The Official 2013 MLB Thread

[ISiddiqui]

McGwire being hated by A's fans after LEAVING is hilarious as a comparison to the hatred of Jose Canseco by everyone, everywhere.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs3

This all started with someone saying "the world is finally catching on to what a bunch of smug, self-satisfied humorless dicks that you are" and you responding that people are just envious of the success.

Bingo. This has little to nothing to do with success. It has to do with the unofficial arbiters of unwritten rules. I mean who hated the Blue Jays in the early 90s? or, heck, even the Braves in the 90s. Braves got a bunch of shit this year for doing what St. Louis has been doing for a decade+.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs3

No, no, no, no.

This all started with someone saying "the world is finally catching on to what a bunch of smug, self-satisfied humorless dicks that you are" and you responding that people are just envious of the success.

Correct

You aren't saying people are "wrong" for not liking the Cardinals - you are telling them that why they think they dislike the Cardinals is wrong.

Now you are getting it. Give the Brewers/Reds/Royals this level of success and they hatred towards them will spike as well.

It's the absolute perfect response to those who say that Cardinals fans are sanctimonious in that it completely proves the point.

I have a feeling that any argument I would use would leave you with this conclusion.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Bingo. This has little to nothing to do with success. It has to do with the unofficial arbiters of unwritten rules. I mean who hated the Blue Jays in the early 90s? or, heck, even the Braves in the 90s. Braves got a bunch of shit this year for doing what St. Louis has been doing for a decade+.

+1

Cardinals hate has little to do with any success they've had. St. Louis fans = Boston fans for the most part, but add in the "greatest fans in baseball" BS, the Cardinals take the top spot. From a personnel perspective, you have recent guys like Chris Carpenter, Molina and LaRussa who are d-bags, but I go back to the 80's when you had Whitey Herzog and hateable guys like Joaquin Andujar, Jack Clark and Ozzie Smith. I've always thought it so hypocritical of Cardinals fans preaching "we respect the game" when they all idolized Ozzie when he was the second biggest showboat in baseball (Rickey Henderson will always be #1).

[Logan]

And now you've gotten VPI posting...

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by panerd

See I think the exact opposite. It's jealousy of the success of teams like Boston and St. Louis. I am in the minority of the Misosuri Tigers fanbase that doesn't hate Kansas. Why all the hate for Kansas? They win all the time. Same thing here the Brewers and Reds and Pirates have great seasons only to see the Cardinals advance in the playoffs. The story of the guy in Home Depot is such a lame reason why Cardinal fans are so insufferable or MBBF being the typical Mizzou fan. It's like someone saying they hate the White Sox because President Obama is a big fan. It's lazy.

I agree that a sizable portion of the initial "hatred" is mostly jealousy of the Cards success. But it's exacerbated because Cardinals fans take it personally and try to proselytize to those people because the Cardinals are "special". They have "strong values" and focus on player development (like other teams don't - I count 5 All-Stars still playing in the playoffs I watched play for the Portland Sea Dogs, plus 4 more starters for the Red Sox and Xander Bogaerts who should be starting. And there will be 7-8 Red Sox prospects in offseason top 100 lists, compared to likely 3 Cards.)

Read the article I linked, or just look at how multiple Cards posters immediately tried posting multi-paragraph arguments about why you shouldn't hate them. Boston fans can be arrogant, but like RonnieDobbs said, at least we understand why we're hated and don't try to talk other people out of it.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The NFL teams picked always interest me as well. Since 2000, the New York Giants have been to the Superbowl the same number of times as the Pittsburgh Steelers - but its always Steelers thrown in with the Patriots as hated because of success. I never see the Giants in there. Or Baltimore for that matter.

I hate the Ravens! And the Giants! (And I think the reason its the Steelers and not the Giants is the sustained success angle. Even though the Giants won 2 SB's, they've missed the playoffs most years. And honestly, even when they did win it kind of came on a late-season run, instead of a favorite all year that ESPN etc constantly talked about. I still think some % of the vitriol directed at Red Sox/Patriots fans came because ESPN focused so much on them in the early-mid 2000's.)

[Arles]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

McGwire being hated by A's fans after LEAVING is hilarious as a comparison to the hatred of Jose Canseco by everyone, everywhere.

