Uribe is a bust. The demography of Dodger fans has changed the last decade. If you go to Dodger Stadium you will see a huge Latino population at every game. They are actually very passionate fans and not bandwagoners. Anyway, this is my last comment on this thread. Spent too much time on it. Hopefully the Dodgers will stay in the race. I just want this to get me over to Fall Ball. Then I can put all of my attention to whether Maynard has improved, LOL.

KoreAmBear;841904649 said:

---

*Warning* this is hecka long.

Ducky this is an very interesting topic, more interesting than what the Dodgers did the last three games (LOL, at least for me - very encouraged that the Dodgers are signing this Cuban prospect named Yasiel Puig, I hope he's at least as good as Cespedes). Anyway, my take on the So Cal/No Cal thing:

I grew up in Koreatown L.A. and the SF Valley. Honestly I did not like the Valley culture growing up. It was a suburban cesspool of strip malls and housing developments with ZERO cultural activities. For all the hipster association it got back in the day (Valley girl, Fast Times at Ridgemont High), it was pretty redneck in that no one seemed to have any ambitions for higher ideology or culture. All I saw were people just content to live out their existence in a very boring place.

So yes, I wanted out of L.A., partly due to wanting to free myself from the grip of my Asian overlording dad (who I love to death but you know what I mean) but also to experience new and exciting things. I actually wanted to go to G-town or Columbia but got rejected at one and wait listed at the other. It was good I didn't go or else I may still be paying to go there to this day (whereas anything incurred at Cal was paid off by graduation).

I grew up a fan of the Dodgers (during "The Infield" days - Garvey, Lopes, Russell, Cey), L.A. Kings, L.A. Rams and yes, UCLA over $C. I wasn't a huge fan of the Lakers, and maybe it is the one time that the ethos of an organization entered into my mind, as you seem to say. I felt that the Lakers had way too many fans and I was more of an underdog type. To me the Rams actually fit that mold, even though they were pretty good, they never got over the hump. Same with the Clippers who I liked but they were so bad it was hard to be too interested. Other than that, as a kid, you don't pick teams based on politics, ideology or even the players themselves per se (it may be different now in the roto world), you root for whatever team you are blessed or cursed with. I know a cousin who is a shape-shifting fan. He grew up in OC with the Angels, moved to Philly so Philly was his team, then now in SF so the Giants are his team. Each rooting interest coincided also with a period of success for them. I personally think that is more unprincipled (just in a sports sense, not a moral sense, all this is about sports, games) to be a shape-shifter than to be in allegiance to a team you perceive to be Hollywood, if you will.

Going up to Cal in 1988, I easily rejected my not so great allegiance to UCLA and wound up being a Cal sports nut from my freshman year. I had to beg people in my dorm to go to football and basketball games as I really wanted a team that I could root for. There was nothing about Cal sports that represented some kind of cultural or sociological significance in my mind. I was just really proud to be a student at Cal and I wanted my sports experience to match that ambition (which it nearly did in 1991 for football).

Meanwhile, my love for the Dodgers, Rams (I loved them until Georgia moved them to St. Louis, ugh) and Kings never faded. I never associated the Dodgers with Hollywood and some kind of bad L.A. ethos. I associated them with my childhood, the O'Malleys, Sandy Koufax, Jackie Robinson, and back then a fan base that would always show up for games -- they always lead the majors in attendance and Dodger Stadium was really for an L.A. sports fan, the Magic Kingdom (pun intended).

One of my fondest memories was watching Game 1 of the 1988 World Series with a bunch of So Cal undergrads in my dorm and after the Gibby HR, all of Unit I was rocking. I think most of the A's fans went home for the weekend. There was nothing that made my allegiance to the Dodgers conflict with anything about Cal or Berkeley or whatever they stood for. I doubt anyone goes too deeply about that in their sports teams. I think if someone was really bent on taking on the Berkeley ethos, they may reject sports altogether as being too corporate and mainstream anyway (see the Tree People). So to tag an L.A. sports team with the complete ethos of L.A., and something to reject because of that, is a bit much in taking sports that seriously. I completely understand about the Dodgers have historically thrown around money obtaining free agents like Daryl Strawberry, Eric Davis, etc. whenever they wanted to. I think the Giants-Dodgers dynamic is very similar to the Bosox-Yankee dynamic. But people in all parts of the political and ideological spectrum and can and do like all four of these teams.

