Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

FJB: Red Sox = Yankees + Hypocrisy

Red Sox President Larry Lucchino once famously called the Yankees the “evil empire” for outspending the opposition en route to championship after championship. With a fan base that carried itself with the self-important entitlement of a Hilton heir, the Yankees have forever been the team that all right-thinking fans loved to hate.

Today, Red Sox and the Yankees have melded into one axis of evil, each outspending the rest of the league and undermining the sense of fair competition.

(By the way, it’s this sense that the game is rigged that really is the objectionable thing about all this. The appeal of sports is that it’s a fair, honest competition, where the underdog can have his day and the big shots have to prove themselves day in and day out. By letting a few teams buy their way into contention every year, baseball feels corrupt and unfair. In other words, it’s less fun.)

knucklehead7 Posted: June 23, 2009 at 01:25 PM | 181 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: red sox

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
   101. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: June 23, 2009 at 07:26 PM (#3229686)
Way to generalize all Red Sox fans. Every team has fans that suck. Boston has more fans than most teams thanks to winning and some great marketing. Deal with it. Don't whine about it.
   102. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 23, 2009 at 07:27 PM (#3229689)
Oh, that's what you were doing in chatter the other day telling Sox fans to "go f*ck themselves" when they called you out
for whining about the umps to the point you suggested they had a Boston bias.


Precisely. You may not be as hopeless as you seem.
   103. Tripon Posted: June 23, 2009 at 07:28 PM (#3229692)

101. Primakov Posted: June 23, 2009 at 03:26 PM (#3229686)
Way to generalize all Red Sox fans. Every team has fans that suck. Boston has more fans than most teams thanks to winning and some great marketing. Deal with it. Don't whine about it.


Those deep suffering Red Sox fans that joined after 2004 only has one championship that they can remember in their lifetime.
   104. SoSH U at work Posted: June 23, 2009 at 07:29 PM (#3229695)
I'm more interested in how Sam is able to show up every once in a while without it becoming a daily habit.


Limited privileges?
   105. konaforever Posted: June 23, 2009 at 07:30 PM (#3229697)
Way to generalize all Red Sox fans. Every team has fans that suck. Boston has more fans than most teams thanks to winning and some great marketing. Deal with it. Don't whine about it.


True. Given a sufficient number of people, you're going to find a few that suck. True in life. True with fans.
   106. tfbg9 Posted: June 23, 2009 at 07:31 PM (#3229698)
Sam is single-handedly upholding a cliche that comes to mind...
   107. AADeuce Posted: June 23, 2009 at 07:33 PM (#3229701)
I still don't see a difference in standing and clapping with two outs and two strikes on a batter and chanting something like "Let's go Red Sox". It seems that both activities are akin to each other, and to frown upon either seems like an elitist point of view.
   108. GGC don't think it can get longer than a novella Posted: June 23, 2009 at 07:37 PM (#3229703)
Limited privileges?


Perhaps, but I have a feeling my career would have advanced further had I never heard of this place.
   109. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: June 23, 2009 at 07:39 PM (#3229710)
When a team is very successful, they draw more fans, and both existing and new fans have more opportunities to act obnoxiously. People disliking that is the price of winning. I'm more than happy to pay it.

To the other point of debate, I would say that the Red Sox bear several important similarities to the Yankees and several overlapping important similarities to the Mets, Cubs, Angels, Tigers, and Phillies, without being identical to any of them.
   110. Hector Moreda & The Generalissimo Posted: June 23, 2009 at 07:44 PM (#3229716)
Sure he's a neck-stabber. But he's a neck-stabber with class.
   111. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: June 23, 2009 at 07:46 PM (#3229721)
Way to generalize all Red Sox fans. Every team has fans that suck. Boston has more fans than most teams thanks to winning and some great marketing. Deal with it. Don't whine about it.
But people will always complain about that. Don't complain about the complaining - I think we can reasonably hold off the recursive spiral at that point.

winning team -> jerks -> complaints about jerks -> generalizations about winning team's fans from jerks' behavior -> let it drop because we're ####### winning and that's fun. Although I guess if this is fun for you, keep at it. I always enjoy a good fanboy throwdown with Yankee fans, which is likewise pointless and makes me look bad, so I can hardly say that I'm categorically above a fanboy throwdown with Braves or Nationals fans.

I guess I don't really care about whether someone says something bad about Red Sox fans after Red Sox fans do something bad, but I do care about the fact that the Yankees suck. So there I am.
   112. GGC don't think it can get longer than a novella Posted: June 23, 2009 at 07:48 PM (#3229722)
People disliking that is the price of winning. I'm more than happy to pay it.


