Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

What makes a good thread? : Newbie Primer


  • Please log in to reply
78 replies to this topic

#1 Sprowl


  • mikey lowell of the sandbox


  • 20205 posts

Posted 04 November 2007 - 08:48 PM

This is a metathread: a place to discuss what we like, want and need in different kinds of sandbox threads. What kinds of threads are there? One lurker’s observations:

Game threads, offday sermons, and offseason fellowships are spontaneous threads, reacting to current and late-breaking events. They usually start from baseball, but then go where the conversation takes us. Posts don’t count in your total, which means that reactive posts are fine, multi-media contributions and non-sequiturs are welcome, even expected, and generally the tone is supportive. Requests to the community for information can go here too. They can be good places to try out new ideas and to get feedback about whether a topic is worthy of a regular sandbox thread.

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 retired?). There are many kinds of threads: this list is intended to open discussion on threads that 'work', not to foreclose other possibilities.

Five suggestions for all sandbox threads:

1) Spell-check the title before starting a topic. Posts can be edited, but thread titles are forever. Any poster who misspells a title risks being linked forever with that misspelling (remember HINSKI?).

2) Proofread the post, or at least run the text through a basic grammar checker (MS Word is our friend). Aside from names and the beginning of a sentence, please be sparing with capital letters – they are the internet equivalent of shouting, and nobody likes to be shouted at.

3) Include links to relevant sources. Sometimes it’s helpful to quote a brief selection from the source, but never quote the entire source. If the whole article is important, count on the reader to click through to the linked article. The selection of a key passage is one of the ways that a poster can add value to the original source, and focus the subsequent discussion on a few important issues.

4) Quantitative data and qualitative observations (eg, scouting reports) add a lot to player evaluation threads, and to many other threads as well. Codeboxes and the SoSH Excel Macro can be useful tools.

5) One last thought: is a new thread necessary? Too many threads can swamp the Sandbox. Maybe your idea would go better in a currently active thread. But if the existing thread has been inactive for more than a week, has fallen to the 3rd page, or has run out of insight, it’s time for a new one.


Edited for brevity and clarity.


Edited by AlNipper49, 31 July 2013 - 02:32 PM.


#2 Tito's Pullover


  • Lol boo ALS


  • 1344 posts

Posted 04 November 2007 - 09:36 PM

Excellent post Sprowler. The Sandbox is a hotbed for good ideas right now. Unfortunately, unlike the main board posts, our ideas are buried under tons of noise. There seems to be a page full of new threads every day, with four or five different threads on each topic. We can do our part to help steer away from that.

A few things I'd add:

6) If a thread is abhorrent, don't reply to it. Let bad threads die. Even a good response seems trivial if it is in reference to a terrible topic. And conversely, decent replies give stature to undeserving threads, keep them up longer, delay their eventual death and make us all look like asshats, even those of us that don't reply to them.

7) If there are several threads discussing a topic (enter Mike Lowell and all other third base discussions), there's no need to regurgitate the same idea in each thread. Much like number six... pick one thread, post your ideas there eloquently, and hopefully that'll be the thread that will catch on as the survivor - and source of the best discussion.

Your rules were all excellent and I agree with them, but I have to make a small caveat as far as thread titles are concerned: "Afterparth" is a great word, and I am thrilled that it was never lost to the briny depths of spellcheck. <_<

#3 Dusty Petra

  • 152 posts

Posted 04 November 2007 - 10:36 PM

Your rules were all excellent and I agree with them, but I have to make a small caveat as far as thread titles are concerned: "Afterparth" is a great word, and I am thrilled that it was never lost to the briny depths of spellcheck. <_<

Afterparth does have some pizzazz: part party, part aftermath, part ruined Greek temple.

Although I haven't started a thread yet, propositions 1-7 sound very good to me. The sandbox has been suffering from thread overload, and sometimes it's difficult to know where to respond. I've noticed that AlNipper49 has been closing some threads because they are megathreads, dealing with a subject so big that almost anything can be discussed under the title. Maybe we need to let our megathreads die too (and I say that with a little embarrassment, having just posted in the Offseason thread).

I'd like to add a recommendation on responding to a post within a thread:

8) when responding in a thread, don't quote a 40 line essay, and then say 'I agree', or some other one-liner with nothing new. Instead, quote just a few lines that you think are really good, and then add a few lines of your own saying why you agree.

