Times like these...

[ChaosLex]

This is the thread that keeps on giving. :laughlol:

[TinCup]

Now, what about that is so hard to understand?

Ya just had to end this last post with this line didn't you? Could not leave well enough alone so ya pulled this one of your repertoire.

(sigh)

[TGO]

I'm not sure how many times I have to say this, so I'll say it again...

I fully expect the nature of message boards to be what it is. It is not an environment that is conducive to supporting either the team or individual players when they are struggling. Rather, it is an environment in which players are lauded when they play well and help posters feel good, and are lambasted when they struggle, mainly because that makes posters feel bad. So, when the typical player plays well, posters like him, and when he struggles, posters turn against him. It is what it is, and it happens on message-boards everywhere. It is a phenomenon that is larger than any particular person or group of persons. The same thing is true of talk-radio. I do not expect any of this to change.

Given that message-boards and sports-radio are the places where a subset of fan opinion can be readily sampled, this means that when the team struggles, the main feedback is going to be critical and hostile. This is because of how sports radio and message boards work. It happens because of nobody-and-everybody, and it happens everywhere. It is what it is. To me, this is yet another reason why it would be good to involve former-Oriole-greats as members of the Oriole family, because they can offer legitimate casual support to current Orioles when times are hard, which is precisely when support is needed and is precisely when they are not gonna get support from either message-boards or talk-radio, they're gonna get criticism and hostility instead.

Now, what about that is so hard to understand?

Please. This is a load of dissembling BS. You now claim your argument about people being negative was one of acceptance/it is what it is. You were judging everyone. What was the parenthetical line, "Hope everyone is proud of this" or whatever it was.

[ChaosLex]

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UdmYInXplY&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UdmYInXplY&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

[DrungoHazewood]

Third, when you say it's been the same for at least 100 years, that's just another case of you being wrong as usual. Before the internet and shout-radio, the general tone of baseball discussion wasn't anything like this. Modern media has transformed it into being louder, angrier, and meaner than it ever was before. Part of it is because people can say whatever they want and hide, so they spew crap all over the place. I'm not saying everybody was nice before, but I am saying the general tenor was much nicer before. Sure, there might be some loudmouth in the bar who thought he knew everything and everybody else was an idiot, but it wasn't nearly as common as it is these days.

Plus, when people were face to face, you couldn't get away with the crap that people routinely pull on a message board. If it was face to face in a bar, and if somebody came across with the steady diet of negative crap that you spouting here every season before you run off to watch the Ravens, a couple or three guys would not have gotten in a pissing contest with you about it. They might have picked you up and dunked your head in the toilet, but they wouldn't have wasted time arguing with you ;-)

Actually, what used to happen when a team lost for years and years and years was that the fans would just disappear.

Personally I think that outlets like the Hangout keep fans much more engaged with the team when they're losing.

Back when the St. Louis Browns were absolutely terrible their fans didn't scream anonymously over the interwebs at Harlond Clift and Bobo Newsome. They went fishing. The Baysox sometimes draw more than the early 50s Browns. The Southern Maryland Blue Crabs draw more than a lot of bad major league teams from 50, 75, 100 years ago. In the midst of having 33 losing seasons in 34 years the Phillies drew as few as 166k for the entire year, and had zero people talking about them online.

Which is worse? Complete and total apathy, or thousands of people deeply interested in how to fix their favorite team and sharing those (sometimes insightful, sometimes idiotic) opinions with the world? I'll take today, hands down. Like it or not, people having a deep emotional attachment to their team and ranting about it when things go poorly is better for business.

Of course the tone was nicer. In 1950 nobody screamed about the Browns. Because nobody cared about the Browns.

[TinCup]

This is the thread that keeps on giving. :laughlol:

This is because Shack keeps on "giving"....

:wedge:

(17 posts for Shack herein and still going strong....do I see 18?)

[Lucky Jim]

Actually, what used to happen when a team lost for years and years and years was that the fans would just disappear.

Personally I think that outlets like the Hangout keep fans much more engaged with the team when they're losing.

Back when the St. Louis Browns were absolutely terrible their fans didn't scream anonymously over the interwebs at Harlond Clift and Bobo Newsome. They went fishing. The Baysox sometimes draw more than the early 50s Browns. The Southern Maryland Blue Crabs draw more than a lot of bad major league teams from 50, 75, 100 years ago. In the midst of having 33 losing seasons in 34 years the Phillies drew as few as 166k for the entire year, and had zero people talking about them online.

Which is worse? Complete and total apathy, or thousands of people deeply interested in how to fix their favorite team and sharing those (sometimes insightful, sometimes idiotic) opinions with the world? I'll take today, hands down. Like it or not, people having a deep emotional attachment to their team and ranting about it when things go poorly is better for business.