This is what I'm trying to tell myself lately. I was starting to feel like Sisyphus when I complained about anti-Red Sox fan posts, then realized it wasn't personal. They sometimes gnaw at me, but not as much as they used to.
   113. RobertMachemer Posted: June 23, 2009 at 07:49 PM (#3229723)
I think it's reasonable to generalize that the Yankees and Red Sox outspend most other teams.
Yes, that is reasonable. What you said originally, however, was...
Today, Red Sox and the Yankees have melded into one axis of evil, each outspending the rest of the league and undermining the sense of fair competition.
... and this does not mean the same thing as "it's reasonable to say they outspend most." The Sox do not outspend the rest of the league (although the Yankees do). Given that the Red Sox do not outspend the rest of the league (in fact, the Sox right now are closer to the Dodgers (#9) than they are to the Mets (#2)), I'm not sure how the Sox are undermining the sense of fair competition. Why not complain about the Mets and the Phillies (both of whom play in your division, both of whom directly compete against your team)?
   114. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 23, 2009 at 07:51 PM (#3229731)
I still don't see a difference in standing and clapping with two outs and two strikes on a batter and chanting something like "Let's go Red Sox".

One annoys me.
   115. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: June 23, 2009 at 07:52 PM (#3229733)
Why not complain about the Mets and the Phillies (both of whom play in your division, both of whom directly compete against your team)?

Because the Mets and Phillies and their fans aren't going to be at the ballpark tonight.

God help you, sir, if one hair on the head of one Red Sox fan is so much as mussed. If anyone so much gets sneezed on because of your hate speech, I will declare a fatwa on your butt.
   116. tfbg9 Posted: June 23, 2009 at 07:55 PM (#3229740)
One annoys me.


Then do your tomahawk drone louder.
   117. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: June 23, 2009 at 07:56 PM (#3229742)
If I'm rooting for the Sox on the road, I will stand and clap but I don't chant for my club. The exceptions are for Yankee Stadium and in theory for the playoffs (never been to an away playoff game).

I feel that at Yankee Stadium and in the playoffs the ground rules for fandom are understood to include this sort of thing, whereas elsewhere and at other times it isn't so clear.
   118. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: June 23, 2009 at 07:58 PM (#3229745)
Then do your tomahawk drone louder.

Why do you hate little baby Jesus?
   119. rr Posted: June 23, 2009 at 07:59 PM (#3229746)
People disliking that is the price of winning. I'm more than happy to pay it.


Right. I said this about a year ago; others have said it, too. As a fan of the Padres, where we deal with 1/2 or more visiting fans regularly (Cubs, Dodgers, Mets, Red Sox, Yankees, Giants, Tigers when they came in etc.) and as a Lakers fan who has seen road Lakers games, I can see both sides of this.

Also, in the 1990s, we would often have several thousand Braves/TBS fans doing The Chop at the Q.
   120. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 23, 2009 at 08:05 PM (#3229751)
Also, in the 1990s, we would often have several thousand Braves/TBS fans doing The Chop at the Q.

I apologize for them. Their parents were probably from Boston.
   121. SoSH U at work Posted: June 23, 2009 at 08:10 PM (#3229761)
I apologize for them. Their parents were probably from Boston.


Damn those long-dormant Bees fans.
   122. GGC don't think it can get longer than a novella Posted: June 23, 2009 at 08:16 PM (#3229769)
Aren't you from Fishkill, SosH? I don't think you're one of the Massholes that Sam had in mind.
   123. SoSH U at work Posted: June 23, 2009 at 08:24 PM (#3229780)
Aren't you from Fishkill, SosH?


Close, but wrong kill.

Born in Peekskill (home of Elton Brand, George Pataki and Pee Wee Herman). Raised in Buchanan (home of Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant and no one terribly famous).

And I'm definitely not one of the guys the Sams of the world have in mind. I haven't been to a Red Sox game since the 2004 regular season, where I mostly conversed quietly with my White Sox fan father-in-law and wore no team garb as the Red Sox knocked off the home nine.

Actually, to some in the anti-Sox fan camp, I don't really exist.
   124. GGC don't think it can get longer than a novella Posted: June 23, 2009 at 08:30 PM (#3229788)
Actually, to some in the anti-Sox fan camp, I don't really exist.


Same here. I don't really visibly demonstrate that I'm a Sox fan that much. I have a couple caps, but I'm not a huge fan of the baseball cap as headgear, unless I am protecting myself from the elements.
   125. SoSH U at work Posted: June 23, 2009 at 08:32 PM (#3229792)
I have a couple caps, but I'm not a huge fan of the baseball cap as headgear, unless I am protecting myself from the elements.