#4 CapeCodsBabyBull

  • Pip
  • 512 posts

Posted 04 November 2007 - 10:49 PM

well I know what doesn't make a good thread, "Miguel tejada traded to the red sox"

#5 rembrat


  • SoSH Member


  • 22678 posts

Posted 05 November 2007 - 01:04 AM

well I know what doesn't make a good thread, "Miguel tejada traded to the red sox"


Seriously. I had a mild heart attack when I read that title.

#6 TheOtherGeneralManager

  • Pip
  • 25 posts

Posted 05 November 2007 - 01:14 AM

Seriously. I had a mild heart attack when I read that title.


Miguel tejada traded to the red sox ??? all in Capital Letters.
Big difference.

#7 JohnnyK

  • 979 posts

Posted 05 November 2007 - 11:16 AM

Good thinking Sprowl. I gotta say the quality of posts in the last few days/weeks has often been a negative surprise because some people seem to confuse this board with an AOL chatroom...

2) Proofread the post, or at least run the text through a basic grammar checker (MS Word is our friend).

Another reason to use Firefox - it has a built-in spellchecker. Just rightclick a textfield and enable spellchecking.

#8 Dusty Petra

  • 152 posts

Posted 05 November 2007 - 12:45 PM

7) If there are several threads discussing a topic (enter Mike Lowell and all other third base discussions), there's no need to regurgitate the same idea in each thread. Much like number six... pick one thread, post your ideas there eloquently, and hopefully that'll be the thread that will catch on as the survivor - and source of the best discussion.

Hear, hear! We are drowning in unnecessary duplicate threads. Please, no more than one thread per player unless you can identify a clearly distinct topic and add new information that doesn't belong in the other thread.

One Lowell thread, one Crisp thread, one Schilling thread... that will still leave us plenty of threads to post in.

#9 Blacken


  • Paddy Tanniger the Caddy Manager


  • 7981 posts

Posted 05 November 2007 - 01:33 PM

Your rules were all excellent and I agree with them, but I have to make a small caveat as far as thread titles are concerned: "Afterparth" is a great word, and I am thrilled that it was never lost to the briny depths of spellcheck.

Siiiigh. :rolleyes:

#10 NomarRS05

  • 3281 posts

Posted 05 November 2007 - 02:13 PM

5) One last thought: is a new thread necessary? Maybe your idea would go better in an active, interesting thread on the starting rotation, or 3B in 2008, or whatevah. But if the existing thread has been inactive for more than a week, has fallen to the 3rd page, or has run out of insight, I think that itís probably time for a new one.


Good post Sprowl. Ideally, we can slim down the number of new threads started per day to about 1/4 of what it is now. We should try to look at the Main Board just as a benchmark, where members start maybe two new threads per day at most. I know there are tons of interesting topics to discuss, but we should all try hard to figure out whether something a) might fit under a current thread or b) is a substantial enough topic to warrant an in-depth discussion.

#11 Barbara

  • 3128 posts

Posted 05 November 2007 - 09:05 PM

Good advice from all.

I would also like to add that everyone think twice because you can only type once when submitting a topic title . Once you click 'Start New Topic' you're stuck.

And think about a title for the topic. Don't make it so vague that it's hard to figure out ('Bandwagon/FrontRunnerRedSox..., 'Look at Me' as examples.)

This forum is not your own personal blog. It is a community of Red Sox fans who are looking for intelligent discussion.

#12 Clay's Buck

  • 67 posts

Posted 05 November 2007 - 10:47 PM

To answer the question of this thread...it seems "hot all-star wives" is what makes a good (popular) topic. ;)

#13 dynomite

  • 4427 posts

Posted 06 November 2007 - 11:33 AM

To the fearless leaders:

Can we make this topic a sticky or "pinned" or whatever you call it and put it at the top with a note directing new users to it? A lot of the first timers don't seem to understand a lot of the ground rules, and end up learning the hard way. I think it would improve the level of discussion on here, and maybe we could all pitch in and start adding sites where we've found good (and preferably free) statistical breakdowns, discussion of prospects and the like.

Just a thought.

EDIT: Please no one tell my college I can't spell.

Edited by dynomite, 06 November 2007 - 11:34 AM.


#14 Jeekinz

  • Pip
  • 128 posts

Posted 06 November 2007 - 01:58 PM

With any forum, vague titles, hijacks and duplicate threads can be somewhat of an issue. But you can't carry on the same Shilling conversation from 06 that you can in 07.

