Question: Why is it necessary to put another player or players down when supporting one?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Question: Why is it necessary to put another player or players down when supporting one?

    In Response to Re: Question: Why is it necessary to put another player or players down when supporting one?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Question: Why is it necessary to put another player or players down when supporting one? : You are dealt this hand / team and you are basically stuck with it for the season. You can choose to root for the players on your team or take the year off and hope that you are dealt a better team next year. Rooting against those who are disappointing isn't going to change anything on the field. It is not a poker game where you can discard and replace half of your cards. The only other motive to complain is to vent or to annoy others, take your pick.
    Posted by PawsoxPhil[/QUOTE]

    Well, given the constant flux of player movement, you can draw an analogy to a poker hand...to a point.

    In this age of the mercenary, why should fan loyalty echo anything else?
    The landscape has changed dramatically from when most of us were kids.

    Regarding the point of the OP, "putting down players" is a matter of perception. You have constant player bashing, which is more reflective of the fan.

    Then you have "bashing by comparison". Tonight I posted that Wake out-pitched Josh. Am I putting Beckett down? Or simply putting the perception of Wake's game in another context?

    You call it.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from PawsoxPhil. Show PawsoxPhil's posts

    Re: Question: Why is it necessary to put another player or players down when supporting one?

    If you consider your hand of cards to be the 40 man roster plus the Pawsox roster then I saw little change in the team this year since spring training. Two changes at the trading deadline and some movements from Portland to Pawtucket.

    Interesting point that player bashing is reflective of the FAN. Maybe it is more of reflection of the typical Internet poster. Go read other forums on any subject or responses to columnists. One should never generalize that this forum of perhaps 200-300 posters is in any way a barometer of the "real Red Sox fan". It would be shameful if it was.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Question: Why is it necessary to put another player or players down when supporting one?

    In Response to Re: Question: Why is it necessary to put another player or players down when supporting one?:
    [QUOTE]If you consider your hand of cards to be the 40 man roster plus the Pawsox roster then I saw little change in the team this year since spring training. Two changes at the trading deadline and some movements from Portland to Pawtucket. Interesting point that player bashing is reflective of the FAN. Maybe it is more of reflection of the typical Internet poster. Go read other forums on any subject or responses to columnists. One should never generalize that this forum of perhaps 200-300 posters is in any way a barometer of the "real Red Sox fan". It would be shameful if it was.
    Posted by PawsoxPhil[/QUOTE]

    By labeling internet posters as "typical" - you are in fact generalizing.

    As for roster changes, look at the team of 25 players leaving ST camp, and compare them to the 25 that'll play in the post season. It's a mistake to expect more loyalty from fans than players give their teams. Ballplayers change their loyalties continuously.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from PawsoxPhil. Show PawsoxPhil's posts

    Re: Question: Why is it necessary to put another player or players down when supporting one?

    Yes, I've been to many chatrooms and forums in the last dozen years and often read the comments that follow columns. I have read comments made by at least 50,000 Internet posters and I feel qualified to make generalizations about them. There are many on the forum who agree with me that the forum is too negative and always has been and will be into the future. Negative threads remain on page one while the few positive threads disappear in minutes. This is a fact and not a generalization. The most negative threads draw the most responses - fact. It is all driven by the typical Internet poster.

    Regarding the loyalty issue, fans if they really want to call themselves true fans should be loyal to their team and players. It goes with the territory. You can't be disloyal to half the players ( like Softlaw) and still call yourself a fan. Fans are fanatics and root for their players even when they expect they might leave for a better deal elsewhere. If they were more rational, logical, and realistic then they wouldn't keep attending games, watching, listening, and buying souveniers.


     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from kimsaysthis. Show kimsaysthis's posts

    Re: Question: Why is it necessary to put another player or players down when supporting one?