You are the king of the strawman today.

You said:

You'll note Mark McGwire was never hated in anywhere near the same way.

I simply said he certainly was and is hated. He has been the face of steroid use for ten years and branded a cheater. I'm not sure on what grounds you think there aren't an enormous number of people who dislike (or even hate) McGwire right now. It's probably not as much as Canseco, but it's certainly more than you assert.

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

You are missing the context of the discussion, Arles. The conversation was the A's were hated while they were winning - arguing that people hate McGwire for stuff that happened later and/or in different cities is irrelevant.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Arles

Now you are getting it. Give the Brewers/Reds/Royals this level of success and they hatred towards them will spike as well.

No one debates this statement.

What we /are/ debating is that similar levels of success do not breed similar levels of contempt. And all of the examples you keep bringing up have very small sample sizes (how many teams have won World Series since 2000 or whatnot).

But, if we insist on small sample sizes as that's what we have to go off of, here's the list of teams that have won more than 1200 games since 2000:
Yankees (1337)
Cardinals (1274)
Red Sox (1265)
Braves (1262)
Angels (1233)
As (1235)
Phillies (1203)
Giants (1203)
Dodgers (1202)

Those teams are not equally hated by any stretch and they certainly are not hated in descending order of wins. It's simply not as simple as "people hate the winners most". There is more to it than that.

SI

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think baseball is different because of the resource advantage. That's part of the reason people hate the Cowboys - they feel that Jerry Jones can just buy anyone they want. If the Dodgers, Red Sox or Yankees do well for a while, they will always be more hated because they have that perceived money advantage over everyone else.

Dodgers and Yankees are on a whole different level from everyone else when it comes to revenue and spending. The Red Sox did go beyond their means for a couple years in the mid-00's, but lumping us in as a "top 3" would be like lumping the Rays and Pirates in with a team like the Cardinals at the other end of the spectrum.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Arles

You are the king of the strawman today.

You said:

I simply said he certainly was and is hated. He has been the face of steroid use for ten years and branded a cheater. I'm not sure on what grounds you think there aren't an enormous number of people who dislike (or even hate) McGwire right now. It's probably not as much as Canseco, but it's certainly more than you assert.

It is amusing that you are asserting strawmen . Esp in saying McGwire was hated by A's fans after he left. The entire discussion was in the context of the late 80s, early 90s Oakland A's and your claim that they were hated.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs3

You are missing the context of the discussion, Arles. The conversation was the A's were hated while they were winning - arguing that people hate McGwire for stuff that happened later and/or in different cities is irrelevant.

No, I was responding to ISiddiqui's comment that McGwire has never been hated near what Canseco has been. I said a lot of A's fans didn't like McGwire when he left because of his injury history and the money he was making and then he became hated later for Steroids. Here's ISiddiqui's comment:

Um... what about the early 2000s? When they had back to back 100 win season? In the late 80s, people hated Jose Canseco. You'll note Mark McGwire was never hated in anywhere near the same way.

and my response:

McGwire was hated a great deal in Oakland. When he went to St. Louis after having year after year of injury for the As, a lot of fans disliked him. Then you add in the success he had combined with the Steroid cloud and I'd be hardpressed to find two more hated guys in baseball by many fans than Canseco and McGwire. Yet, in the late 90s, people didn't hate the As. Even when moneyball came out in the early 2000s - they didn't hate them a great deal. Now, if the A's come out and do what the Cards have done (2 WS and 5 ALCS in the next 7 years), there will be a lot of hatred for them - if only because of the sheer volume of the term "moneyball" on ESPN

Maybe we are arguing different things, but I'm not even sure what the ISiddiqui was making? That because he thinks people hate Canseco and McGwire wasn't hated that somehow success doesn't play a factor in liking or hating the As. Your guess is as good as mine here.

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

I'm telling you what the conversation was. You put the A's out as a team that was hated in the late 80's and not in the 2000s with the same fanbase.

He was saying that the TEAM wasn't hated in the late 80s, that CANSECO was the reason for any perceived A's hatred back then. McGwire was never hated in anywhere near the same way.