I try to proofread my spelling and grammar as much as possible, but to make an issue out of it is absurd. I can't stand reading a thread just to be interrupted by some jackass making a spelling correction.

#15 Mr. Sparkle

  • 109 posts

Posted 06 November 2007 - 04:44 PM

To answer the question of this thread...it seems "hot all-star wives" is what makes a good (popular) topic. :smithicide:

And man has it ever fallen on hard times since CoRP left. Come on guys. We're better than this.

#16 kanga12

  • 1559 posts

Posted 06 November 2007 - 04:55 PM

To the fearless leaders:

Can we make this topic a sticky or "pinned" or whatever you call it and put it at the top with a note directing new users to it? A lot of the first timers don't seem to understand a lot of the ground rules, and end up learning the hard way. I think it would improve the level of discussion on here, and maybe we could all pitch in and start adding sites where we've found good (and preferably free) statistical breakdowns, discussion of prospects and the like.

Just a thought.


I concur. I recall on the main board they would have a pinned thread on "standards" periodically as a reminder. I think it's a great idea -- especially for a forum like ours with constantly new readers and posters.

Earlier this spring I suggested some sort of "standard" (copied from the main board) here in the box.

#17 opes


  • Doctor Tongue


  • 3133 posts

Posted 06 November 2007 - 05:01 PM

Question: What doesnt make a good thread?
Answer: The next tribute/thanks thread I see, I swear to Jack Cust himself, I'll effing lose it.

#18 doc

  • 2600 posts

Posted 06 November 2007 - 05:14 PM

Add these links if we pin this thread

SOSH History
Abbreviations
FAQ
User Guide

Also we have posting privileges in the Minor League Forum, Major League Discussion, the Media Forum and the entire Other Sports area. Please look for threads in these area's prior to starting one in the Box or start it there. The Box is our version of the Red Sox Forum.

edited for a new thought

Edited by doc, 07 November 2007 - 04:50 PM.


#19 Sille Skrub

  • 3909 posts

Posted 06 November 2007 - 05:48 PM

Pinned per lurker(s) request.

#20 Groovenstein

  • 469 posts

Posted 11 November 2007 - 05:26 AM

I try to proofread my spelling and grammar as much as possible, but to make an issue out of it is absurd. I can't stand reading a thread just to be interrupted by some jackass making a spelling correction.


To make an issue out of it is important, not absurd. By "make an issue out of it," I mean have it stated in the rules, enforced as necessary, and generally handled privately. I consider it rude and unnecessary to call someone out publicly for a spelling error. Simply alert them by PM. If it is a persistent problem, tell a moderator.

Using proper grammar and spelling is courteous to the reader and beneficial to the writer, and an otherwise good forum that did not frown upon persistently poor spelling and grammar would quickly become a bad forum. Individual, isolated goofs--which most are, in my experience--are a small private matter.

#21 YouLookAdopted

  • 999 posts

Posted 16 November 2007 - 04:58 PM

Here's a tip, if you're considering starting a thread with "The (fill in the blank) Thread" as the title, please consider taking a break from posting for a few days or weeks. Threads that rely on that template are usually those that are trying to bring attention to a specific theme that has already been brought up ad nauseum in at least one other thread. An example would be "The 'I want Lester, Buchholz and Ellsbury on my team not Santana or Miguel Cabrera' thread". It really is not necessary to start a new thread based on the premise that you don't want to trade young prospects away because that idea has been thoroughly discussed in several other threads.

With a few exceptions, any thread that uses "The (fill in the blank) Thread" is a bad idea and a blatant attempt at starting a mega-thread.

#22 Jeekinz

  • Pip
  • 128 posts

Posted 19 November 2007 - 01:57 PM

Here's an idea. Eliminate the need to post spelling corrections, opinions on what thread to post something in and rude remarks about other peoples comments. This site does have moderators! We don't need others trying to be one shoving their nose so far up SOSH's sphincter trying to get to the Red Sox board.

The more you post nonsence, the more of it will follow. Learn what the "Ignore" feature does if you honestly can't control yourself.

^^^^ That would make good threads.

#23 doc

  • 2600 posts

Posted 19 November 2007 - 02:03 PM

Here's an idea. Eliminate the need to post spelling corrections, opinions on what thread to post something in and rude remarks about other peoples comments. This site does have moderators! We don't need others trying to be one shoving their nose so far up SOSH's sphincter trying to get to the Red Sox board.

The more you post nonsence, the more of it will follow. Learn what the "Ignore" feature does if you honestly can't control yourself.