Me too. I like the look of a good baseball cap, but I really hate wearing any kind of hat.
   126. phredbird Posted: June 23, 2009 at 08:33 PM (#3229793)
I would suggest that they not chant anything. I find such chanting to be peurile and adolescent, at best. I suggest that they cheer when their team does something good but otherwise sit down and let others enjoy the game.


aw, i dunno. i went to a dodgers-mets game earlier this year -- the infamous missed-third-base game -- and the mets fans are hilarious. they sure stuck around longer than most of the dodger fans, and this was an extra inning game.
   127. rr Posted: June 23, 2009 at 09:02 PM (#3229826)
Same here. I don't really visibly demonstrate that I'm a Sox fan that much


You need a hat and a Varitek jersey, and then go to a road game on a date with a pink-hatted woman. Call all Red Sox players by nicknames or first names at all times (Youks, Papi, Tek, Dice-K etc.) cheer even if there is nothing going on, chant "Let's Go Red Sox" a lot, sing Sweet Caroline, talk about how much cooler Fenway is than the ballpark you are in, and say stuff like, "The fans heah have no passion."

And sit right behind me.
   128. Famous Original Joe C Posted: June 23, 2009 at 09:05 PM (#3229834)
You need a hat and a Varitek jersey, and then go to a road game on a date with a pink-hatted woman. Call all Red Sox players by nicknames or first names at all times (Youks, Papi, Tek, Dice-K etc.) cheer even if there is nothing going on, chant "Let's Go Red Sox" a lot, sing Sweet Caroline, talk about how much cooler Fenway is than the ballpark you are in, and say stuff like, "The fans heah have no passion."

And sit right behind me.


How about I start a "Kobe sucks!" chant to top it off?
   129. Nasty Nate Posted: June 23, 2009 at 09:07 PM (#3229838)
I dont get the hate for pink hats. I think its good to have female fans, and I dont need to force them to wear the official colors.
   130. rr Posted: June 23, 2009 at 09:10 PM (#3229841)
How about I start a "Kobe sucks!" chant to top it off?


That would be fine--like MCOAsays, that is the price I pay for being a Laker fan. Padres fans have already paid enough.

127 was my exp when the Red Sox came to town last--and I have gone
through it with other teams. Maybe I need to rethink where I sit at PETCO.
   131. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 23, 2009 at 09:10 PM (#3229842)
Robin understands. I will share my throat-gigging sticks with Robin.
   132. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: June 23, 2009 at 09:11 PM (#3229844)
The weirdest thing to me is how "pink hat" somehow began a synonym for an obnoxious bandwagon fan when I wasn't looking, some time in '07 I think. It doesn't make any freaking sense - does anyone think there's a gender disparity in favor of women among obnoxious or bandwagon fans? Or is the joke that bandwagon fan is like woman ha ha ha?

Regardless, it's stupid and it needs to go away.
   133. Nasty Nate Posted: June 23, 2009 at 09:15 PM (#3229847)
The weirdest thing to me is how "pink hat" somehow began a synonym for an obnoxious bandwagon fan when I wasn't looking, some time in '07 I think. It doesn't make any freaking sense - does anyone think there's a gender disparity in favor of women among obnoxious or bandwagon fans? Or is the joke that bandwagon fan is like woman ha ha ha?

Regardless, it's stupid and it needs to go away.


agreed. i think its kind of the equivalent to using "heh heh, that's so gay" as an insult. I'm pretty sure there was a big long thread about it here once.
   134. Flynn Posted: June 23, 2009 at 09:31 PM (#3229865)
The weirdest thing to me is how "pink hat" somehow began a synonym for an obnoxious bandwagon fan when I wasn't looking, some time in '07 I think. It doesn't make any freaking sense - does anyone think there's a gender disparity in favor of women among obnoxious or bandwagon fans? Or is the joke that bandwagon fan is like woman ha ha ha?

i think it's because the pink hat neatly symbolizes the female bandwagon fan, and then nobody could agree what symbolized the male bandwagon fan.

I have suggested the Twins franchise cap as a male symbol, but I've been shouted down repeatedly.
   135. ?Donde esta Dagoberto Campaneris? Posted: June 23, 2009 at 09:36 PM (#3229874)
The pink hats started when the bandwagon really took off- that's why they're referenced as a synonym for bandwagon fans. Also, any group of fans who refer to themselves as "the nation" needs a proper description- Pink Hat Nation works well in this regard.