[ISiddiqui]

It's quite obvious. The A's of the late 80s were hated mostly for the douchiness of Canseco. During that time, McGwire was never subject to that hatred. To say the A's were hated for winning doesn't really bear out.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It is amusing that you are asserting strawmen . Esp in saying McGwire was hated by A's fans after he left. The entire discussion was in the context of the late 80s, early 90s Oakland A's and your claim that they were hated.

OK, now we get the real argument. You think the 1988-1992 As teams of Eck, Rickey, Dave Stewart, McGwire, Canseco and company weren't hated? Is that what you are saying? I don't want to put words in your mouth here.

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

Those A's and the recent Cards have something else in common besides winning.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It's quite obvious. The A's of the late 80s were hated mostly for the douchiness of Canseco. During that time, McGwire was never subject to that hatred. To say the A's were hated for winning doesn't really bear out.

That is completely not true. They were hated for a lot more than Canseco. You can throw in Rickey, Dave Stewart, Eck, Dave Henderson and even McGwire were all made to be the villain by the media at the time.

Maybe media coverage plays a part in that if you win, you get more coverage (much of it negative). People like both McGwire and Canseco when they won ROY and the A's stunk. When more success came is when they started to really get disliked. Now, for Canseco, he is a tool and probably would have been disliked at some point but the success was when the opinion of the As tailed off.

No one hated the A's in 1986 when Jose was ROY with 33 HR - because the team was under .500. It was only when they started to win in 1988 that the hate started. Before then, no one really cared.

[ISiddiqui]

No, I really don't.

[Logan]

So your proof that everyone hated the A's in the late 80s is because a bunch of A's fans went on to hate McGwire after he left them for STL after years and years of injuries?

[BishopMVP]

(Sorry for going off-topic back to something from the weekend.)

Originally Posted by JetsIn06

I also think that you have to consider his strategy probably doesn't change much going from regular season to postseason and they've won 90+ games the last 5 of 6 seasons with a payroll around $60m, give or take a few each year.

Originally Posted by Mike D

True, if Maddon had a $175M annual team payroll (instead of $60M), we'd probably never know just how clever he is. It's amazing what an additional $115M can buy your baseball team.

(EDIT: haha...*drops the mic* )

My argument is that payroll is irrelevant when talking about the manager. I give Friedman and the front office all the credit in the world for assembling such a good pitching staff of entirely pre-FA starters, locking in Longoria and Zobrist at borderline criminally low AAV salaries, and realizing that there's no point spending $10-$12m/year for slightly above average players when you can find players (like Loney, Escobar, DeJesus, most of their relievers) to basically match that production for $5m/year or less and short years. And I'm sure he'll do it again this offseason and get some great young players for trading David Price just before he starts getting fairly paid and you have to wager on a pitcher staying healthy during a long-term contract. I just don't see why people credit that to Maddon and his "creativeness/cleverness" and not the front office's. Assemble a team with Mike Trout, Bryce Harper, Wil Myers, Xander Bogaerts, Paul Goldschmidt, Michael Wacha, Jose Fernandez, Stephen Strasburg etc and my little sister could manage them to 110 wins with a payroll under $20 million.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Logan

So your proof that everyone hated the A's in the late 80s is because a bunch of A's fans went on to hate McGwire after he left them for STL after years and years of injuries?

Read what I just posted above. I need to take a book out of Flere's book and not respond to sidebar conversations in the middle of arguments. The McGwire thing is a completely different discussion than why people didn't like the 88-92 As.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Arles

Read what I just posted above. I need to take a book out of Flere's book and not respond to sidebar conversations in the middle of arguments. The McGwire thing is a completely different discussion than why people didn't like the 88-92 As.

Maybe you should take a book out of Flere's book and step away for a bit.

[molson]

So you think there's no correlation between how successful a team/franchise is and how much they're hated (or loved for that matter)? I mean, the correlation isn't 100% and there's always exceptions, but come on. When a team wins, they're more relevant. They're covered more, they get more exposure, they're playing in more widely-viewed games in the playoffs, so people as a whole will have more of a reaction to them. Ohio St. has more hate thrown its way than the University of Ohio. That's not because the University of Ohio necessarily has higher quality character players every year, they just don't matter.