All this said, while I had disdain for the SF Valley and much of the L.A. culture, it is still home to me. My parents are there, it still houses the biggest Koreatown in the world and there are plenty of things I like about L.A. I particularly like the San Gabriel Valley area and Pasadena (there is much more history and culture compared to the rest of L.A.). There is much of L.A. I still hate (traffic, superficial Hollywood types, cost of living, how things are so sprawling). But there are things in the Bay area that's not so great too (traffic, cost of living, snobby uber liberal types). Every town, every community, every school, every class - has strengths and weaknesses. I love living in Honolulu but certainly there are things that I am missing here. Btw, Honolulu seems to more associate with the Giants than the Dodgers, FWIW.

What I find great about sports is allegiance to teams no matter what. I really admire Cubbie fans who have stuck it out for decades. At the same time I pity them. I'm sure fans of other schools feel the same way about us. Did we disavow Cal because SAHPC and new CMS represent some corporate power move and we should be more aligned with the Tree People? I think most of us don't think that way, and I don't think of the Dodgers that way either. And that's why as a fan, I'm proud of being a loyal Dodger fan no matter what. Baseball is very sentimental to me and so are the Dodgers. Turns out, I am more passionate about Cal sports because I feel it directly involves me more and I have more friends that I talk to about it (and then there's Bearinsider, LOL). But there's no conflict there at all.

---

KAB, that's completely fair. I know its just not me, but dodgers fans nowadays seem to be this strange mix of raider type fans and these total fairweather fans. Yes, all organizations have their fair share of fairweather fans, and the giants have a lot, but the giants also have a huge contingent of hardcore fans who really know the game and have suffered through candlestick. So I wish there were more dodger fans like you KAB, who actually have a passion and understanding of the game.

And this is a complete tangent, but I'm glad to hear that you came to Berkeley for "the right reasons." Nothing annoys me more than when I hear someone from so-cal say they came to Berkeley without visiting first, walked around campus, walked around the city, experienced telegraph and completely hated it. But stuck it out cause of the Cal degree. that's BS. you could have gotten the same education at UCLA and you probably would have felt more at home. Why take up a spot for someone who would have truly appreciated all that Cal has to offer.

ducky23;841904673 said:

---

KAB, that's completely fair. I know its just not me, but dodgers fans nowadays seem to be this strange mix of raider type fans and these total fairweather fans. Yes, all organizations have their fair share of fairweather fans, and the giants have a lot, but the giants also have a huge contingent of hardcore fans who really know the game and have suffered through candlestick. So I wish there were more dodger fans like you KAB, who actually have a passion and understanding of the game.

And this is a complete tangent, but I'm glad to hear that you came to Berkeley for "the right reasons." Nothing annoys me more than when I hear someone from so-cal say they came to Berkeley without visiting first, walked around campus, walked around the city, experienced telegraph and completely hated it. But stuck it out cause of the Cal degree. that's BS. you could have gotten the same education at UCLA and you probably would have felt more at home. Why take up a spot for someone who would have truly appreciated all that Cal has to offer.

---

FWIW my first tour of Berkeley was the campus and the Shattuck area (we happened to be parked around there). I was drawn to the energy of the town and beauty of the campus. I was hooked. But later, my introduction to Telegraph was great - I loved all the shops, cafes and eateries. I didn't mind the panhandling. I was amazed by Blondies at first and thought I could have this every day (not knowing Fat Slice was better haha).

KoreAmBear;841904649 said:

---

*Warning* this is hecka long.

