Big Bad Dodgers buying another WS

[Cranny]

Why are we being critical of ownership that spends $$$$?

Envy

No envy at all. Would rather root for the underdog.

An underdog champion gets the same exact trophy as a money spending champion.

Guess it's all in how one looks at it, eh banner? And how we look at it is okay either way. Right?

And you would rather lose with an “underdog” while hoping they prevail like some kind of inspirational sports movie like “the little giants” than just simply win with a superior team.

It’s weird. But You do you

The Cardinals were underdogs in 2006 and 2011. They will
probably always be the underdog because of the size of markets and cable contracts.

So with MV3(Pujols, Edmonds, Rolen, Carpenter, LaRussa…) and winning 100 and 105 games the previous 2 years and having the 2nd best odds in Vegas going into the season. The 2006 Cards were UNDERDOGS. Cranny when you get programmed(brainwashed) you’ll go down with the party line despite the glaring obvious facts to the contrary

They actually were underdogs based on the pre-season odds of winning the World Series in both 2006 and 2011.
You need to check multiple sources for those odds.

Why won’t you yourself provide the sources that you swear exist to support your accusation?

https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news ... icks-2006/

Picked to win NL Central
Picked by a couple pundits to make it to WS
A. Pujols unanimous MVP
C. Carpenter in Cy Young contention

Cranny=Underdogs

Were they favorites to win the WS, Goldfan?

[Goldfan]

Why are we being critical of ownership that spends $$$$?

Envy

No envy at all. Would rather root for the underdog.

An underdog champion gets the same exact trophy as a money spending champion.

Guess it's all in how one looks at it, eh banner? And how we look at it is okay either way. Right?

And you would rather lose with an “underdog” while hoping they prevail like some kind of inspirational sports movie like “the little giants” than just simply win with a superior team.

It’s weird. But You do you

The Cardinals were underdogs in 2006 and 2011. They will
probably always be the underdog because of the size of markets and cable contracts.

So with MV3(Pujols, Edmonds, Rolen, Carpenter, LaRussa…) and winning 100 and 105 games the previous 2 years and having the 2nd best odds in Vegas going into the season. The 2006 Cards were UNDERDOGS. Cranny when you get programmed(brainwashed) you’ll go down with the party line despite the glaring obvious facts to the contrary

They actually were underdogs based on the pre-season odds of winning the World Series in both 2006 and 2011.
You need to check multiple sources for those odds.

Why won’t you yourself provide the sources that you swear exist to support your accusation?

https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news ... icks-2006/

Picked to win NL Central
Picked by a couple pundits to make it to WS
A. Pujols unanimous MVP
C. Carpenter in Cy Young contention

Cranny=Underdogs

Were they favorites to win the WS, Goldfan?

So in your mind in order to be a viable contender to WIN the WS before the season…….All Pundits(who have as much predictive power as CT posters) need to write “WS WINNER Stl Cardinals” on every PREDICTION….or you will claim after they win the WS that season that they were lucky underdogs….
Cranny, what color is the sky in you world?

[Cranny]

Envy

No envy at all. Would rather root for the underdog.

An underdog champion gets the same exact trophy as a money spending champion.

Guess it's all in how one looks at it, eh banner? And how we look at it is okay either way. Right?

And you would rather lose with an “underdog” while hoping they prevail like some kind of inspirational sports movie like “the little giants” than just simply win with a superior team.

It’s weird. But You do you

The Cardinals were underdogs in 2006 and 2011. They will
probably always be the underdog because of the size of markets and cable contracts.

So with MV3(Pujols, Edmonds, Rolen, Carpenter, LaRussa…) and winning 100 and 105 games the previous 2 years and having the 2nd best odds in Vegas going into the season. The 2006 Cards were UNDERDOGS. Cranny when you get programmed(brainwashed) you’ll go down with the party line despite the glaring obvious facts to the contrary

They actually were underdogs based on the pre-season odds of winning the World Series in both 2006 and 2011.
You need to check multiple sources for those odds.

Why won’t you yourself provide the sources that you swear exist to support your accusation?

https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news ... icks-2006/

Picked to win NL Central
Picked by a couple pundits to make it to WS
A. Pujols unanimous MVP
C. Carpenter in Cy Young contention

Cranny=Underdogs

Were they favorites to win the WS, Goldfan?

So in your mind in order to be a viable contender to WIN the WS before the season…….All Pundits(who have as much predictive power as CT posters) need to write “WS WINNER Stl Cardinals” on every PREDICTION….or you will claim after they win the WS that season that they were lucky underdogs….
Cranny, what color is the sky in you world?

No, but if you take the time to do the research and review multiple sites with predictions, you'll find that they were
pure underdogs to win it all in both 2006 and 2011.

[Banner29]

No envy at all. Would rather root for the underdog.

An underdog champion gets the same exact trophy as a money spending champion.

Guess it's all in how one looks at it, eh banner? And how we look at it is okay either way. Right?

And you would rather lose with an “underdog” while hoping they prevail like some kind of inspirational sports movie like “the little giants” than just simply win with a superior team.

It’s weird. But You do you

The Cardinals were underdogs in 2006 and 2011. They will
probably always be the underdog because of the size of markets and cable contracts.