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

Did someone say there is zero correlation?

[Logan]

I think it's pretty likely that people, especially fans of this game, hated the idea of two guys going around calling themselves the "Bash Brothers" and forearm-bumping each other after homeruns, just like they have issues with Puig's "antics".

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

So you think there's no correlation between how successful a team/franchise is and how much they're hated (or loved for that matter)? I mean, the correlation isn't 100% and there's always exceptions, but come on. When a team wins, they're more relevant. They're covered more, they get more exposure, they're playing in more widely-viewed games in the playoffs, so people as a whole will have more of a reaction to them. Ohio St. has more hate thrown its way than the University of Ohio. That's not because the University of Ohio necessarily has higher quality players every year, they just don't matter.

I don't believe anyone has said that at all. In fact people have gone to great lengths and taken great pains to say that it's partially related to winning. BUT THAT'S NOT THE ONLY COMPONENT.

However, the point that at least half the thread is making is that some teams are much more unlikable with relation to their success. And to say that it's completely related to success is a huge fallacy.

(This is still so much better than arguing about politics)

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

No one debates this statement.

What we /are/ debating is that similar levels of success do not breed similar levels of contempt. And all of the examples you keep bringing up have very small sample sizes (how many teams have won World Series since 2000 or whatnot).

But, if we insist on small sample sizes as that's what we have to go off of, here's the list of teams that have won more than 1200 games since 2000:
Yankees (1337)
Cardinals (1274)
Red Sox (1265)
Braves (1262)
Angels (1233)
As (1235)
Phillies (1203)
Giants (1203)
Dodgers (1202)

Those teams are not equally hated by any stretch and they certainly are not hated in descending order of wins. It's simply not as simple as "people hate the winners most". There is more to it than that.

SI

Sure there's more to it than that. Start with the various degrees of "hate".

I'd say one of them stands alone in a category by themselves
Yankees

Then a sick-of or loathed-pretty-good group
Dodgers/Giants/Braves/Red Sox

Then a pair that's either rising to/falling out of the second category
Cardinals/Phillies

Then, today, "the rest"
A's/Angels

1) Yankees are the most reviled franchise in sports history, history being a key word IMO
2 & 3) Dodgers & Red Sox both have huge national media presence & major market status
4) Giants are closely associated with the most reviled figure in baseball history
5) Braves had a national profile for decades, similar to a major media market saturation at times. Throw in anti-Southern bias & a spotty fan base, there's stuff there to dislike.
6) The Cards have steadily inched their way from knowledgeable loving fan base to obnoxious gitdom.
7) The Phillies are the anti-Cardinals today, they've been obnoxious but today they suck enough that it's harder to work up the hate
8 & 9) Most of the country rarely sees the A's or Angels, makes it harder to genuinely hate them. Out of sight = out of mind unless there's some overriding factor.

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

Dodgers and Angels are different markets?

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I don't believe anyone has said that at all. In fact people have gone to great lengths and taken great pains to say that it's partially related to winning. BUT THAT'S NOT THE ONLY COMPONENT.

However, the point that at least half the thread is making is that some teams are much more unlikable with relation to their success. And to say that it's completely related to success is a huge fallacy.

(This is still so much better than arguing about politics)

SI

I don't think anyone's argued that the correlation is 100%, that all winning teams are hated and all shitty or irrelevant teams are popular, and that no other factors can ever play a part. I see posters bringing up these random examples of quality teams that don't have a lot of internet hate, but they just seem like exceptions, and debatable exceptions at that. If a team is good they're relevant, and there will be more expressed opinions about that team and its fan-base, both good and bad.

[ISiddiqui]

I think the Phillies are more than just "they suck now". In the late 90s, there was much less hate than usual for the Phillies, even though they were very successful. The reason seemingly was that the the new stadium mitigated fan douchiness somewhat. Let Veteran's Stadium was just a magnet for douche!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It's quite obvious. The A's of the late 80s were hated mostly for the douchiness of Canseco. During that time, McGwire was never subject to that hatred. To say the A's were hated for winning doesn't really bear out.

There's a missing factor here IMO: The 70's era A's.

