78 replies to this topic

[brs3]

Sarcastic one-liners in response to an educated post probably aren't the best route to make a point. If you've got a point to make, use sources or data to back it up. Don't try to be a smart ass about everything and be the cool kid in the sandbox. That's been happening a lot lately.

my rule of thumb is 'if i sent this as a PM, would it be construed as a dickhead thing to say'.. then, depending on the discussion, i'll send the PM anyway. Sorta eliminates the BS from real conversation.

[foulkehampshire]

Intelligence

[brs3]

I'm not sure where to put this, but it's worth mentioning. Don't get into a pissing match outside the Sandbox. IE Don't muck up an MLB thread or some other thread by getting into a discussion that downshifts to personal opinion or preference. If you hate something, and someone else likes it, don't make an effort to change their opinion or point out what makes them an idiot for believing it.

recently the 'Yankee stadium memories' thread was born out of the Sandbox and ended up in the Yankees discussion board, where boxers & members alike can discuss it. Then a boxer mucked up about 2 pages of it with utter crap. While entertaining as a train wreck, I don't want to lose access to other areas besides the sandbox, so don't be that guy!

[EdRalphRomero]

OK. I have not presumed to post in here, but I have to say the tone of the Sandbox has taken a downturn. So for what it is worth, here are my requests/suggestions.

1. Imagine you are in a bar in some far off city. You discover that the gentleman drinking his scotch and scotch next to you is a RS fan. Or perhaps not even a RS fan but just a knowledgable baseball fan. How would you conduct yourself in a discussion with that guy? I think how you treat that guy is how you should treat the other denizens of the 'box. That means:

• No name calling
• Give each other the benefit of the doubt (which means you can't say, "Do you watch the games," chances are anyone crazy enough to be in here watches the games live, at work for much of the day, and in their dreams ('04) and sweat-soaked nightmares ('86 and '03 for me '78 for some of the older posters)
• Assume that the other person is knowedgable.

2. Respect the fact that this site is about analysis, not just "fandom." That means, in my humble opinion, the Red Sox should not be "we" unless you are G38.

3. Let it go. I have been guilty of transgressing against this myself. At some point you will find yourself utterly convinced of the certitude of your argument and the jackassosity of another posters. Make your point once, and then move on.

Note that none of this is an argument against passion. But there is an art to passionate, respectful disagreement. Thanks.

[dinggo]

The quality "up there" isn't much better. In a comment above, some soul noted a discussion "up there" on defensive metrics. Right, those things that don't for a moment account for elemental physics, such as where Train B [the fielder] was positioned when Train A [the ball] left the station, and never mind the feeble attempt to measure velocity as if this was some girl's rear end and so it's hard, medium and soft. If some can't see the utter absurdity of the current fielding metrics now all the rage, well, then they belong down here in the sandbox.

Which brings me to my next point, rise above it, or in this case, below it. The very notion of a "sandbox" is both arrogant and insulting, and rather likely to not succeed. There's a reason why some say set the expectation high so that some others might rise and live the expectation. And so if you get little children here, what should you expect, I mean, you gave the children a sandbox to play in, yes?

And, Ed, you are taking yourself and this site way too seriously. Analysis of what? A game that literally means nothing? You have some relation to a member of the organization? Stand to make some money by association with the organization? If neither, then you might as well check out the gross monthly sales of your nearest McDonald's, compare them to all other outlets, and then proclaim your local outlet the best of the McDonald's league. Some are called fans, as in fanatics, as it isn't exactly rational to cheer and root for, and become depressed over, an entity merely because it happens to be located in your town, especially when you aren't also rooting for the local McDonald's as well. And so, Ed, if it isn't "we", then why do you care?

And "reactionary"? Next thing I know, the one will be saying that I'm a Dodgers-Rays running dog capitalist lackey. But don't worry about things reactionary, well, maybe, if you take that word literally, and so I'm planning my own revolution and just as with Luis Taruc, I'm using Edgar Snow's Red Star Over China as an instructional text for the cadre. The pink asshat nation is first on the list of intended insurgent targets, though we might let Beej, Longo, Carlos, CC, and Co. work the insurrection for us. And for the one asshat on the main board, Mr. Iwamura has rather obviously changed both his approach and his swing since coming to America [if you had bothered to view his approach and swing while appearing at the plate while playing in Japan for the now Tokyo Yakult Swallows] and so call him a slap-happy singles hitter all you like, but it seems that he has a penchant for hitting balls high off and over that pathetic green monstrosity in your little puke of a ballpark.

