![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
apocalypsosI have to get this off my chest.
The definition of underdog, according to the American Heritage dictionary, is, "One that is expected to lose a contest or struggle, as in sports or politics." Notice how there is no mention of anybody's payroll.
And even if they were, in a fight between the highest-paid team in baseball and the second-highest paid team in baseball ... well, the Red Sox still make less, don't they? Actually, every single baseball player in the country including guys who play baseball on the donkeys at the circus probably make more than I do, so it's still a bunch of people making more than me or you playing a silly kid's game.
Arguing about their respective payrolls is stupid, like accusing either presidential candidate of being a rich white guy. Newsflash: they're both rich white guys.
Baseball players? All rich guys. Doesn't mean there can't be underdogs.
The definition of underdog, according to the American Heritage dictionary, is, "One that is expected to lose a contest or struggle, as in sports or politics." Notice how there is no mention of anybody's payroll.
And even if they were, in a fight between the highest-paid team in baseball and the second-highest paid team in baseball ... well, the Red Sox still make less, don't they? Actually, every single baseball player in the country including guys who play baseball on the donkeys at the circus probably make more than I do, so it's still a bunch of people making more than me or you playing a silly kid's game.
Arguing about their respective payrolls is stupid, like accusing either presidential candidate of being a rich white guy. Newsflash: they're both rich white guys.
Baseball players? All rich guys. Doesn't mean there can't be underdogs.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-10-21 05:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-21 05:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-21 05:53 am (UTC)But Boston was definitely the underdog... you're right, money has nothing to do with it.
*rolls eyes*
no subject
Date: 2004-10-21 06:14 am (UTC)God, it drives me crazy when people do that.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-21 06:21 am (UTC):-D
no subject
Date: 2004-10-21 06:29 am (UTC)Bossman said relocating me to a new station was the only other option he had aside from laying me off until he got more hours to work with (something that should happen soon, with the holidays approaching), and all I could think was, "Go ahead, lay me off! I could write full-time for a couple of weeks! Come on!"
Alas. *sigh*
no subject
Date: 2004-10-21 06:33 am (UTC)Funny thing about the underdogs- they were favored to win by bettors before the ALCS started. And if payroll were directly proportional to wins, Oakland and Minnesota would be in last place every year rather than playoff contenders, and teams like the Orioles and Mets would have won their divisions.
Whatever. I'm wishing good luck on the 'Stros. Or the Cardinals, if it comes to that. Strangely, I don't feel that bad yet. In 2002 I was tearing my hear out. ;)
-blue
no subject
Date: 2004-10-22 08:54 am (UTC)