That was as hated a team as anything going back then, the whole counter-culture mustachioed gang group. So help me, I believe my grandfather would rather have seen (insert gang of villains here) buy up all of baseball than to see them win a single game.

The number of people influenced by that era was much stronger in the late 80s than it is today. Proximity to them has to be a factor IMO.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

1) Yankees are the most reviled franchise in sports history, history being a key word

It's an AMAZING coincidence that they're also the most successful franchise ever, have the most hall of famers, get the most media attention. I mean, what are the odds?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs3

Dodgers and Angels are different markets?

The Dodgers have been hated in some quarters since Brooklyn, in other quarters (Cincy, Atl in particular) since their success in the western division.

I'm not sure how many people nationally could even tell you where the Angels play their games today.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

It's an AMAZING coincidence that they're also the most successful franchise ever, have the most hall of famers, get the most media attention. I mean, what are the odds?

I think it'd be at least mildly interesting (at some point, in other thread) to come up with a list of teams that generations are literally raised to hate. Teams that fandom/hatred is a true make-or-break for friendships/relationships.

[chadritt]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs3

Dodgers and Angels are different markets?

Yes, very. Anaheims an hour or so away on a good traffic day so most LA people don't consider them a local team.

[molson]

The other thing that goes with this, IMO, is that American metro areas are so big and diverse, that you can characterize any fan-base pretty much any way you want if you're so inclined. If you're jealous of the team's success, if you dislike one prominent member of that fan-base, if they beat your team, whatever. I'm positive there are thousands of Cardinals fans who are also criminals and child molesters, and also many Red Sox and Yankee fans who would help old ladies cross the street. These groups are just way too huge and diverse (millions of people) to accurately attach one specific personality trait to, especially one as negative and specific as "obnoxious." But I guess it does make the games more fun if you buy into those narratives. Edit: MAYBE college fanbases, especially smaller/regional ones, can have more shared characteristics, because they had so many shared experiences attending the university, and/or living in a particular college-town or area, but still, I think it's beyond silly to think Missouri fans are generally terrible because you don't like a certain poster or two at FOFC.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Sure there's more to it than that. Start with the various degrees of "hate".

I'd say one of them stands alone in a category by themselves
Yankees

Then a sick-of or loathed-pretty-good group
Dodgers/Giants/Braves/Red Sox

Then a pair that's either rising to/falling out of the second category
Cardinals/Phillies

Then, today, "the rest"
A's/Angels

Seems pretty fair to me. Only the Angels have not had much success lately on this list - but they've been "the 90s Knicks of baseball" in throwing a bunch of money on washed up guys and that can irk people.

6) The Cards have steadily inched their way from knowledgeable loving fan base to obnoxious gitdom.

I think when you win multiple World Series and have the success they've had, you get a lot of "new fans". We saw it with the Red Sox a few years back. So, you begin to have more blowhards supporting your team and that don't have the perspective of the longer term fans. It's what happens when your team wins - such is life.

If the Cardinals had been like the Cubs the past 7 years, they wouldn't be on this list. It's not the players or the city or the manager, it's whether or not you are winning. When you win, the number of bandwagon/obnoxious fans that become more vocal from you winning and the jealousy/contempt that opposing fans generate is higher. People used to hate the Mets when I grew up. Now, no one cares and they are even in a big market. Winning is the main prequisite. After that happens, the opinion starts to decrease over time.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't think anyone's argued that the correlation is 100%, that all winning teams are hated and all shitty or irrelevant teams are popular. I see posters bringing up these random examples of quality teams that don't have a lot of internet hate, but they just seem like exceptions, and debatable exceptions at that. If a team is good they're relevant, and there will be more expressed opinions about that team and its fan-base, both good and bad.

Originally Posted by molson

It's an AMAZING coincidence that they're also the most successful franchise ever, have the most hall of famers, get the most media attention. I mean, what are the odds?

This seems like arguing out of both sides of the mouth: "Correlation isn't 100% but IT'S DAMN NEAR".