Yeah. But those people who stayed were genteel.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Actually, what used to happen when a team lost for years and years and years was that the fans would just disappear.

Personally I think that outlets like the Hangout keep fans much more engaged with the team when they're losing.

Back when the St. Louis Browns were absolutely terrible their fans didn't scream anonymously over the interwebs at Harlond Clift and Bobo Newsome. They went fishing. The Baysox sometimes draw more than the early 50s Browns. The Southern Maryland Blue Crabs draw more than a lot of bad major league teams from 50, 75, 100 years ago. In the midst of having 33 losing seasons in 34 years the Phillies drew as few as 166k for the entire year, and had zero people talking about them online.

Which is worse? Complete and total apathy, or thousands of people deeply interested in how to fix their favorite team and sharing those (sometimes insightful, sometimes idiotic) opinions with the world? I'll take today, hands down. Like it or not, people having a deep emotional attachment to their team and ranting about it when things go poorly is better for business.

Of course the tone was nicer. In 1950 nobody screamed about the Browns. Because nobody cared about the Browns.

Drungo=Rangers

RShack=Orioles

30-3.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Yeah. But those people who stayed were genteel.

Only because they knew the players could hear them whisper in those empty parks :laughlol:

[DrungoHazewood]

Yeah. But those people who stayed were genteel.

I think RShack missed his calling. He really should have been a cricket fan. If you show up to Kensington Oval or Lords and don't golf-clap when your best player is bowled out on the first ball, I think they're allowed to behead you.

[RShack]

Actually, what used to happen when a team lost for years and years and years was that the fans would just disappear.

Personally I think that outlets like the Hangout keep fans much more engaged with the team when they're losing.

For the small percentage of fans that we comprise, sure... but let's not pretend that our involvement has a big impact on overall attendance or anything like that...

Also, just to be clear, I do not think the purpose of message boards has beans to do with supporting either the team as a whole or the individual players. The message board is about those fans who participate on the message board, which is one part of why it's about poster emotion, and not about supporting players when they struggle.

If there was some special and separate web site created for the purpose of fans conveying thoughts to the players and coaches, perhaps the tone would be less hostile to them when they are struggling. Or maybe not. (I'm kinda glad we don't know...)

[DrungoHazewood]

For the small percentage of fans that we comprise, sure... but let's not pretend that our involvement has a big impact on overall attendance or anything like that...

Then let's also not pretend that our involvement has a big impact on the mental states of the players or the coaches.

[RShack]

I think RShack missed his calling. He really should have been a cricket fan. If you show up to Kensington Oval or Lords and don't golf-clap when your best player is bowled out on the first ball, I think they're allowed to behead you.

I've got some British friends, and even they can't stand cricket.

Plus, there is some kind of insider joke about it I don't understand... I know a couple British guys who don't know each other... yet when the topic of cricket came up, they both managed to squeeze in the same comment... they mentioned that the last time they went to a cricket match, it was "attended by 10 men and a dog"... not sure if the "10 men and a dog" thing is specific to cricket, or whether it's a generic British joke, or what...

[TGO]

Then let's also not pretend that our involvement has a big impact on the mental states of the players or the coaches.

AND BURIES IT.

[Lucky Jim]

For the small percentage of fans that we comprise, sure... but let's not pretend that our involvement has a big impact on overall attendance or anything like that...

Also, just to be clear, I do not think the purpose of message boards has beans to do with supporting either the team as a whole or the individual players. The message board is about those fans who participate on the message board, which is one part of why it's about poster emotion, and not about supporting players when they struggle.

If there was some special and separate web site created for the purpose of fans conveying thoughts to the players and coaches, perhaps the tone would be less hostile to them when they are struggling. Or maybe not. (I'm kinda glad we don't know...)

I'll note that I actually agree that message boards like this can serve the purpose of amplifying emotions and irrationality. As we've discussed before, I worked with Cass Sunstein on his book Republic.com. Now, his research focuses on echo-chambers like hate-sites, where there's no conversation across ideological lines. But the effects are similar:

Republic.com 2.0 highlights new research on how people are using the Internet, especially the blogosphere. Sunstein warns against "information cocoons" and "echo chambers," wherein people avoid the news and opinions that they don't want to hear.

In other words, irrationality gets reinforced by finding like-minded voices. (Not dissimilar from the Frobby Effect we talked about.) But Drungo is also right - by creating an alternative way to interact with the team and the game - a kind of secondary market - the internet has created a new kind of value that allows fans to stay interested even as their team tumbles.

I will note that I think you sell this kind of forum short when you limit its reach to internal discussion. I don't think this is just about posters. I think it's very much about the team, too. In the same way that political message boards don't involve actual votes but are, in fact, a part of a deliberative democracy.