Quote:
Originally Posted by sike
How does being 1 game from being world champs not serve to motivate differently? In the very same way that being embarrassed by the eventual world champs also motivates. (And I believe we are seeing the fruits of that embarrassment) Remember, thig, you don't have to agree with something for it to be rational. Losing in a seven game series is not the same thing as being embarrassed.
The Rangers were embarrassed and that can only have made the decision of going back to the Phillies that much easier. That is what I am saying. Contending that it wouldn't make any kind of difference seems disconnected with human emotion.
|
I think you're way off base in saying they were embarrassed.
If they'd been swept in four completely uncompetitive games I could maybe see your argument to a certain extent.
But overall your argument really doesn't make much sense. He's leaving a team that made the World Series for another that didn't, and you're claiming that part of his reasoning is because of how poorly (you think) the Rangers showed themselves in the series. That doesn't track with me at all. The only way that makes sense is if the Rangers lost to the team that he left for.
And I'm fully aware of the distinction of "don't agree" and "doesn't make sense". And obviously I don't throw the latter around lightly, especially with someone like you. But I really, really find this stance to be confusing. The Rangers got further than the Phillies last year. How does that result somehow work to their disadvantage?