Ducky this is an very interesting topic, more interesting than what the Dodgers did the last three games (LOL, at least for me - very encouraged that the Dodgers are signing this Cuban prospect named Yasiel Puig, I hope he's at least as good as Cespedes). Anyway, my take on the So Cal/No Cal thing:

I grew up in Koreatown L.A. and the SF Valley. Honestly I did not like the Valley culture growing up. It was a suburban cesspool of strip malls and housing developments with ZERO cultural activities. For all the hipster association it got back in the day (Valley girl, Fast Times at Ridgemont High), it was pretty redneck in that no one seemed to have any ambitions for higher ideology or culture. All I saw were people just content to live out their existence in a very boring place.

So yes, I wanted out of L.A., partly due to wanting to free myself from the grip of my Asian overlording dad (who I love to death but you know what I mean) but also to experience new and exciting things. I actually wanted to go to G-town or Columbia but got rejected at one and wait listed at the other. It was good I didn't go or else I may still be paying to go there to this day (whereas anything incurred at Cal was paid off by graduation).

I grew up a fan of the Dodgers (during "The Infield" days - Garvey, Lopes, Russell, Cey), L.A. Kings, L.A. Rams and yes, UCLA over $C. I wasn't a huge fan of the Lakers, and maybe it is the one time that the ethos of an organization entered into my mind, as you seem to say. I felt that the Lakers had way too many fans and I was more of an underdog type. To me the Rams actually fit that mold, even though they were pretty good, they never got over the hump. Same with the Clippers who I liked but they were so bad it was hard to be too interested. Other than that, as a kid, you don't pick teams based on politics, ideology or even the players themselves per se (it may be different now in the roto world), you root for whatever team you are blessed or cursed with. I know a cousin who is a shape-shifting fan. He grew up in OC with the Angels, moved to Philly so Philly was his team, then now in SF so the Giants are his team. Each rooting interest coincided also with a period of success for them. I personally think that is more unprincipled (just in a sports sense, not a moral sense, all this is about sports, games) to be a shape-shifter than to be in allegiance to a team you perceive to be Hollywood, if you will.

Going up to Cal in 1988, I easily rejected my not so great allegiance to UCLA and wound up being a Cal sports nut from my freshman year. I had to beg people in my dorm to go to football and basketball games as I really wanted a team that I could root for. There was nothing about Cal sports that represented some kind of cultural or sociological significance in my mind. I was just really proud to be a student at Cal and I wanted my sports experience to match that ambition (which it nearly did in 1991 for football).

Meanwhile, my love for the Dodgers, Rams (I loved them until Georgia moved them to St. Louis, ugh) and Kings never faded. I never associated the Dodgers with Hollywood and some kind of bad L.A. ethos. I associated them with my childhood, the O'Malleys, Sandy Koufax, Jackie Robinson, and back then a fan base that would always show up for games -- they always lead the majors in attendance and Dodger Stadium was really for an L.A. sports fan, the Magic Kingdom (pun intended).

One of my fondest memories was watching Game 1 of the 1988 World Series with a bunch of So Cal undergrads in my dorm and after the Gibby HR, all of Unit I was rocking. I think most of the A's fans went home for the weekend. There was nothing that made my allegiance to the Dodgers conflict with anything about Cal or Berkeley or whatever they stood for. I doubt anyone goes too deeply about that in their sports teams. I think if someone was really bent on taking on the Berkeley ethos, they may reject sports altogether as being too corporate and mainstream anyway (see the Tree People). So to tag an L.A. sports team with the complete ethos of L.A., and something to reject because of that, is a bit much in taking sports that seriously. I completely understand about the Dodgers have historically thrown around money obtaining free agents like Daryl Strawberry, Eric Davis, etc. whenever they wanted to. I think the Giants-Dodgers dynamic is very similar to the Bosox-Yankee dynamic. But people in all parts of the political and ideological spectrum and can and do like all four of these teams.

