User talk:75.10.103.144

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do not alter an historically accurate entry in order to express your personal preference. The Giants are the older team and the one with a slight historical superiority. The rivalry is known as "Giants-Dodgers" not the reverse. The entry respected those traditions, while also reflecting an overall lack of bias by alternating which team was mentioned first in those instances where balance is important.

Also, do not change a carefull chosen word: your removal of "those" shows lack of awareness of the antecendent, a key reference in the paragraph. TrueC 01:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


I am delighted to know you strive for fair editing, and I accept what you did in that spirit. You too are right, in that the history of both the Dodgers and the Giants does go back to the same year, 1883. However, I believe the more relevant operative point for the precedence of the Giants is that the Dodgers entered the National League as we know it in 1990, while the Giants' membership in the league began 7 years earlier, in 1883. In effect, it makes the longevity of the Giants in their current status longer than that of the Dodgers in theirs. Does that make sense?
As for whose name goes first, I think the entry should alternate the references as much as possible, and should specifically in how the present and past logos are aligned since there is a fixed double pair and alternating the two by two pairs makes for a neat (and fair!) chiasmus.
Finally, I thank you for re-considering my reversion of the grammatical construction. Actually, going back and forth with that shows how much enjoyment there is in collaborating on Wikipedia with someone like you. Now, how about taking on a user name so your presence is felt as you edit. Best wishes! TrueC 21:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I must have put 1990 instead of 1890 because I may have often wished that the Dodgers had not entered the league until then. Giants fans like me could have done without the Dodgers' clear success in the mid-'50s, mid-'60s, and most of the '70s, relative to the Giants. But the rivalry is a stellar one and whenever the Giants are out of contention, I do like to see the Dodgers advance. The same cannot be said, I think, of Red Sox fans vis-à-vis the Yankees. I thought the Dodgers were very classy in defeat a couple of years ago when the Cardinals eliminated them in the playoffs. I write this at a high moment, incidentally, as ex-Dodger and current Giant Steve Finley has just tripled to give the Giants a large lead in a previously tight game. So it is a bit easier to be generous about the Dodgers right now. Best wishes, and I've enjoyed meeting, despite having probably overreacted at first! TrueC 23:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
And I don't blame you for getting irritated when the Giants win. I grew up in the New York area when they were still the N.Y. Giants. My friends were equally divided among Giant, Dodger, and Yankee fans, but I have to say that the Dodger fans were invariably more fun and better baseball fans than the Yankee fans. And Giant fans were occasionally aloof and a bit arrogant. My first MLB game was when my Dad took me to the Polo Grounds on August 11, 1953, to see a Dodger-Giant game. Carl Erskine 2-hit the Giants, beating Sal Maglie, with Hank Thompson getting both Giant hits, which at least were clean singles. The Dodgers won 4-0, on a grand slam by Duke Snider. Ever since then, I have been sensitive not only about Giant losses to the Dodgers, but also to the Giants not getting equal time in any discussion. When I cool off, I respect my counterparts who bleed that classy Dodger Blue! Take care! TrueC 04:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your comment and I am happy to see your kind recognition of what the Giants have achieved even while falling short the past several years. The Dodgers and Giants are great franchises, and along with maybe the Cardinals, there are none better in all of baseball. I not only mean on the field, but in the social history of the country as well. Isn't it apt that the teams split the 4-game series this weekend as you and I worked out some resolution to our rough beginning? And that they are even for the year right now as the season pauses for a few days, too? Good luck in the second half! I wouldn't mind seeing the division come down to the final series in SF, September 29 and 30, and October 1, and maybe even with a Giant-Dodger playoff on October 3 after a rain cancellation on that Monday to prolong the agony and the thrill. Or perhaps the wild-card race can be factored in too so that both teams make the playoffs. It is possible, the way things are going! TrueC 18:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


Well, we'll have to watch this season develop. Let's keep in touch in the hopes of enjoying meaningful head-to-head series the rest of the way.

Meanwhile, the 9th inning NL collapse tonight was rather expected, wasn't it? Perhaps Trevor Hoffman can continue to blow games in order to pave the way for the Dodger-Giant showdown. TrueC 04:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I was fairly sure Schmidt would not pitch...because he had pitched Sunday. He certainly can be dominant--I was at the game in 2004 when he 1-hit the Red Sox, and was truly unhittable--and might have been the closer the NL need to win finally. Plus the Giants are off until Friday, so their rotation should not have been relevant. The one thing against bringing him in is that he is oftern awful in the first inning, and I'm sure Garner did not want to be criticized for losing by making the wrong choice, and no critic is going to argue with the best percentage closer of all time. You will be interested to know that the decision, or non-decision, I am annoyed about is not calling uhttp://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_italic.png

Italic textpon Garciaparra to pinch hit in a key situation. He is probably the hottest hitter in baseball right now, and is acting like a winner in all ways now that he is happy again. TrueC 19:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Not only Garciaparra, but Andruw Jones and Scott Rolen, too. That's a great deal of run-producing talent and experience to pass up. I suspect Garner favored the non-Cardinal Central Division players, especially Astros and Pirates. He left out Chris Carpenter as well. As for Schmidt, I never feel too bad when a Giant's ace does not make it into the All-Star Game...ever since Atlee Hammaker, who'd had a fantastic first half in 1983, gave up 7 runs in the 3rd inning of the All-Star Game that season, including a grand slam to Fred Lynn, to allow the AL to break its 11-game losing streak. Imagine the ignominy if Schmidt had been the one to let this one slip away! But my hunch is that the NL team will take the Series in October. And whatever happens this year, remember that next year's All-Star Game is at AT&T Park! I know we'll win that one. TrueC 00:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I remember the Gagne blown save in the All-Star Game during his incredible regular season streak very, very well. It hit me with a kind of painful irony at the time. This year, I am sorry he is out for the season. I'd rather compete against the Dodgers with Gagne present.
I must say I think the All-Star Game should be handled as both as a showcase of stars and as genuine competition, with players having much more say in who goes, and fans some say but less so. I don't think all teams should necessarily be represented because it dilutes the talent to do so. I think the managers should try to use as many players as possible but that managing to win is more important because that is what competition is for. Finally, I hate the outcome having anything to do with the World Series. That is a battle of two teams who have survived competition for their respective leagues, and the old system of alternating home field for the Series was the only fair way to minimize that factor, which I think is the best way to arrive at an ultimate winner. Using the All-Star Game as a mechanism to decide the 2-3-2 home/away sequence belies the purpose of the All-Star Game, which should be an entertaining break from the ongoing season's competition to feature competition between two sets of star players, for which the league breakdown is sensible, convenient, and interesting in and of itself. To add on this Series business contradicts what the All-Star Game was set up for and should remain! TrueC 04:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it becoming more and more apparent that the Dodgers and the Giants are like Yin and Yang, and that their co-existence and competition form a bond that is part of the universal scheme of things? I had of course had a sense of this, but our dialogue has really brought it out. (Let's agree not to argue about which team is Yin and which is Yang!) TrueC 04:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations to your Dodgers on making the playoffs! The Giants should be on the Dodger payroll for 2006. Not their best showing for our rivalry, was it? TrueC 23:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Re: Dodgers edits

Okay, fair enough given your reasoning. However, I did edit it to make use of the past tense rather than the present. I can say with near certainty that if it las left with the phrase "As of the All Star break" someone would have edited it after the team's next game to "As of July 14, the Dodgers were 47-42", and that would turn the page into the news service, with Wikipedia is not. I think the edit I just made does so without changing what you wanted to say. Best wishes. - Pal 20:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)