    In Response to Re: Question: Why is it necessary to put another player or players down when supporting one?:
    [QUOTE]If you consider your hand of cards to be the 40 man roster plus the Pawsox roster then I saw little change in the team this year since spring training. Two changes at the trading deadline and some movements from Portland to Pawtucket. Interesting point that player bashing is reflective of the FAN. Maybe it is more of reflection of the typical Internet poster. Go read other forums on any subject or responses to columnists. One should never generalize that this forum of perhaps 200-300 posters is in any way a barometer of the "real Red Sox fan". It would be shameful if it was.
    Posted by PawsoxPhil[/QUOTE]

    I completely agree with this. With all the "pot stirring" posts, and threads started by aliases that no one really knows except they start negative threads about the team, it's not a true indication of what Red Sox fans think, nor should it be viewed that way. It comes with the "anonymous" part of posting.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from kimsaysthis. Show kimsaysthis's posts

    Re: Question: Why is it necessary to put another player or players down when supporting one?

    The 24 hour rule that if a thread doesn't have 10 posts or more it is removed, is devastating to positive threads. I don't know why that rule is in place. That is a ridiculously short amount of time, especially on a board where everyone is constantly told to "keep it real" (like that should be part of a fan board). I don't know any other board where ANY threads are deleted unless they are offensive. And "This discussion is closed" rule after a thread gets to page 3 is also wrong, IMO, since a few posters just responding to threads can just bump other threads up and there they go. But I realize these decisions are not up to me.

    Ironically, Sox fans are almost always just directed back to the negative threads that fill the board - the perception being they're all that's ever posted. I don't get it.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Question: Why is it necessary to put another player or players down when supporting one?

    In Response to Re: Question: Why is it necessary to put another player or players down when supporting one?:
    [QUOTE]Yes, I've been to many chatrooms and forums in the last dozen years and often read the comments that follow columns. I have read comments made by at least 50,000 Internet posters and I feel qualified to make generalizations about them. There are many on the forum who agree with me that the forum is too negative and always has been and will be into the future. Negative threads remain on page one while the few positive threads disappear in minutes. This is a fact and not a generalization. The most negative threads draw the most responses - fact. It is all driven by the typical Internet poster. Regarding the loyalty issue, fans if they really want to call themselves true fans should be loyal to their team and players. It goes with the territory. You can't be disloyal to half the players ( like Softlaw) and still call yourself a fan. Fans are fanaticsand root for their players even when they expect they might leave for a better deal elsewhere. If they were more rational, logical, and realistic then they wouldn't keep attending games, watching, listening, and buying souveniers.
    Posted by PawsoxPhil[/QUOTE]


    Yes. Fans are fanatics. They express their fandom accordingly. I really have never seen two individuals as being "the same". Everybody is different. That's what makes the world interesting. And since people post, I have to say the same thing applies. Everybody is different. To expect others to react as you do or be like you isn't very realistic.

    Now, I don't know 50,000 people. I'm amazed you do. Actually, I don't know how one can be exposed to 50,000 chat posters. I do know of 50,000 people. I know of millions.
    But I don't know them enough to make such a generalization.

    Flesh and blood emotional beings react to phenomenon in varying degrees. That's human nature. Perspective changes as thoughts are processed.
    If you feel the internet landscape is too negative, then find another vehicle that will enforce a greater sense of positivity.

    Stating it won't change it. Understanding it will...for you.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from SinceYaz. Show SinceYaz's posts

    Re: Question: Why is it necessary to put another player or players down when supporting one?

    In Response to Re: Question: Why is it necessary to put another player or players down when supporting one?:
    [QUOTE]Yaz, you said it better than I ever could.  I have been railing against the negativity on this forum for years and sometimes I have to take a break.  It seems those who are negative have more energy.  Baseball, by nature, will end in failure.  You have to get used to that and embrace it.  The stats have to be broken down and new ones created to tell who is good and who is not...and it is a razor thin line.  Many fans think the Sox should be a dynasty.  But what does that mean?  They will lose 60+ games a year and MAYBE win 2 titles in 6 years.  I'd sign for that right now!  But that would be a whole lot of negativity even under that scenario.  The Sox IS (correct grammar) woven into the fabric of my life and so it is more than winning and losing for me.