All this said, while I had disdain for the SF Valley and much of the L.A. culture, it is still home to me. My parents are there, it still houses the biggest Koreatown in the world and there are plenty of things I like about L.A. I particularly like the San Gabriel Valley area and Pasadena (there is much more history and culture compared to the rest of L.A.). There is much of L.A. I still hate (traffic, superficial Hollywood types, cost of living, how things are so sprawling). But there are things in the Bay area that's not so great too (traffic, cost of living, snobby uber liberal types). Every town, every community, every school, every class - has strengths and weaknesses. I love living in Honolulu but certainly there are things that I am missing here. Btw, Honolulu seems to more associate with the Giants than the Dodgers, FWIW.

What I find great about sports is allegiance to teams no matter what. I really admire Cubbie fans who have stuck it out for decades. At the same time I pity them. I'm sure fans of other schools feel the same way about us. Did we disavow Cal because SAHPC and new CMS represent some corporate power move and we should be more aligned with the Tree People? I think most of us don't think that way, and I don't think of the Dodgers that way either. And that's why as a fan, I'm proud of being a loyal Dodger fan no matter what. Baseball is very sentimental to me and so are the Dodgers. Turns out, I am more passionate about Cal sports because I feel it directly involves me more and I have more friends that I talk to about it (and then there's Bearinsider, LOL). But there's no conflict there at all.

---

Great response KAB. That was "HELLA" long. Lol.

The Dodgers, Lakers and yes, the LA Rams, all have proud histories. If you grew up in LA, I would expect that your loyalty to them would be unwavering.
I understand the points about how it could seem incongruous to love LA teams and Cal but your explanation clearly shows how one could do it.

I live in New York where there are tons of Cal Alums who root for lots of different pro teams. Doesn't matter to me because we all love Cal. That is what unites us.

I'm from NorCal and grew up freezing my ass off at Candlestick Park watching bad Giants/49er teams during my childhood. Obviously, the Niners changed all that during the 80's-90's and the Giants more recently. I'll always be a fan of those teams. Good or bad.
I understand and appreciate your loyalties. At least you're consistant, unlike your cousin.

I lived in LA for 7 years and didn't hate it but didn't love it either. I loved SF and now love NYC. It sucked being surrounded by the teams and fans that I grew hating but I grew to respect and love many of these people. On a side note, one of the very few things that I miss about LA is the Korean food. I regularly dream of Park's on Vermont.

Northern Californians (myself included) tend to be far more parochial then our neighbors to the south. We bash them A LOT more than they ever do us.

I love that Dodgers fans can love Cal. Nothing used to surprise me and make me smile more than when a person wearing a Dodgers cap would shout out "Go Bears" to me. They may have been my hated enemy when it came to baseball but in life we agree on something even more important.

GO BEARS!!!

To those Dodger fans that really think the Giants pitching dominance is just about a Dodger slump:

Despite the fact that we have 2 under performing Cy Young award winners on staff and our all-star closer has been out all year, we have a team ERA ranks 3rd in the majors, tied for 8th in complete games, 2nd in shutouts, tied for 6th in WHIP, 4th in opponents batting AVG. Again, these are all Major League rankings. In other words, the Giants have been doing it all year to all the teams. And tonight they did it to the Reds, a team generally considered to be a decent hitting team. Yes, the Giants haven't been perfect, they got hit hard by Texas and the Angels and have been hit hard by the Diamondbacks and the Rockies. But, more often than not, the have shut down good hitting teams far better than the rest of the league and, considering that the pitching is not what it could be with Lincecum and Wilson, they are scary good. Are they going to be a World Series champion?, probably not. Will the Dodgers have their moments and victories over the Giants?, certainly. It should be an exciting and competitive race that might include the Diamondbacks and even the Rockies (given their late season hot streaks). Neither team sucks and both should be very competitive with the eastern teams. But the Giants pitching is not a fluke, they've been doing it for 3 years.

To weigh in this Giants staff is the best in Giants history and may be one of the best of the last 30 years. Of course this assumes that Lincecum returns to form.

I don't get why Vogelsong is so underrated. He's going 7 ever start and giving up 3 or less every start. Sure he's not going to wow you with sabermetric stats but his Era is still 2.27 and as #4 he's better than anyone else #4 pitcher by a long shot.

