HOU@TEX Trash Talking Thread

424,309 Views | 3968 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by Charlie Conway
Gigem Trevas
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
quote:
quote:
Based on all of this talk by Ranger fans, it should be considered an utter failure if they don't reach the WS.


What does the WS have to do with trash talk between the Astros and Rangers?
I think it has to do with shifting from no longer worrying about surpassing the Rangers to living vicariously through other teams in the hope that they knock off the Rangers.

Just like their GM who is a Cardinals fan despite having their computers hacked by that very same franchise or their fans who were Blue Jays fans.
GrapevineAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Same reason they came in here touting Altuve... they're just trying to change the argument.
ebdb_bnb
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Change the argument? There is no argument. The Rangers are clearly the better team this year.
akm91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
I certainly don't like tanking for 4 years to stock the farm, but what's done is done... But man, unless ownership is going to spend money and trade some of those prospects to compliment the young guys, then you're the Tampa Bay Rays of the AL West.
Think it's safe to say they are the Rays of the AL West already.

quote:
But don't you have to also wonder why it is that Houston seems so often to be included on players' no trade lists, and wonder why Texas is not?
Luhnow whining about No Trade Clause
ebdb_bnb
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm sure you didn't have your Royal's panties on last postseason, right?
Cynical_Texan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You need good young players, good veterans and a GM with a clue.

The Trestros have one of those...

PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
I'm sure you didn't have your Royal's panties on last postseason, right?
Well, I was glad to see the Royals beat y'all, but I don't recall actively rooting for anyone. I will typically have a team in each series that I'd prefer see win, but once the Rangers went down, I basically switched off baseball until the Winter Meetings. I certainly wasn't going to get some sense of accomplishment based on what other teams did though.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
Change the argument? There is no argument. The Rangers are clearly the better team this year.
Wait, I thought it was just "luck".
Ag2012
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
quote:
Based on all of this talk by Ranger fans, it should be considered an utter failure if they don't reach the WS.


What does the WS have to do with trash talk between the Astros and Rangers?
Historically, absolutely nothing.
mhayden
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
Change the argument? There is no argument. The Rangers are clearly the better team this decade.

FIFY.
We fixed the keg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
Oops.
http://www.crawfishboxes.com/2016/8/2/12347586/astros-fans-should-not-fret-over-the-rangers


Forgot some key points

Wins: large advantage Rangers
Lead: large advantage Rangers
Head2head: large advantage Rangers
Playoff chances: large advantage Rangers

....but yeah, the Astros are a better team.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Was looking at that article again and something stood out to me. They have a "rest-of-season WAR' for Keuchel at 1.6, but Hamels at 1.4.

This is just evidence that "rest-of-season WAR" is such an absurdly ridiculous stat. Hamels has a 4.7 WAR this year while the Astros would be better off replacing Keuchel w/ a AAA pitcher (-0.1 WAR), yet they project Keuchel will provide a greater benefit to the Astros than Hamels to the Rangers?

TexasRebel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
If the Rangers don't play in the WS this year it just goes to show that the Astros are again one step ahead. All the best seats will be taken.
ebdb_bnb
How long do you want to ignore this user?
And you're one of the reasons I brought up the WS. All of your grandiose talk about how great of team they were, are, will be, yet still have the same number of WS.
Cynical_Texan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

quote:
I won't trade what the Astros have coming for what the Rangers have coming for anything. Like I've said, better win it this year.
You realize you sound like your GM?


mhayden
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
And you're one of the reasons I brought up the WS. All of your grandiose talk about how great of team they were, are, will be, yet still have the same number of WS.

I think it's pretty telling that when I reference the Rangers being competitive in the past, present and future that an Astros fans views that as "grandiose".

I guess when you average 100+ losses for 4 straight years then just being competitive would seem grand.
Mozart Paintings
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

quote:
I won't trade what the Astros have coming for what the Rangers have coming for anything. Like I've said, better win it this year.


You would take Hinch and Luhnow over Bannister and Daniels? Okay. Good luck with that.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
And you're one of the reasons I brought up the WS. All of your grandiose talk about how great of team they were, are, will be, yet still have the same number of WS.
But they have been a great team (2 AL pennants and looking for 4th division title in 7 years), they are a great team (currently best record in AL, 2nd best in baseball), and barring 2014-level injuries, they will continue to put productive teams on the field over the next several years at the very least.
ebdb_bnb
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Go back and read all of your novellas throughout this thread. Convenient how you want to minimize it now.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

quote:
Convenient how you want to minimize it now.
Wait, are you saying he waited till the Rangers had the best record in the AL and a 7 game division lead on August 19 before "conveniently" minimizing his view of this team?
ebdb_bnb
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Great? They still have zero WS trophies through that 7 year run, right?
ebdb_bnb
How long do you want to ignore this user?
No genius, his last reply.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
Great? They still have zero WS trophies through that 7 year run, right?
True, zero WS titles, but that doesn't mean they haven't been a great franchise during that stretch. A team that can win back-to-back league pennants is a great team, regardless of what happens in the WS.
ebdb_bnb
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I guess the Buffalo Bills are in the HOF of great teams.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
I guess the Buffalo Bills are in the HOF of great teams.
They did have some great teams. They didn't have any championship teams, but they certainly had some great teams. You don't go to four straight Super Bowls without having a great team.