Personal examples that mean nothing but growing up in the 90s, I disliked the Cowboys but was fine with the 49ers. I disliked the Yankees but had nothing against the Braves. And neither of these were personal dislikes, particularly, in a way that I disliked the Red Wings because they were a rival of the Blackhawks but was ok with Colorado (for that late 90s rivalry). Even of more recent dynasties, I don't have any particular malice towards the Patriots or Spurs (as long as they lose to the Rockets). But I would not have characterized myself as a 49ers, Braves, etc fan as I had teams I was much more entrenched as a fan of in those sports (Oilers, 4th generation Cubs fan growing up).

To use another recent example, the Heat are hated "disproportionately" to their success and I think we can all see why. Even before they had won anything, EVERYONE wanted them to lose in 2011 to the Mavs.

I think what a lot of us are taking umbrage to is the implication or outright claim that it's pure jealousy. Yes, you pretty much have to win to be hated (unless we're talking personal rivalries). But some winning teams are hated more than others.

SI

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I think what a lot of us are taking umbrage to is the implication or outright claim that it's pure jealousy.

I think that's true, nobody likes to admit or be accused of being jealous of anything. I think jealousy is some part of it for some people (I don't know why that's so shameful, I'm definitely jealous of people that attended colleges with more successful and dynamic football programs than I did, and I dislike the SEC football powerhouse teams strictly because of their success and how boring I find they make the college football landscape), but probably more of it is just the fact that people like to root for "new teams" to win instead of the same old ones all the time, because that just makes things more fun and interesting. But anybody who's been a fan of a franchise or college team that's gone from laughingstock to dynasty has seen how the perception changes. The base difference is winning, and then that causes all these other factors, like a growing fanbase (Jimmy in accounting in a New Mexico insurance company who became a Red Sox or Cardinals fan 5 years ago has a lot of power to influence his co-workers opinions about what Cardinals and Red Sox fans are like), over-exposure, richer and more famous star players who may be high-profile douchebags, etc. But when you're along for the ride the whole time, it's kind of surreal.

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

Did anyone actually read that Federalist link Bishop posted? That makes the case for Cardinals hate perfectly.

[molson]

Why do we "hate" a team? Its players? The players change all the time, and the hate usually lasts through roster turnover. The fans? Everybody comes across obnoxious fans here and there, but I still think it's ridiculous to assign negative attributes to diverse groups of millions of people. Over-exposure/ESPN getting obsessed with certain players and fans? I totally get getting sick of teams and storylines, but ESPN is really to blame for that. I think at the end of the day it's just having a negative association with a brand. And for that to happen, the brand has to be relevant (it's be pretty weird to have a vicious hatred for the North Dakota St. football program). And for the brand to be relevant, they probably have to have some level of success. From that starting point, it's easy to find other things to fuel the hate, any big-deal team and its city and its fanbase is going to give you plenty of fodder if you want to look for it. No successful franchise or college team is going to just be universally beloved by everyone.

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

Ok, and any counterpoints to your argument which you just keep restating are just exceptions and are dismissed. You win?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs3

Ok, and any counterpoints to your argument which you just keep restating are just exceptions and are dismissed. You win?

No, because I said there may be exceptions (though nobody's come up with a very convincing one), but that there's still a strong correlation between winning/relevance and the passion of viewpoints expressed about a team, both good and bad. Winning, which is closely related to relevance, is by far the most important factor, which almost every other reason to "hate" a team flows from. What reasons do people hate teams that have absolutely nothing to do with the success and relevance of a team?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs3

Ok, and any counterpoints to your argument which you just keep restating are just exceptions and are dismissed. You win?

Outside of being the thread court jester, what is the argument you are making?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

No, because I said there may be exceptions (though nobody's come up with a very convincing one), but that there's still a strong correlation between winning/relevance and the passion of viewpoints expressed about a team, both good and bad. Winning, which is closely related to relevance, is by far the most important factor, which almost every other reason to "hate" a team flows from. What reasons do people hate teams that have absolutely nothing to do with the success and relevance of a team?

Somewhere in here probably fits the notion of strength-of-sentiment and the effects of time.

The Yankees and Notre Dame are the two examples that I can think of off-hand where periods of irrelevance (i.e. losing) didn't seem to do a lot to dim the hatred. Cowboys might come close to that but not at the same level IMO.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Arles

Outside of being the thread court jester, what is the argument you are making?