Whatever elegance and intelligence that some otherwise claim can be seen existing elsewhere, well, even if I conceded the notion to be true, such truth is reduced to insignificance by the commentary on the game threads. If you're going to police the pink asshat nation, well, when the notions expressed by some here are read in connection with the game thread comments, the argument for integrity might as well be made by your average producer of pornographic motion pictures for all the credibility [none] that it has.

Lastly, just as with Biko so too with me, and so after my "banning" I'll pass by every now and again, looking for the thread from the adults, or their children, entitled, what asshat thought it a good idea to combine two numbers with differing scales for purposes of analysis? Think OPS, as OBP is 0-1.0 while SLG is 0 to 4.0. And, yeah, I understand the notion of "correlation", problem is, it isn't "causation", and so the fact that height is the best fit line on the chart for wealth in America is hardly consolation for your 6'2'' African-American female. And did I mention the correction for all-time, as if some could figure out just how it would have all played out had the height of the mound not changed, the ball not changed, no 'roids and HGH and who knows what else, and for the tie-in here, one might liken here and now to that period of the game when the numbers were skewed because some, the adults, believed that some others were less than, children they called them, and so some excluded some others from a shared participation by relegating them to their own box to play in. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

[Freddy Linn]

The quality "up there" isn't much better. In a comment above, some soul noted a discussion "up there" on defensive metrics. Right, those things that don't for a moment account for elemental physics, such as where Train B [the fielder] was positioned when Train A [the ball] left the station, and never mind the feeble attempt to measure velocity as if this was some girl's rear end and so it's hard, medium and soft. If some can't see the utter absurdity of the current fielding metrics now all the rage, well, then they belong down here in the sandbox.

Which brings me to my next point, rise above it, or in this case, below it. The very notion of a "sandbox" is both arrogant and insulting, and rather likely to not succeed. There's a reason why some say set the expectation high so that some others might rise and live the expectation. And so if you get little children here, what should you expect, I mean, you gave the children a sandbox to play in, yes?

And, Ed, you are taking yourself and this site way too seriously. Analysis of what? A game that literally means nothing? You have some relation to a member of the organization? Stand to make some money by association with the organization? If neither, then you might as well check out the gross monthly sales of your nearest McDonald's, compare them to all other outlets, and then proclaim your local outlet the best of the McDonald's league. Some are called fans, as in fanatics, as it isn't exactly rational to cheer and root for, and become depressed over, an entity merely because it happens to be located in your town, especially when you aren't also rooting for the local McDonald's as well. And so, Ed, if it isn't "we", then why do you care?

And "reactionary"? Next thing I know, the one will be saying that I'm a Dodgers-Rays running dog capitalist lackey. But don't worry about things reactionary, well, maybe, if you take that word literally, and so I'm planning my own revolution and just as with Luis Taruc, I'm using Edgar Snow's Red Star Over China as an instructional text for the cadre. The pink asshat nation is first on the list of intended insurgent targets, though we might let Beej, Longo, Carlos, CC, and Co. work the insurrection for us. And for the one asshat on the main board, Mr. Iwamura has rather obviously changed both his approach and his swing since coming to America [if you had bothered to view his approach and swing while appearing at the plate while playing in Japan for the now Tokyo Yakult Swallows] and so call him a slap-happy singles hitter all you like, but it seems that he has a penchant for hitting balls high off and over that pathetic green monstrosity in your little puke of a ballpark.

Whatever elegance and intelligence that some otherwise claim can be seen existing elsewhere, well, even if I conceded the notion to be true, such truth is reduced to insignificance by the commentary on the game threads. If you're going to police the pink asshat nation, well, when the notions expressed by some here are read in connection with the game thread comments, the argument for integrity might as well be made by your average producer of pornographic motion pictures for all the credibility [none] that it has.