Robin's 127 pretty much nails it except that Boston fan has never heard of anyone who doesn't play for Boston (who's this Lackey guy- is he any good?) and, at least in California, Boston fan spends the first two innings naming everyone in his family who now lives in California and the final few innings explaining how all of them agree that Boston is way better.
   136. NotLikely20 Posted: June 23, 2009 at 09:39 PM (#3229877)
Baseball fans, outside of Boston/NY, hate both teams now. It is what it is...
   137. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: June 23, 2009 at 09:46 PM (#3229883)
To me, "Pink Hats" refers not just to female bandwagon jumping fans, but also ones that don't know the rules of the game. Like, the infield fly rule, or why the batter/runner has to stop at second on a ground rule double. Ugh.

Remember, Nats fans: Not one hair mussed!
   138. Answer Guy Posted: June 23, 2009 at 09:49 PM (#3229886)
Remember, Nats fans: Not one hair mussed!


The population of people who attend these games normally is so yuppiefied it's not funny. They don't really do hair-mussing. And they're generally so quiet you might think you're at the Kennedy Center if you close your eyes.
   139. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: June 23, 2009 at 09:53 PM (#3229890)
I get that (1) people want to make fun of bandwagon fans and (2) people want to make fun of Red Sox fans who proudly consider themselves a "nation". I don't particularly care about (1), but (2) is to me a worthy goal. Either way, I have no serious objection.

My objection is that "pink hat" is either a poor term which mistakenly pokes fun at only female fans when the goal is to make fun of either bandwagon Sox fans or all Sox fans, or it's a term which plays on the always-funny claim he is like woman ha ha ha.
   140. GGC don't think it can get longer than a novella Posted: June 23, 2009 at 10:14 PM (#3229904)
You need a hat and a Varitek jersey, and then go to a road game on a date with a pink-hatted woman.

Date? I usually go to ball games in the company of men. We're usually low key and wonder amongst ourselves if other players have Pig Latin names like Lyle Overbay does or try to analyze the pitcher's mechanics.
   141.  Hey Gurl Posted: June 23, 2009 at 10:17 PM (#3229906)
I don't really understand the obsession with "NOIZZE" at ballgames (and other sporting events.) I'm there to watch the game, I get no value out of screaming.

That goes for concerts, too, actually. If I wanted to hear you sing, I'd go to your house.
   142. rr Posted: June 23, 2009 at 10:25 PM (#3229917)
Date?


Yeah. That way, you can add to what Dagoberto described by impressing her with your great knowledge of the game by saying stuff like, "The Padres haven't been any good since they had that dead guy who was on steroids--Ken Camitti." And the woman says, "Really?" Then you say, "Papi can take this guy deep, baby. Watch this. PAAAPIII!!!"
   143. gay guy in cut-offs smoking the objective pipe Posted: June 23, 2009 at 10:27 PM (#3229919)
In a perfect world no one would chant. Chanting is idiotic.

I'm on board. But then, my Platonic ideal of a baseball game is something out of the Victorian era, where the spectators ("fans" implies an undesirable rowdy element) eat cucumber sandwiches and clap politely when either team does something praiseworthy.
   144. The Original SJ Posted: June 23, 2009 at 10:31 PM (#3229925)
The pink hats started when the bandwagon really took off-

Pink hats started for all franchises around 03/04. I think that is why people say that.

You usually see them only on female Cubs/Yanks/Red Sox fans.

I will stop referring to them as Pink Hats though. because one can insinuate that pink hats = women = not real fans. And that just isn't the case.
   145. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: June 23, 2009 at 10:33 PM (#3229927)
People don't like cheering? Huh. The sense of community that comes from making noise with lots of other people I don't know so that our voices and hands all blend together is one of my two favorite things about fandom.
   146. rr Posted: June 23, 2009 at 10:33 PM (#3229928)
The sense of community that comes from making noise with lots of other people I don't know so that our voices and hands all blend together is one of my two favorite things about fandom.


Cool. Do it at Fenway.

(mostly/partly kidding and not meant to be snarky)
   147. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 23, 2009 at 10:33 PM (#3229929)
I'm on board. But then, my Platonic ideal of a baseball game is something out of the Victorian era, where the spectators ("fans" implies an undesirable rowdy element) eat cucumber sandwiches and clap politely when either team does something praiseworthy.