Bumgarner is 22 years old and looks to have Randy Johnson's slider and pitches like Glavine.

The Giants should have 3 of their starters in the all-star game but due to numbers won't get them.

To be fair the Dodgers lineups is atrocious right now. I won't write LA off but it's going to be extremely difficult for the Dodgers to stay in the race because the starting pitching isn't as good as SF or Arizona and the lineup is oriented on Kemp.

Saw this posted elsewhere, thought it was funny.

"The Giants won't take McCurdy, right?" says Billy. The San Francisco Giants had the twenty-fifth pick, the only pick between the A's next two. "Take Blanton with 24 and McCurdy with 26." "Swisher and Blanton and McCurdy," says Erik "This is unfair." He clicks the button on the speakerphone, and his voice shaking like a man calling in to say he holds the winning Lotto ticket, takes Blanton with the twenty-fourth pick, pauses while the Giants make their pick, then takes McCurdy.

- excerpt from Moneyball

i'll let you guess who the giants picked with 25.

Cain.

ducky23;841904838 said:

---

Saw this posted elsewhere, thought it was funny.

"The Giants won't take McCurdy, right?" says Billy. The San Francisco Giants had the twenty-fifth pick, the only pick between the A's next two. "Take Blanton with 24 and McCurdy with 26." "Swisher and Blanton and McCurdy," says Erik "This is unfair." He clicks the button on the speakerphone, and his voice shaking like a man calling in to say he holds the winning Lotto ticket, takes Blanton with the twenty-fourth pick, pauses while the Giants make their pick, then takes McCurdy.

- excerpt from Moneyball

i'll let you guess who the giants picked with 25.

---

Yup, the Giants got Cain with that pick, which was (slightly) ridiculed in the book for being a high school pitching prospect (as those don't usually work out). Turns out there that the Giants got the best of it.

In fairness, Swisher and Blanton also turned out to be good pros, so I wouldn't say the A's were wrong in picking them.

KoreAmBear;841904503 said:

---

in my opinion, the Dodger offense made Zito and Lincecum look way better than they are. Time will tell, like everything

---

I see what you did there. It's cute when you dodger fans mock SC fans. Reminds me of all the times that TW pretended that Jahvid would be no better than third string on the Toejams.

cal4life;841904726 said:

---

Lamest post of the thread. I went to Cal because it was a great school, and I had a great time there and have a strong allegiance to the university. I am a die hard Cal sports fan, but I root for the Dodgers, Lakers, and the Stanley Cup Champion Kings. You don't have to be embedded in the nor cal vibe to get Cal.

---

This.

Twice the Giants and Dodgers were in a playoff 2 out of 3 series to see who would go to the World Series. Both times it wasn't decided until the 9th inning of game 3. both times the Giants game from behind in the 9th to win.
In 1951 in New York with Bobby Thomson's HR.



and in 1962 when the Giants came from behind sorring 4 runs in the top of the 9th in L.A. to go ahead 6-, Billy Pierce came in in the bottom of the 9th, held the Dodgers without a hit, getting a save.

RichyBear;841905024 said:

---

Twice the Giants and Dodgers were in a playoff 2 out of 3 series to see who would go to the World Series. Both times it wasn't decided until the 9th inning of game 3. both times the Giants game from behind in the 9th to win.
In 1951 in New York with Bobby Thomson's HR.



and in 1962 when the Giants came from behind sorring 4 runs in the top of the 9th in L.A. to go ahead 6-, Billy Pierce came in in the bottom of the 9th, held the Dodgers without a hit, getting a save.

---

Apparently your Giants didn't enjoy being in first. GO DODGERS !!! GO BEARS !!!

uchighlander;841906699 said:

---

Apparently your Giants didn't enjoy being in first. GO DODGERS !!! GO BEARS !!!

---

Timmy is back everyone! Whoo hoo he dominated the Dodgers.

Moral of the story. No need to be so cocky during the mid-point of the season. Both teams are going to be up and down. I would love a contested playoff run by both teams to make it interesting.