Lastly, just as with Biko so too with me, and so after my "banning" I'll pass by every now and again, looking for the thread from the adults, or their children, entitled, what asshat thought it a good idea to combine two numbers with differing scales for purposes of analysis? Think OPS, as OBP is 0-1.0 while SLG is 0 to 4.0. And, yeah, I understand the notion of "correlation", problem is, it isn't "causation", and so the fact that height is the best fit line on the chart for wealth in America is hardly consolation for your 6'2'' African-American female. And did I mention the correction for all-time, as if some could figure out just how it would have all played out had the height of the mound not changed, the ball not changed, no 'roids and HGH and who knows what else, and for the tie-in here, one might liken here and now to that period of the game when the numbers were skewed because some, the adults, believed that some others were less than, children they called them, and so some excluded some others from a shared participation by relegating them to their own box to play in. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

Before someone more intellectually capable and acerbically funny responds to this, let me address your treatise by paragraph (and it took some time to attempt to decipher each):

#1: If they (we) could, they (we) would, but they (we) can't, so they (we) do the best possible. No one takes fielding metrics as absolutes, but rather as indicators.

#2: I, for one, am glad that there is a "sandbox", because especially of late (and then, perhaps playoff-related), it has proven to be where the neighborhood cat takes a whiz. I don't want my kid eating that sand, and I don't think the folks who have put an absurd level of intellectual content on this site want to have to continually scoop out the litter box.

#3: Baseball is a game that many folks embrace precisely because they have no financial interest in or direct economic benefit resulting from. It is an escape from our daily lives.

#4: I have no idea what you are talking about. Really. And I was a history major before I got in the real world.

#5: Game threads are there for a purpose. Assessing the intellectual quality of the comments there is the equivalent of me assessing your eloquence immediately after I kick you in the nuts or vagina.

#6: If this is where you are coming from, comparing your aforementioned plight with SoSH with Biko and his struggles is particularly weak in myriad ways. With respect to statistics, there are metrics that adjust for many factors across eras, and there are people far, far smarter than I working on refining these measures. I, for one, truly enjoy the game even more than I thought humanly possible because of these comparative statistics.


Why don't we all endeavor to raise the level of dialogue and analysis? There is really only one rule: don't suck. It is a good idea to peruse many different threads to understand what does suck, because the dopes and mods do a decent job of letting those who do know.

Edited by Freddy Linn, 16 October 2008 - 01:51 AM.

[shepard50]

Before someone more intellectually capable and acerbically funny responds to this, let me address your treatise by paragraph (and it took some time to attempt to decipher each):

Clearly there is some history to some of the conversation beforehand, and I do not in any way mean to weigh in or comment on history I have been no part of it.

I do have to say to Freddy Lin though:

This was a very funny and intellectually capable post.

Also, back on topic, I spent a lot of team reading this thread over the last week. I haven't posted around here a lot and I do see a difference between the Sandbox and the Main Board and I see a lack of eloquence and even-mindedness and analysis in my own posts as well as in others. I have read this board for about 6 years and I have only started posting recently. I really appreciate the level of discussion and open mindedness that this site stands for and realize that I will have to lift my game if I want to be a part of the more interesting conversations.

One small observation that I will offer is that it seems like the really interesting posters are actually interested in what others are talking about. This is very distinct from someone simply yammering away without any desire to add the opinions and insights that others might offer.

[sleepyjose03]

Since the offseason is always trouble for the Box, I figured many of us (myself included) could do for a refresher of this info. I was going to try and rehash all the good points here, but Sprowl did such a great job here, I'm just going to link to it and implore all of you to reread his words. There's a reason so many of the people who contributed good ideas early in this thread now have a "Member" tag next to their name.

I would like to emphasize one thing again here: Above almost all else, please just take a deep breath and think before you make a post, start a topic, send a PM, etc. So many careless mistakes, in addition to silly or pointless posts, flame wars, fuck-ups, hijacks, etc could be stopped if everyone just took a second to think over what they were thinking about saying and the possible ways in which your comment might be taken.

Thanks.

PS - Happy Holidays everybody!!!

[brs3]

Since the offseason is always trouble for the Box, I figured many of us (myself included) could do for a refresher of this info. I was going to try and rehash all the good points here, but Sprowl did such a great job here, I'm just going to link to it and implore all of you to reread his words. There's a reason so many of the people who contributed good ideas early in this thread now have a "Member" tag next to their name.