And bowlers! Yeah, you get to use the throat-gigging sticks too.
   148. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: June 23, 2009 at 10:36 PM (#3229930)
Cool. Do it at Fenway.
See #117. I was responding to SB and MH#1F, who object to cheering in general.
   149. rr Posted: June 23, 2009 at 10:37 PM (#3229931)
I saw 117. Hence the disclaimer.
   150. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: June 23, 2009 at 10:37 PM (#3229932)
And as a general rule, people who envision their ideal society as Victorian would really hate the actual Victorian era.
   151. GGC don't think it can get longer than a novella Posted: June 23, 2009 at 10:39 PM (#3229936)
First off, in the Victorian era, the fans were called Kranks. Secondly, by the mid-1880s they got really loud and would threaten the ump and opposing team; esp in the American Association were they sold beer and whiskey and actually played games on Sunday, so the hoi polloi could attend. You may be thinking of the Alexander Cartwright era, MH#1F.
   152.  Hey Gurl Posted: June 23, 2009 at 10:39 PM (#3229937)
People don't like cheering? Huh. The sense of community that comes from making noise with lots of other people I don't know so that our voices and hands all blend together is one of my two favorite things about fandom.


Oh, cheering is fine. Somebody hits a homerun/scores a goal/touchdown, stand up and cheer, celebrate. But if nothing noteworthy is happening and you're just making noise for the sake of making noise ... why?
   153. Famous Original Joe C Posted: June 23, 2009 at 10:42 PM (#3229938)
Oh, cheering is fine. Somebody hits a homerun/scores a goal/touchdown, stand up and cheer, celebrate. But if nothing noteworthy is happening and you're just making noise for the sake of making noise ... why?

I too am on board with this, with the possible exception, as MCoA pointed out, of the playoffs.
   154. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: June 23, 2009 at 10:42 PM (#3229939)
Oh, cheering is fine. Somebody hits a homerun/scores a goal/touchdown, stand up and cheer, celebrate. But if nothing noteworthy is happening and you're just making noise for the sake of making noise ... why?
Cheering always moves with the flow of the game. A situation where a big hit could occur, or where a big strikeout could occur, or where a rally could change the game, all of these are great times for cheering as well.

I've never been to a game where cheering began and remained at the same pitch throughout. It's always in connection to the game. Is your problem that the cheering should always only follow an event and subside before another event can occur? I don't really see the point of the distinction.
   155.  Hey Gurl Posted: June 23, 2009 at 10:48 PM (#3229943)
Is your problem that the cheering should always only follow an event and subside before another event can occur? I don't really see the point of the distinction.


How about when the "event" in question is the jumbotron saying "MAKE SOME NOISSISIEEEEEE." Or when the noise in question is through an airhorn or some other noise-making device. Or when the noise is in the form of mindless chanting.
   156. gay guy in cut-offs smoking the objective pipe Posted: June 23, 2009 at 10:51 PM (#3229947)
You may be thinking of the Alexander Cartwright era, MH#1F.

I have to admit a lack of close research regarding the eras of baseball fandom, but the comment should be read as "like something out of the Victorian era" in the general sense, rather than "like a baseball game as it would have been in the Victorian era".

Which is probably still inaccurate, strictly speaking. But you get the idea, right? Then close enough.
   157. villageidiom Posted: June 23, 2009 at 10:57 PM (#3229951)
Either: Stop behaving as if a plurality of seats makes it okay for you to cheer as if you were in your home park

Or: Have people hate you.
If the people doing the hating are so narrow-minded as to believe those are the only two options, it's easy enough to shrug off.

If I go to a Red Sox game on the road, I cheer for them like I do at Fenway. If there's a LGRS chant (or other chant supportive of the Red Sox) going I'll join in. But I don't put down the home team, because it's rude. I'm a guest in their house. (So far I've joined in with "Yankees Suck" chants in five different stadia - including at Wrigley during a Cubs/Braves game - but not at Yankee Stadium.)

If other teams' fans come to Fenway and cheer for their team, that's fine with me. I'm not so thin-skinned as to react emotionally to their mere presence or their interest in cheering for outcomes I don't like. If you're like that, don't attend games where your emotions will be tested that way. Feel free to hate that the atmosphere is not to your liking, but if you're expecting to be miserable you probably shouldn't go.

- - - - -

Dane Cook

You misspelled Ben Affleck.
   158. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: June 23, 2009 at 10:59 PM (#3229954)
How about when the "event" in question is the jumbotron saying "MAKE SOME NOISSISIEEEEEE." Or when the noise in question is through an airhorn or some other noise-making device. Or when the noise is in the form of mindless chanting.
I don't like either noisemakers or jumbotrons with instructions. The problem in those cases isn't noise, but either the means by which it's made or the external cause of the noise.