^^^^ That would make good threads.

Some of that could be handled by PM and the Mods aren't here to babysit the 'Box and if you spend some time reading the main board there is a decent amount of spelling and grammar correction there as well as calling out plain old stupidity. And Yes I do about the ignore function and have used it for one member who may have been banned, you may be 2cnd.

#24 YouLookAdopted

  • 999 posts

Posted 19 November 2007 - 03:02 PM

Here's an idea. Eliminate the need to post spelling corrections, opinions on what thread to post something in and rude remarks about other peoples comments. This site does have moderators! We don't need others trying to be one shoving their nose so far up SOSH's sphincter trying to get to the Red Sox board.


What we don't need is posters who justify the existence of a lower forum by starting more "Look At Me!" threads. As someone else said, this isn't your personal blog.

Edited by YouLookAdopted, 19 November 2007 - 03:48 PM.


#25 Dim13

  • 1178 posts

Posted 19 November 2007 - 08:31 PM

Here's an idea. Eliminate the need to post spelling corrections, opinions on what thread to post something in and rude remarks about other peoples comments. This site does have moderators! We don't need others trying to be one shoving their nose so far up SOSH's sphincter trying to get to the Red Sox board.

The more you post nonsence, the more of it will follow. Learn what the "Ignore" feature does if you honestly can't control yourself.

^^^^ That would make good threads.


It's nonsense, by the way.

Sorry...couldn't resist. :)

Edited by Dim13, 19 November 2007 - 08:32 PM.


#26 nasemoney

  • 97 posts

Posted 20 November 2007 - 07:54 PM

May seem minor to some but I'll mention it...

One thing I would like to see (at the risk that it's been mentioned as I don't have time to read all of the posts in this thread right now) change is for people to stop trying to make their threads stand out by saying "The '__________________________' Thread. It just seems juvenile to me. It just screams, "Hey, if you want to talk about that, post it in MY thread! The OFFICIAL thread!!" We should be pushing greater depth to the content of your posts as the best way of establishing your identity here, not "how many official-type threads on a major topic have you started?" Take a look on the main Red Sox board and see how many thread titles you see like that.

This thread doesn't fall under that category so Sprowl is safe :lol:

#27 nasemoney

  • 97 posts

Posted 20 November 2007 - 08:02 PM

Here's a tip, if you're considering starting a thread with "The (fill in the blank) Thread" as the title, please consider taking a break from posting for a few days or weeks. Threads that rely on that template are usually those that are trying to bring attention to a specific theme that has already been brought up ad nauseum in at least one other thread. An example would be "The 'I want Lester, Buchholz and Ellsbury on my team not Santana or Miguel Cabrera' thread". It really is not necessary to start a new thread based on the premise that you don't want to trade young prospects away because that idea has been thoroughly discussed in several other threads.

With a few exceptions, any thread that uses "The (fill in the blank) Thread" is a bad idea and a blatant attempt at starting a mega-thread.


HAHA, that's hilarious.

I just posted the same thing. We should also eliminate lurkers who don't read threads before posting in them. :bag:

#28 Sprowl


  • mikey lowell of the sandbox


  • 20205 posts

Posted 22 November 2007 - 07:24 AM

Intelligent speculation begins from the evidence available before plunging into the unknown. If you are starting a thread on a player, team or position, itís worth the effort to provide some of that evidence first. Four websites received votes as the best or the most frequently used baseball data sites in a sandbox poll. If you are looking for data, these are good places to begin:

Baseball Reference
Baseball Prospectus
Baseball Cube
Hardball Times

Baseball Reference was the clear winner in both poll questions. Itís not the most elegant or readable site, but for breadth of coverage itís hard to beat Ė and itís free. Two other sites were widely recommended for quick access to graphics and splits during the game.

Fan Graphs
ESPN Statistics

One site does not fit all: different sites serve different purposes. If you don't get the information you need from the usual suspects, try some of the nine specialist sites below. While they did not receive any first-place votes, each one provides information not easily found elsewhere. The strengths, weaknesses and specialties of these websites are discussed at length in the thread on News, Blog and Data Websites.