I would like to emphasize one thing again here: Above almost all else, please just take a deep breath and think before you make a post, start a topic, send a PM, etc. So many careless mistakes, in addition to silly or pointless posts, flame wars, fuck-ups, hijacks, etc could be stopped if everyone just took a second to think over what they were thinking about saying and the possible ways in which your comment might be taken.

Thanks.

PS - Happy Holidays everybody!!!

I'll piggyback on this a little bit, mainly because I'm guilty of it too, especially with the drop in some discussion that doesn't involve whether or not Teixeira is coming to town in Santa's sleigh or Tek's 2009 season. It's hard to ignore a dumb, pointless post, but it can be done! I suck at holding back sometimes, but it ends up ruining whatever sense of a legit discussion was going on. I would say that hijacking a thread is OK if it's related to the topic. IE One catch-all Catcher thread instead of 6 that cover exactly the same thing: The Catcher. =)

[CTballfan]

It appears this was an example worth of same-day promotion.
Nice work, SSLE, great contribution, congratulations and good luck on the Big Board.

[FinanceAdvice]

Regular threads are a place for more considered contributions on well-defined topics. Here are a few types that seem to generate productive discussions. Analytical threads evaluate the performance, potential, or ranking of a player or team. Cultural threads discuss the place of baseball in Boston and its nation(s), and the meanings and effects of the Red Sox in our lives as fans. Historical threads place contemporary performance in the long view (eg, Which Sox numbers will be are many kinds of threads: this list is intended to open discussion on threads that 'work', not to foreclose other possibilities.

I wanted to discuss is Pedro Martinez the greatest pitcher ever. I have stats to back my point of view. Would this be a good thread NOW considering the pitchers and catchers have not reported yet and the only one decisionj remaining is whether Varitek comes back

Edited by FinanceAdvice, 17 January 2009 - 11:17 AM.

[Curtis Pride]

Regular threads are a place for more considered contributions on well-defined topics. Here are a few types that seem to generate productive discussions. Analytical threads evaluate the performance, potential, or ranking of a player or team. Cultural threads discuss the place of baseball in Boston and its nation(s), and the meanings and effects of the Red Sox in our lives as fans. Historical threads place contemporary performance in the long view (eg, Which Sox numbers will be are many kinds of threads: this list is intended to open discussion on threads that 'work', not to foreclose other possibilities.

I wanted to discuss is Pedro Martinez the greatest pitcher ever. I have stats to back my point of view. Would this be a good thread NOW considering the pitchers and catchers have not reported yet and the only one decisionj remaining is whether Varitek comes back

I'd go ahead and start the topic. One of the following will happen:

1. Some Sandboxers would be interested in the topic and add to the discussion.
2. Nobody posts any your thread and it slowly drifts off the the list.
3. A dope moves it to the MLB Discussion forum where both members and lurkers can post.
4. a dope deems it unworthy of discussion and locks the thread.

What's the worst that can happen? I'll tell you, though, that 1 is far more likely to occur than 4.

You can sum up the entire posting philosophy at SoSH in two words: "Don't suck."

[Cuzittt]

1. Some Sandboxers would be interested in the topic and add to the discussion.
2. Nobody posts any your thread and it slowly drifts off the the list.
3. A dope moves it to the MLB Discussion forum where both members and lurkers can post.
4. a dope deems it unworthy of discussion and locks the thread.

What's the worst that can happen? I'll tell you, though, that 1 is far more likely to occur than 4.

3 is more likely than any of them.

A couple of points:

1) If it is related to the Red Sox major league team... it belongs here.
2) If it is related to the Red Sox MINOR league teams/players, it belongs in the Minor League Forum
3) If it is related directly to the Yankees, it belongs in the Yankees forum.
4) If it is related directly to the Mets, it belongs in the Mets forum.
5) If it is mostly a MLB related discussion (or about a player/team not listed above)... it belongs in the MLB forum.

And, yeah, "Don't suck"

[brs3]

Maybe it's the cold weather we've got, or the lack of Patriots to watch, but it seems like there's a bunch of threads recently that have fallen off into bickering, especially with regard to questioning the 'diehard' of a fan or reasoning for posting something.