I don't know what you mean by "mindless" cheering. Is it mindless to chant "let's go Red Sox" in the bottom of the 6th with two on and two out, down by a run? Is it mindless to chant "Papi" when his count goes to 3-2 and the runners are off?

You're ok with cheering after positive events, I understand that. What I'm trying to get at is that excitement in a baseball game isn't discrete, but rather rises and falls as events pile on each other. A huge part of the fun of watching a game in person, for me, comes from participating and sharing in that emotional rise and fall.
   159. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 23, 2009 at 11:00 PM (#3229957)
I thought the "pink hat" epithet referred to a watered-down red, suggesting half the strength of an authentic Red Sox fan.
   160. Raskolnikov Posted: June 23, 2009 at 11:01 PM (#3229959)
You guys are crazy. Beckett would have a field day with the last 20 posts.

First, our way of connecting with the world is not completely rational. Ultimately, relation is through experience and emotion, not understanding.

Second, trying to deconstruct cheering into a set of rational actions is pointless, much like trying to explain fandom of sports in a rational model.
   161. gay guy in cut-offs smoking the objective pipe Posted: June 23, 2009 at 11:02 PM (#3229961)
Oh, and my posts on this thread should probably not be taken in complete seriousness. Though I am charmed by the idea of a baseball game attended by well-dressed gentlemen who exclaim "Huzzah!" and "Good show, old boy!" when someone performs exceptionally.
   162. rr Posted: June 23, 2009 at 11:16 PM (#3229986)
If I go to a Red Sox game on the road, I cheer for them like I do at Fenway.


As I said last time this came up, there is nothing "bad" or "wrong" about what Red Sox/Cubs/Yankees etc fans do when they take over visiting parks. Some people do make ugly generalizations and overreact to it, me included at times.

That said, like a lot of things in life, it is something you can't really get unless you have dealt with it the other way. If, say, the Mariners were a dominant franchise and the Red Sox were struggling, and every time you went to Fenway with Seattle in town, you knew there were going to be 20,000 Ms fans decked out in Junior and Ichiro jerseys there, yelling, yapping, and singing the whole time--trust me, it gets more than a little wearing.

Also, rudeness is in some respects subjective. To me, acting like you are at Fenway if you are at Camden Yards is in itself a bit rude.

Finally, in terms of where I live, the "Well, sell out your own park, then" response ignores demographics and the fact that many people come to SoCal (and Miami, I am sure) for vacations that include ballgames and buy tix well in advance. As I said on the NBA thread, I work with three transplanted Celtics fans in a fairly small department. So, just because it is SoCal, I hear a lot about the Celtics and sometimes get Bill Simmons' columns emailed to me. It is mostly in good fun, but it is part of the sports scene out here that gets on the nerves.
   163.  Hey Gurl Posted: June 23, 2009 at 11:21 PM (#3229999)
I don't like either noisemakers or jumbotrons with instructions.


Then we are on the same page.

This has been a good discussion. ;-)
   164. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: June 23, 2009 at 11:30 PM (#3230036)
Oh, cheering is fine. Somebody hits a homerun/scores a goal/touchdown, stand up and cheer, celebrate. But if nothing noteworthy is happening and you're just making noise for the sake of making noise ... why?


Agreed.
At last night's A's-Giants game, there were drunken clowns a few rows ahead of me who spent the last half of the game facing away from the field, drumming on seats, and attempting to get the crowd to chant "LET'S GO OAK-LAND!" along with them.
One of the guys started pointing to people behind him, accusing them of not being "real A's fans" because they wouldn't join in that damned chant. I said, "I may not be a real fan, but at least I saw Matt Holliday get that hit."

What do people chant, where the city or team name isn't two syllables? "Let's go, Mar-i-ners!" sounds silly. (Sillier)
   165. Fly should without a doubt be number !!!!! Posted: June 23, 2009 at 11:53 PM (#3230088)
Are you people really arguing that there is a Red Sox jumbotron that urges people to cheer? Really? You think that happens at Fenway? Or that the scoreboard is urging Sox fans to cheer at away games?
   166.  Hey Gurl Posted: June 23, 2009 at 11:57 PM (#3230098)
Are you people really arguing that there is a Red Sox jumbotron that urges people to cheer?


I don't think I argued that, no.