That the Cardinals have a unique fanbase in their level of sanctimoniousness (is that a word?) The article I posted that helped jump-start this discussion basically reads like parody. Even if the reasons other people have for hating them are misguided (and 90% of sports-based ones are), there simply isn't any other fan base I can think of that would have such a hard time comprehending A) that some people do hate them B) how those people could possibly hate the Cardinals and then C) try to tell people they really should be rooting for them (not even just agnostic, but actively rooting for the Cardinals against other teams.)

[molson]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Somewhere in here probably fits the notion of strength-of-sentiment and the effects of time.

The Yankees and Notre Dame are the two examples that I can think of off-hand where periods of irrelevance (i.e. losing) didn't seem to do a lot to dim the hatred. Cowboys might come close to that but not at the same level IMO.

Sure, every case is different, some teams maintain the hate over down periods more than others, but with both the Yankess and Notre Dame, the hate ultimately comes from their status as iconic, relevant brands that had a lot of success. From that, flows all kind of other sub-factors - the fact that media outlets cover them SO much even when they're not any good, the fact that they have so many fans all over the country that provide so many opportunities for negative interactions with other people, the fact that the kind of fame and notoriety and money that those brands can generate can attract douchebags players and fans, the fact that those teams have crushed the seasons of other fans' teams many times in the past. Edit: I think once that team/franchise reaches that level of iconic relevance, and "earns" that level of hate, it takes a long time to fall out of it just by losing, because there's so much history built-up, but it's much easier to become more iconic, and to gain more hate, through winning, like the Patriots have done. (Bill Bellichick is an asshole and definitely fuels a lot of that hate, but he wasn't a big national villain with the Browns because he didn't win there and wasn't relevant - I'm sure he was still an asshole though, he was just an asshole you didn't have to hear very much about)

[BishopMVP]

By the way guys, important news.

XANDER BOGAERTS IS FINALLY STARTING

(I've probably jinxed him so much at this point he'll go 0-4 with 3 K's and an error.)

[Arles]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

That the Cardinals have a unique fanbase in their level of sanctimoniousness (is that a word?) The article I posted that helped jump-start this discussion basically reads like parody. Even if the reasons other people have for hating them are misguided (and 90% of sports-based ones are), there simply isn't any other fan base I can think of that would have such a hard time comprehending A) that some people do hate them B) how those people could possibly hate the Cardinals and then C) try to tell people they really should be rooting for them (not even just agnostic, but actively rooting for the Cardinals against other teams.)

I think that the Cards fans had a pretty lean late 80s and 90s. From 1988 until 2000, they made the playoffs once. Then, starting in 04, they make 3 World Series and win 2 of them. Add in the other deep playoff runs and you end up being a bit of a national villain for having that much success. I don't think a lot of Cards fans were ready for that and feel a little jilted for now being hated.

St. Louis isn't like Boston where you have this history of success across franchises. The Blues have been "blah" for as long as I've rooted for them and the Rams had that little window but quickly went back to being irrelevant and weren't really a St. Louis team to start. The Cardinals are really the main team of the town and when people started hating, some people take it personally. I think the Spurs were kind of the same way after Duncan started his run and you could even argue the Packers have this to a certain extent. When you are in a smaller market without numerous winning teams, win with scouting/drafting and not signing bigname FAs, feel you've attained success the "right way", you don't understand why people hate you. People in Boston, New York, Philly and even LA have been through this with the Lakers/Celtics/Phillies/Yankees/Pats and can brush it off.

I'm sure there was some dislike back in the 1980s when they won with "whitey ball", but there wasn't the internet/twitter/facebook where people could really see the national anger. Plus, I think it was a different time where sports really were super local. This is really the first time a St. Louis team has had this level of sustained success in the internet era and I think the response (esp the hatred) is jarring for a lot of St. Louis fans. As time passes, they will get over it (esp if they keep winning).

[Arles]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

By the way guys, important news.

XANDER BOGAERTS IS FINALLY STARTING

(I've probably jinxed him so much at this point he'll go 0-4 with 3 K's and an error.)

Big fan of his. There's a lot of good, young talent on Boston coming down the pike. They, like St. Louis, are in a great position for immediate success and have the farm system to support winning down the road.