If someone posted something that is entirely idiotic, don't respond! If their view is so obviously stupid, don't respond. They may sound like an idiot, but you pointing out the obvious is just as idiotic. Personally, I've posted less in the last few months, because there isn't a whole lot going on that hasn't been beaten to death. If something looks so dumb, think about it for 10 minutes before deciding it's worth responding. Is your response relevant to the discussion? If it's already been said, or whatever you're dying to tear apart is so easily torn apart, leave it. The shit threads are entertaining as hell, but I think we're better than that. There's enough of that on redsox.com or boston.com forums.

[meatrohan]

I have a genuine question? What makes a good sandbox thread in January? I come on SOSH to get the latest news and to see what other sox fans have to say about those moves. I don't always agree with the posts I read but I feel everyone is intitled to an opinion. In the end the only opinion that really matters is Theo's. It's been a month straight of catcher talk and i'm hungry for any topic but that. Far to often I see a "veteran" of SOSH post only negativity in a thread they don't deem suitable. If people are posting on the topic, why not let them post? If they are not, the topic will fade away. If you don't like the topic, just don't post or read it.

Does a topic always have to be hard news followed by piles of posts about how great a move it was? Or can a January topic be a more fun style topic where people throw around names and ideas that may not have been mentioned in another thread?

[Sinistas]

The problem is that "fun style topics" usually mean no substance: people decide to just throw out opinions without backing them up. That's the difference I've seen between SoSH and most sports forums: people often provide facts and evidence to support their claims, and people who don't get called on it. It cuts a lot of the BS out, and (I believe) makes for more interesting conversation.

As for everyone being entitled to their opinion, that doesn't really mesh with what this forum is about.

Edited by Sinistas, 24 January 2009 - 03:21 PM.

[Cuzittt]

I have a genuine question? What makes a good sandbox thread in January?

The same thing that makes a good sandbox thread at any other time of the year.

I come on SOSH to get the latest news and to see what other sox fans have to say about those moves. I don't always agree with the posts I read but I feel everyone is intitled to an opinion. In the end the only opinion that really matters is Theo's. It's been a month straight of catcher talk and i'm hungry for any topic but that. Far to often I see a "veteran" of SOSH post only negativity in a thread they don't deem suitable. If people are posting on the topic, why not let them post? If they are not, the topic will fade away. If you don't like the topic, just don't post or read it.

In all seriousness, if you don't like what the dopes do... you are free to go to another Red Sox site which fits your style of posting better. There are many out there. SoSH just might not be the place for you.

The idea of the sandbox is as a springboard to earn promotion to the main board. While the discussion may be good and useful in its own right, the good discussion is really a means to an end. With this being the case, threads that are obviously going in the wrong direction will be closed. Mostly because all these threads show are the people who probably don't fit the SoSH profile.

It should also be noted that there are many a lurker who have stated that their lack of participation has been due to the fact that the threads become really crappy, really quickly. They would like to show themselves worthy of promotion but have judged these poor threads as a bad forum to display themselves. I hate to admit they were right... but, I know I really avoided the sandbox due to the lower level of quality.

I have decided that is bad for the site. I am now reading the sandbox actively. I will make posts when I deem them necessary (but I do not plan on being an active part of the discussion... I have the main board for that). I will close threads when I deem that necessary. And, I will move threads to the proper areas of the board when this is necessary. More importantly, I will be actively promoting people who I think are ready to shine on the main board.

Does a topic always have to be hard news followed by piles of posts about how great a move it was? Or can a January topic be a more fun style topic where people throw around names and ideas that may not have been mentioned in another thread?

Does a thread have to be hard news... no. But, does it have to be more than mere speculation or wishful thinking? Yes. Some degree of rationality and sense is going to have to come into the picture.

Now, I know why you posted this. I closed a thread of yours. Because the thread quickly degenerated into the worst type of thread... the wishful trade thread. Trade talk isn't useful when you only think of the needs of one team... trade talk that isn't even based on real speculation... it's just wishful thinking. So, yeah, you might have fun with such a thread. If you do... I suggest you do some research and find a board where these types of threads are encouraged. SoSH is not the correct place.