    In 1975, I fell in love with Rice, Lynn, and Evans.  I played outfield like Lynn, had a cannon like Dewey, and hit the wiffle ball like Jim Ed. In 1976 I saw my first game at Fenway and sat right behind the Sox dugout. In 1977, I went to Ted Williams Camp as opposed to closer camps to my NJ home. In 1980, I had to ace the biology exam to avoid being grounded.  I did and was able to go with all my friends to see Rick Dempsey slide around on the tarp.  1986 had me comforting my mom who really thought she would die before a title.  In 2003 I had to comfort my mom and my wife.  Now, the experiences my mom worked hard to give me, I'm passing onto my to my sons.  So, Yaz, the only negativity I experience is on this forum.  My sons know there is always a game tomorrow and that Pedey plays the game the right way.  I love being able to pinpoint benchmarks in my life relative to a Sox memory.  This thing is so much more than wins and loses for me and mine.
    Posted by jimdavis[/QUOTE]

    I can't beat Spaceman's response.  Not that I'm trying.

    A tribute to both your post and his.  :o)

    The trio you mentioined, when I read it, brought back a rush of memories....what a great, refreshing time that was!  Crown jewels in the outfield and at the plate!  I never played like any pro ...  :o)  Never had any of the qualities, so I can only envy them and you from afar in time and ability.  Not bad envy, but enjoyable.  I had four friends/schoolmates signed to free agent contracts by the Sox ... and they were GOOD players, but never got anywhere that I can recall.  I do remember the scouta walking on to the field after the last home game and takling to them ... 1971 that was. 

    I was devastated when they traded Freddy.  I tought he and Rice would walk into the HOF side by side as Sox.

    I am smiling now as I type, because that was such a lifetime ago.  Wow.  My career was about to start and 31 years later it is finished.  I am just pitching mop up now ....  :o)  But ya gotta keep on pitching.

    Speaking of which, I have been a bit absent.  And hope to be.  Good reason though.  Production is up at the shop over 20% so I have to spend more time there.  I am hoping with the fall it jumps some more, but we'll have to wait and see.  I have opened a new line of offerings to local schools and booster clubs ... so that might get gpoing in the next few weeks.




     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from SinceYaz. Show SinceYaz's posts

    Re: Question: Why is it necessary to put another player or players down when supporting one?

    In Response to Re: Question: Why is it necessary to put another player or players down when supporting one?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Question: Why is it necessary to put another player or players down when supporting one? : Well, given the constant flux of player movement, you can draw an analogy to a poker hand...to a point. In this age of the mercenary, why should fan loyalty echo anything else? The landscape has changed dramatically from when most of us were kids.

    Regarding the point of the OP, "putting down players" is a matter of perception. You have constant player bashing, which is more reflective of the fan.

    Then you have "bashing by comparison". Tonight I posted that Wake out-pitched Josh. Am I putting Beckett down? Or simply putting the perception of Wake's game in another context? You call it.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    Harness,

      As you most surely picked up on this ... you aren't bashing Beckett in comparison.  Simply a game by game comparison.  You haven't gone off to start thread after thread about the poor quality of one over the other.  You haven't made it a habit of pigeion holinh a single player or two and hacing at them in which ever way you can dream up, including using team mates to somehow validate your point. 

      For me it isn't the disagreement, but the (overly negative) lengths one goes to in tearing somebody (some player) down to make the point. 

      I think you know that. 

      Heck, I'm not even saying we have to treat each other with kid gloves.   Some of us need to be treated to straight jackets, but until they catch us and tie us up ....

      But we don't have to grill the team members until their eyes pop out ...

         (That might be kinda cool to see, but it ruins a date when you order rainbow trout and the eyes are ....)
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from law2009a. Show law2009a's posts

    Re: Question: Why is it necessary to put another player or players down when supporting one?

    m
     

Share