*checks*

Nope, nobody argued that.
   167. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: June 23, 2009 at 11:59 PM (#3230104)
Also, whenever the Red Sox are in town, I make a point of booing Kevin Youkilis.
It's the principle of the thing.
   168. Fly should without a doubt be number !!!!! Posted: June 24, 2009 at 12:00 AM (#3230107)
Ok. Just clarifying. So this is now a "hate on fans who are not silent, specifically non-Red Sox fans" thread. I can no longer even pretend to relate to this thread in any way.
   169. Fly should without a doubt be number !!!!! Posted: June 24, 2009 at 12:02 AM (#3230110)
And again, just for context, THIS is the man who is claiming other fans are over the top and disrespectful:

56. Sam Hutcheson Posted: June 21, 2009 at 03:36 PM (#3227003)
Chipper had all rights to punch the mook in the face. Hopefully his kid catches cancer or something.


But god forbid if I should chant "Let's go Red Sox."
   170.  Hey Gurl Posted: June 24, 2009 at 12:07 AM (#3230127)
Ok. Just clarifying. So this is now a "hate on fans who are not silent, specifically non-Red Sox fans" thread. I can no longer even pretend to relate to this thread in any way.


Nope, wrong again.

This is now a "hate getting ####### at by people because you didn't make enough noise when the jumbotron or the drunks told you to."
   171. GGC don't think it can get longer than a novella Posted: June 24, 2009 at 12:17 AM (#3230148)
"Huzzah!"

Yup, that was a cheer back then. You know more about 19th Century baseball than you thought.
   172. scotto Posted: June 24, 2009 at 12:32 AM (#3230188)
One of my favorite all-time baseball moments took place at the Cell in 2006. My then-wife, three year old son and I were in the upper deck watching the Sox play the Sox. Per usual, there were a lot of Red Sox fans in the stands. Sam H. would have been apoplectic, because Red Sox fans were being rude and dissing the hosts by enjoying themselves, lining Reinsdorf's pockets with their purchase of food and beverage, and chanting "Let's Go Red Sox" at opportune moments. White Sox fans would counter with "Let's Go White Sox!" at other opportune moments. At times, the fans would attempt to drown each other out!

The Red Sox were rallying and the pro-Boston chants began. My son was looking around wide-eyed, fascinated by this. The chant began to die down of its own accord, as often happens. Except for one little three-year old voice, which began chanting "Let's go Red Sox!" Clap-clap-clapclapclap. People in our section - fans of both color Sox - started cracking up. The away crowd picked up the chant, which soon filled the entire stadium. A three year old's face beamed with delight at what chaos and incivility he'd wrought.

Fans of both persuasions finished the game with bleary eyes and arms wrapped around each other, buying each other beers and engaging in mutual admiration of the two teams' respective World Series victories, periodically breaking into "Kumbaya" instead of "Let's Go..." whichever. Thanks to a small child, we found that we had more in common than not in our fandomness. I was disappointed at the outcome, because hatred and vitriol didn't ensue.

All I can say is that like Chicago fans, we indoctrinate our children at a very young and impressionable age. You can't teach kids sociopathic behavior too young. I look forward to when he's a teen, when we can bond by jumping out of the stands and drunkenly pounding the crap out of anyone on-field at the time, or in the stands if they give us any guff, which we'll define as broadly as we wish to. It's better to teach kids vital skills like neck-stabbing and wishing cancer on children at a young age. Records do get expunged upon attaining one's majority.

[/sarcasm and eye-rolling]
   173. villageidiom Posted: June 24, 2009 at 01:23 AM (#3230308)
That said, like a lot of things in life, it is something you can't really get unless you have dealt with it the other way. If, say, the Mariners were a dominant franchise and the Red Sox were struggling, and every time you went to Fenway with Seattle in town, you knew there were going to be 20,000 Ms fans decked out in Junior and Ichiro jerseys there, yelling, yapping, and singing the whole time--trust me, it gets more than a little wearing.
I have a hard time believing that someone would think a long-time Red Sox fan couldn't relate to large numbers of fans of a dominant team visiting their struggling team's stadium and making lots of noise. From my first game in 1976 to some point before late October 2004, it's all I knew.
   174. Fly should without a doubt be number !!!!! Posted: June 24, 2009 at 01:43 AM (#3230363)
I have a hard time believing that someone would think a long-time Red Sox fan couldn't relate to large numbers of fans of a dominant team visiting their struggling team's stadium and making lots of noise. From my first game in 1976 to some point before late October 2004, it's all I knew.

Really? I have to say, I can't agree with this at all. Maybe 20% visiting fans. But not more than that. My experience runs from 1986-present.
   175. rr Posted: June 24, 2009 at 01:48 AM (#3230389)
I have a hard time believing that someone would think a long-time Red Sox fan couldn't relate to large numbers of fans of a dominant team visiting their struggling team's stadium and making lots of noise. From my first game in 1976 to some point before late October 2004, it's all I knew.