[meatrohan]

Cuzittt,

If I could find a site that has the obvious passion and intelligence of SOSH I would go there but I highly doubt that site exsists. Corsi combover is so quick and spot on with his posts I sometimes think he may actually be Theo?

To allow hundreds and hundreds of posts about teagarden/ montero/salty and not allow posters to suggest other players seems to be a double standard? example-if I suggest towles for catcher because the stros' have a bunch of good young catchers--why is this any less worthy than a conversation about the texas catchers? Or if on the big board--they have a dunn thread-tek thread and young catcher thread..how was a thread about prioritizing which move was most important- a bad thread?

I personally find the posts with opinions to be far better than the 4 or 5 following posts that rip a guy for having an opinion. Also, the posters who use selected stats to back up an opinion are not always the best posters. example-manny and dustin are 2 very good players, but 1 guy is a gamer and the other well, not. I hope Dustin is on the sox forever and I(and many more) couldn't wait for Manny to be gone. Where does this show up on a stat page?

I appreciate your advice and am in no way being a smart ass. And I am hopeful that someday I get "it". It's just hard to understand your view on real news when the hot topic in the sandbox right now is "hot player wife-all stars"??????

Edited by meatrohan, 25 January 2009 - 04:58 PM.

[JulE6]

To allow hundreds and hundreds of posts about teagarden/ montero/salty and not allow posters to suggest other players seems to be a double standard? example-if I suggest towles for catcher because the stros' have a bunch of good young catchers--why is this any less worthy than a conversation about the texas catchers? Or if on the big board--they have a dunn thread-tek thread and young catcher thread..how was a thread about prioritizing which move was most important- a bad thread?

The thing is, meatrohan, that there hasn't been any indication that J.R. Towles is available to be acquired. A quick Google News seach for Towles brought up nothing but articles about towels and one article mentioning Towles contending for the backup role in Houston. On the contrary, the reason there have been hundreds and hundreds of posts regarding Teagarden, Saltalamacchia, and Montero is that all three have been linked to the Red Sox as far as potential acquisitions.

The way you separate your posts from being "wishful thinking" and positive discussion is to cite something. If you saw an article where it was mentioned that JR Towles was being shopped, that would be a great time to bring it up. However, since that isn't the case, suggesting the Sox go after him really doesn't bring much to the discussion because it's not an option at this time.

It also works with free agents too. At the beginning of the free agent signing period, a member of this site and I thought Jon Garland would be an interesting potential signing, and I mentioned it somewhere. However, since the Sox have signed Penny and Smoltz it's no longer feasable to think Jon Garland will become a member of the Red Sox.

Bottom line, when you have an idea about a player potentially coming to the Sox, don't just say "Wouldn't it be cool if the Sox traded for X". Bring something with you to the discussion, like an article saying he's being shopped, or a quote from said player saying he'd like to be traded. That way it springs a better discussion.

[fuzzy_one]

The idea of the sandbox is as a springboard to earn promotion to the main board. While the discussion may be good and useful in its own right, the good discussion is really a means to an end. With this being the case, threads that are obviously going in the wrong direction will be closed. Mostly because all these threads show are the people who probably don't fit the SoSH profile.

It should also be noted that there are many a lurker who have stated that their lack of participation has been due to the fact that the threads become really crappy, really quickly. They would like to show themselves worthy of promotion but have judged these poor threads as a bad forum to display themselves. I hate to admit they were right... but, I know I really avoided the sandbox due to the lower level of quality.

I have decided that is bad for the site. I am now reading the sandbox actively. I will make posts when I deem them necessary (but I do not plan on being an active part of the discussion... I have the main board for that). I will close threads when I deem that necessary. And, I will move threads to the proper areas of the board when this is necessary. More importantly, I will be actively promoting people who I think are ready to shine on the main board.
Does a thread have to be hard news... no. But, does it have to be more than mere speculation or wishful thinking? Yes. Some degree of rationality and sense is going to have to come into the picture.

You've pretty much encapsulated some of my own responses (as a long-time lurker) to the Sandbox:

• It's a great idea in theory, but ...
• I spend more of my time lurking on the main board than I do reading the 'Box, though I'm trying to be better about actually contributing.
• I wish main board folks would (could?) occasionally participate in ongoing Sandbox threads that show promise, because I think many kludgy-yet-intelligent ideas get buried in a pile of content-free posts before they can be refined through actual discussion. This doesn't have to happen very often before the poster of said nascent idea gives up for lack of interlocutors.
• I understand why (3) isn't the case.