So with MV3(Pujols, Edmonds, Rolen, Carpenter, LaRussa…) and winning 100 and 105 games the previous 2 years and having the 2nd best odds in Vegas going into the season. The 2006 Cards were UNDERDOGS. Cranny when you get programmed(brainwashed) you’ll go down with the party line despite the glaring obvious facts to the contrary

They actually were underdogs based on the pre-season odds of winning the World Series in both 2006 and 2011.
You need to check multiple sources for those odds.

Why won’t you yourself provide the sources that you swear exist to support your accusation?

https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news ... icks-2006/

Picked to win NL Central
Picked by a couple pundits to make it to WS
A. Pujols unanimous MVP
C. Carpenter in Cy Young contention

Cranny=Underdogs

Were they favorites to win the WS, Goldfan?

So in your mind in order to be a viable contender to WIN the WS before the season…….All Pundits(who have as much predictive power as CT posters) need to write “WS WINNER Stl Cardinals” on every PREDICTION….or you will claim after they win the WS that season that they were lucky underdogs….
Cranny, what color is the sky in you world?

No, but if you take the time to do the research and review multiple sites with predictions, you'll find that they were
pure underdogs to win it all in both 2006 and 2011.

Which ones?

[Cranny]

An underdog champion gets the same exact trophy as a money spending champion.

Guess it's all in how one looks at it, eh banner? And how we look at it is okay either way. Right?

And you would rather lose with an “underdog” while hoping they prevail like some kind of inspirational sports movie like “the little giants” than just simply win with a superior team.

It’s weird. But You do you

The Cardinals were underdogs in 2006 and 2011. They will
probably always be the underdog because of the size of markets and cable contracts.

So with MV3(Pujols, Edmonds, Rolen, Carpenter, LaRussa…) and winning 100 and 105 games the previous 2 years and having the 2nd best odds in Vegas going into the season. The 2006 Cards were UNDERDOGS. Cranny when you get programmed(brainwashed) you’ll go down with the party line despite the glaring obvious facts to the contrary

They actually were underdogs based on the pre-season odds of winning the World Series in both 2006 and 2011.
You need to check multiple sources for those odds.

Why won’t you yourself provide the sources that you swear exist to support your accusation?

https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news ... icks-2006/

Picked to win NL Central
Picked by a couple pundits to make it to WS
A. Pujols unanimous MVP
C. Carpenter in Cy Young contention

Cranny=Underdogs

Were they favorites to win the WS, Goldfan?

So in your mind in order to be a viable contender to WIN the WS before the season…….All Pundits(who have as much predictive power as CT posters) need to write “WS WINNER Stl Cardinals” on every PREDICTION….or you will claim after they win the WS that season that they were lucky underdogs….
Cranny, what color is the sky in you world?

No, but if you take the time to do the research and review multiple sites with predictions, you'll find that they were
pure underdogs to win it all in both 2006 and 2011.

Which ones?

Just Google 2006 MLB preseason power rankings. Do the same for 2011. You’ll find the results on MLB.com, ESPN, Baseball Prospectus, and several more.

[NYCardsFan]

To pick just one of the almost endless examples one can come up with to show how unenlightening Cranny's bizarre "luck" template is:

Pre-season prediction: "A survey of 165 sportswriters conducted by The Sporting News before the 1984 season showed a clear majority—96 writers—predicted the Orioles would repeat as AL East champions."

What actually happened: The Detroit Tigers led the AL East wire-to-wire, finished 104-58, won their division by 15 games, won the ALCS 3-0, and won the World Series 4-1, completing one of the most dominant seasons of the last 50 years.

Cranny: "The Tigers were lucky: they weren't even favored to win their own division--let alone the World Series--before the start of the season. Look it up!"

[Cranny]

To pick just one of the almost endless examples one can come up with to show how unenlightening Cranny's bizarre "luck" template is:

Pre-season prediction: "A survey of 165 sportswriters conducted by The Sporting News before the 1984 season showed a clear majority—96 writers—predicted the Orioles would repeat as AL East champions."

What actually happened: The Detroit Tigers led the AL East wire-to-wire, finished 104-58, won their division by 15 games, won the ALCS 3-0, and won the World Series 4-1, completing one of the most dominant seasons of the last 50 years.

Cranny: "The Tigers were lucky: they weren't even favored to win their own division--let alone the World Series--before the start of the season. Look it up!"

Still being confrontational, NY? Still prancing around with your superiority complex. You poor little thing.
By the way, I went to college in New York - are you from the city or upstate?

[NYCardsFan]

To pick just one of the almost endless examples one can come up with to show how unenlightening Cranny's bizarre "luck" template is:

Pre-season prediction: "A survey of 165 sportswriters conducted by The Sporting News before the 1984 season showed a clear majority—96 writers—predicted the Orioles would repeat as AL East champions."

What actually happened: The Detroit Tigers led the AL East wire-to-wire, finished 104-58, won their division by 15 games, won the ALCS 3-0, and won the World Series 4-1, completing one of the most dominant seasons of the last 50 years.

Cranny: "The Tigers were lucky: they weren't even favored to win their own division--let alone the World Series--before the start of the season. Look it up!"

Still being confrontational, NY? Still prancing around with your superiority complex. You poor little thing.
By the way, I went to college in New York - are you from the city or upstate?

I made a point about the (il)logic of your argument and provided an historical example to illustrate the point. Your response is to launch into ad hominem attacks. Then you have the audacity to turn around in the very next sentence and ask me personal questions like we're acquaintances. Bizarre. But pretty much par for the course with you.