Sure, but that is mostly Yankee fans, not those of several other teams, I assume. And Red Sox "struggling" post-1967 pre-2004 is a lot different than what the Angels pre-2002 and the Padres most of the time have dealt with. Red Sox fans had their own bete noire--1918. But it's not quite the same thing as being in a warm-weather vacation city with a bad team (next to Disneyland in the Angels' case).

Sort of like being a Clippers fan.

But it ultimately ain't a big deal--just a fan culture thing.
   176. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: June 24, 2009 at 02:19 AM (#3230483)
And as a general rule, people who envision their ideal society as Victorian would really hate the actual Victorian era.

Not necessarily, because these people usually envision themselves living in a four storey Victorian row house with a bevy of servants; and of course, air conditioning.

I mean, when was the last time you ever saw anyone break a sweat in Masterpiece Theater?
   177. scotto Posted: June 24, 2009 at 02:20 AM (#3230485)
But it's not quite the same thing as being in a warm-weather vacation city with a bad team (next to Disneyland in the Angels' case).

I don't know about dominant team visiting their struggling team's stadium and making lots of noise, but I wonder to what extent the noisiness of opposing fans is more a sign of the times than in years past. It seems to me that general incivility is much more prevalent than it was fifteen, twenty or more years ago. That could be selective perception of course. Since attaining adulthood (at least chronologically) I've lived in urban settings and in other social contexts where I might notice it more.

Or it could be that I've become a grumpy, middle-aged troglodyte.
   178. DLew On Roids Posted: June 24, 2009 at 02:21 AM (#3230487)
Atlanta and Washington are both bigger metropolitan areas than Boston, according to the Census Bureau. Why are their fans complaining about the "big market" Red Sox? Maybe if they supported their teams like Sox fans their teams would have the same payroll.

Don't blame us for your failings. You hate us because you can't be us.
   179. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: June 24, 2009 at 02:25 AM (#3230490)
I have a hard time believing that someone would think a long-time Red Sox fan couldn't relate to large numbers of fans of a dominant team visiting their struggling team's stadium and making lots of noise. From my first game in 1976 to some point before late October 2004, it's all I knew.

I'll make a deal with Mariners' fans: You export your Summer weather to NY, Boston and Chicago (with DC as my commission), and I'll tell the East Coast fans to cool it about taking over your ballpark.
   180. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: June 24, 2009 at 02:31 AM (#3230496)

Either: Stop behaving as if a plurality of seats makes it okay for you to cheer as if you were in your home park

Or: Have people hate you.


You know, Soccer has a section dedicated for visiting fans. I'm just saying, Europeans have found a way around this.
Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Backlasher
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 2 OMNICHATTER
(306 - 10:24pm, Oct 22)
Last: AT-AT at bat@AT&T

NewsblogJerome Williams re-signs with Phils
(9 - 10:21pm, Oct 22)
Last: stevegamer

NewsblogStatcast: Posey out at the plate
(13 - 10:21pm, Oct 22)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogCardinals proud of fourth straight NLCS appearance | cardinals.com
(62 - 10:20pm, Oct 22)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogMcSweeneys: NEW BASEBALL STATISTICS.
(2 - 10:18pm, Oct 22)
Last: Depressoteric feels Royally blue these days

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3182 - 10:05pm, Oct 22)
Last: The Id of SugarBear Blanks

NewsblogJay set for surgery — and for CF in 2015 : Sports
(5 - 9:58pm, Oct 22)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(341 - 9:56pm, Oct 22)
Last: Norcan

NewsblogAd Week: What Is Madeleine Albright Doing on the Wheaties Box?
(1 - 9:54pm, Oct 22)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogHow Wall Street Strangled the Life out of Sabermetrics | VICE Sports
(7 - 9:47pm, Oct 22)
Last: Arbitol Dijaler

NewsblogSielski: A friend fights for ex-Phillie Dick Allen's Hall of Fame induction
(180 - 9:47pm, Oct 22)
Last: AROM

NewsblogHunter Pence responds to Royals fan signs with monster Game 1 | MLB.com
(54 - 7:50pm, Oct 22)
Last: JE (Jason)

NewsblogMike Scioscia, Matt Williams voted top managers
(43 - 7:45pm, Oct 22)
Last: catomi01

NewsblogRoyals are not the future of baseball | FOX Sports
(28 - 7:11pm, Oct 22)
Last: Belfry Bob

NewsblogDealing or dueling – what’s a manager to do? | MGL on Baseball
(39 - 7:10pm, Oct 22)
Last: bobm

Page rendered in 0.8127 seconds
53 querie(s) executed