All of which makes me think that the recent attempts to encourage Sandboxers & Members to interact via the MLB forum are a fabulous idea. If those attempts succeed, I'd like to see Members able to post in the 'Box. After all, prospects tend to develop in the presence of big league competition.

[NDame616]

It's been a rough few days, quality wise, and I feel that this contest may lead to people padding their posts/starting new threads that have no place here.

I really hope new lurkers and posters read this thread to see what should be posted, what should not, and where certain threads should be placed. I've never posted here really, and I look forward to talking to people other than the fans of a lessor stature than I, so I don't know if around opening day there's an influx of "bad" activity, or if it was just a fluke.

[foulkehampshire]

It's been a rough few days, quality wise, and I feel that this contest may lead to people padding their posts/starting new threads that have no place here.

I really hope new lurkers and posters read this thread to see what should be posted, what should not, and where certain threads should be placed. I've never posted here really, and I look forward to talking to people other than the fans of a lessor stature than I, so I don't know if around opening day there's an influx of "bad" activity, or if it was just a fluke.

I agree, the reactionary threads are really killer. When it comes to posting a topic, I think a different perspective is key. If I was another person who read this topic for the first time, would I want to respond? Would I find it intriguing, informative, or something that could foster some great baseball discussion? Posting a topic just for posting's sake does nothing for the 'box.

The "Oh my God MDC totally sucks" thread,

or

"Boo hoo the Yankees spend so much money and it isn't fair, haha I love when they stink" thread adds ABSOLUTELY nothing.

[brs3]

I have to jump on board with these guys. It's frustrating as hell when a topic brings nothing to the table aside from sploogefests or shitfests on players, or a 'haha the Yankees suck!'.

One thing to remember is, sometimes there's not a TON to actually discuss in the 'box that hasn't already been fully examined. That's an opportunity to venture into other forums and see what other discussions are going on. There are so many discussions on SoSH, you can easily spend hours going through threads. I've read many things that I've wanted to chime in on, but don't because my point was already made by someone else. It's unnecessary noise. If it adds to the discussion, then fantastic.

My guess is Opening Day, Yankee Series, Rays Series, and the Postseason is a time we'll see most of these craptastic threads cropping up.

[champain2002]

I'm pretty sure that quantity, although it might help, probably has less to do with membership than quality, and in the end could sink a lurker's chance at membership if all the posts do is contribute "noise," and baseless conjecture. IMO, if the post's sole purpose is to say, "look at me," then the membership effort is doomed from the start.

[GradyWilliams]

I think the quote from Frisbetarian in my sig says it perfectly (was in reference to the ~ 'How to use stats' thread on the main board a while ago, but I think it applies every where!)

[fonzo2]

Dude, with all due respect, what's up with the Boromir avatar? I love LOTR too, but....

[Sprowl]

Dude, with all due respect, what's up with the Boromir avatar? I love LOTR too, but....

If you're all that curious to find out, read the Sandbox 2007 game threads, from September through the World Series victory. This forum has a history.

[Sprowl]

The sandbox is crackling with good discussion. The Reddick plate discipline and the Crawford's return threads are important questions that lurkers identified first, and the discussions are high quality right now.

Way to go, guys!

[yazfaninpa]

I'd love to start a new thread, but apparently I'm too new to the system here. My thread would be on the topic of Why hasn't Wade Boggs number been retired by the Red Sox? Boggs is the only MLB player alive today that has not had his number retired by the team that he represented when he retired. The only one. He meets all the criteria to have his number retired (assuming they would wave the lifelong player requirement as they did for Carlton Fisk). Can anyone out there start up a thread on this issue? I've also started a petition on change.org to organize the MLB fanbase to rally behind Boggs and change the Bosox Front Office's mind on this issue. Just pull up change.org and do a search for Wade Boggs, then go ahead and sign the petition.

In the meantime, maybe someone here can start a thread on this issue, it's really embarrasing to know that the only team in the HOF that has not retired a HOF'ers number after retirement is the Sox.