Using your logic, the Astros have never once had a great team. That '98 team that won 102 games...not great at all. Not even close to being great, given they didn't even make it to the LCS. I have a feeling most Astros fans would disagree with you and could point to certain Astros clubs that they would call "great" despite not even sniffing a championship.
DannyDuberstein
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm enjoying Houston sports fans discussing titles.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
I'm enjoying Houston sports fans discussing titles.
Thank goodness for them Jordan took a mid-career leave of absence. For a fanbase so fixated on the issue of "luck", that sure was one of the luckiest breaks possible.
Quincey P. Morris
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
I guess the Buffalo Bills are in the HOF of great teams.


You would argue a team that made four straight Super Bowls wasn't great? Really?
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
quote:
I guess the Buffalo Bills are in the HOF of great teams.


You would argue a team that made four straight Super Bowls wasn't great? Really?
Even better, using his logic, the 2007 Patriots that went 16-0 were not a great team. Outscored opponents by an average score of 37-17, but not great at all.
747Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Championship smack is always a weird thing. Usually, past history is brought up to give the crappier team's fan base a sense of superiority. Lately, it is a tactic often used by sips regarding football. Also saw it in 2011 when the Mavs won it all. But, this a new take on it: a team than fails to win it all is not great, even if there is a consistent level of high performance in adjacent seasons.
ebdb_bnb
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Great is a subjective term. Does it matter that my opinion differs on which teams are great or not? Will it make you guys feel better if I said the Rangers and Bills are/were great teams? That is the world we live in now.

It's cute how you guys pretend the Rangers and Astros aren't completely average franchises.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

quote:
Great is a subjective term. Does it matter that my opinion differs on which teams are great or not? Will it make you guys feel better if I said the Rangers and Bills are/were great teams? That is the world we live in now.
It's just that you seem to have very odd criteria for "greatness". You keep talking about titles and even use a team that lost 4 straight Super Bowls in your defense, but there's not a football person in America that wouldn't at least say that those Bills teams were great. You set the criteria as winning a title. That criteria, though, was shown to be lacking given the number of great teams that failed to win a title. Were the 2007 Patriots a great team?

quote:
It's cute how you guys pretend the Rangers and Astros aren't completely average franchises.
I don't think anyone here has ever indicated that historically the Rangers or Astros haven't been average, at best. Both have been mediocre franchises, but over the last 7 years, the Rangers have been a great franchise. You argue they haven't because they didn't win a WS, which the 2007 Patriots prove how absurd that logic is.

It's fine if you don't think the Rangers over the past 7 years, especially their 2 AL champion teams, were great. You're right that it is subjective, but you tried to use objective criteria (winning a title). That's what I disagree with you about. The criteria you set is illogical.
747Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
It's just that you seem to have very odd criteria for "greatness". You keep talking about titles and even use a team that lost 4 straight Super Bowls in your defense, but there's not a football person in America that wouldn't at least say that those Bills teams were great.
To that end... http://www.nbcsports.com/football/nfl/best-qbs-never-win-super-bowl-0

Most of those guys, I'd argue were great. A few of them, not so much.
GrapevineAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Objective numbers over the past 8 seasons show that the Astros aren't even close to the Rangers. Texas is averaging 87 wins/season while Houston averages 67. That's a 20-game difference each season! Including this season, the Rangers have won 155 more games.

2 pennants, 3 division titles, and a wildcard appearance >> 0 pennants, 0 division titles, and a wildcard appearance

68-26 head-to-head

7 silver boots >> 1

Yeah, both franchises are average, and therefore there's no difference between them.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
quote:
It's just that you seem to have very odd criteria for "greatness". You keep talking about titles and even use a team that lost 4 straight Super Bowls in your defense, but there's not a football person in America that wouldn't at least say that those Bills teams were great.
To that end... http://www.nbcsports.com/football/nfl/best-qbs-never-win-super-bowl-0

Most of those guys, I'd argue were great. A few of them, not so much.

None are great. NO TITLES!!!



First Page Last Page
Page 87 of 114
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.