Baseball Analysts
Baseball Exchange
Baseball Guru
Baseball Think Factory
Hit Tracker
Red Sox Stats
Retrosheet
Rotowire's stats page
USA Today Red Sox stats



#29 Sprowl


  • mikey lowell of the sandbox


  • 20205 posts

Posted 01 December 2007 - 05:54 PM

Most of us get our baseball news from SoSH first, but news comes to SoSH from many sources. Who breaks the news? It's not easy to beat Corsi to the punch, but lurkers have done it several times in the sandbox and in the MLB forum. If you find the news first, post it first: the credit should be yours. Where should you look? A sandbox poll asked which websites were the best for breaking news. The clear winner was

Rotoworld

Three other sites also received support:

ESPN (Insider)
MLB Trade Rumors
Pro Sports Daily

Links to another seven news websites are in the poll thread.

#30 January

  • PipPip
  • 2158 posts

Posted 02 December 2007 - 10:21 PM

(This is a paraphrase from PMing Sille Skrub)

Sprowl gave good advice on creating threads. I'll try to add a note on continuing them/splitting them. Now, sometimes a thread may wander into topics that are tangentially, but not directly related to the original. In this case, it is good to start a new thread. All the tangents create a megathread, which can discourage discussion because people will not be able to wade through it.

A common way this can occur is if a tread is discussing an on-going event, and new information appears. For example, if a trade is 'in the works', new information about different teams offers/counter-offers/etc may be available. In this case, it is good to start a new thread, while it is the same event, the new information makes much of the old discussion erroneous, so a new thread is good.

There is no set max length on threads, and sometimes a discussion can become quite long a single topic, in which case it should be left alone. Just use what other people have done as a guideline and it should be ok.

#31 KiltedFool


  • has a terminal case of creeping sharia


  • 1409 posts

Posted 03 December 2007 - 02:27 PM

Few comments from spending way too much time at way too many forums.

Expanding on the comment above about the ____ thread, if you are tempted to put the word Official in your thread title, odds are you really shouldn't. Too often the "Look at my thread, see it has my name next to is aren't I cool?!" reflex leads to that sort of naming and then the infighting to defend it.

I briefly scanned the poll on sports data sites and thought it might be useful to note that Cot's is one of the better places to locate that information, their data is often more comprehensive than ESPN or CNNSI.

Lastly, from another forum many years ago I bring tdn's rule of grammar "Anytime you post to correct another poster's grammar or spelling error, you are guaranteed to make an error of your own in the post"

edit: bah in a second scan of the poll thread Cot's was mentioned, so mea culpa, though it's not terrible that it's mentioned on it's own here.

Edited by KiltedFool, 03 December 2007 - 02:29 PM.


#32 asection8

  • 1151 posts

Posted 22 December 2007 - 06:44 PM

edit: Nevermind. problem fixed

Edited by asection8, 22 December 2007 - 06:45 PM.


#33 Barbara

  • 3128 posts

Posted 11 January 2008 - 09:39 PM

We are getting closer and closer to pitchers reporting and the 2008 season getting underway. Hooray! For our statisticians who want cleanly arranged data, a helpful hint from the SoSHwiki:

How to Post & Align Columnar Stats and Data
An Excel spreadsheet is available for download, which contains a macro that will take the data from the spreadsheet, and produce the BBcode necessary to post the data in a table on SoSH.

Follow this link: Excel Spreadsheet

On that Web page is a link to the hosted Excel file. Just right-click and save.

Once you have your data in the spreadsheet:

1. Highlight a range of cells
2. Run the macro (either by clicking the 'Convert to SoSH Table' button or from the Tools menu, selecting the macro option)
3. The table will be named whatever the sheet name is called.
4. The macro will copy the BBcode for your table to the clipboard, just paste into the message body.

#34 rglenmt

  • Pip
  • 526 posts

Posted 10 April 2008 - 02:25 PM

Is Ok if we start a General Sports Topic involving Golf in the Sandlot?

Thanks

#35 Cuzittt


  • Bouncing with Anger


  • 16964 posts

Posted 10 April 2008 - 02:27 PM

Is Ok if we start a General Sports Topic involving Golf in the Sandlot?

Thanks


Why not start it in General Sports? You have access to that forum.

#36 Rudi Fingers

  • 1148 posts

Posted 07 May 2008 - 03:56 PM

Can the PayPal address where lurkers can donate to the site be added here or linked?

I would like to donate, and I'm sure others would as well.

#37 Mike Greenwall

  • 1302 posts

Posted 04 June 2008 - 05:01 PM

Can the PayPal address where lurkers can donate to the site be added here or linked?

I would like to donate, and I'm sure others would as well.


I concur. I PM'd a dope about donating but have not received a reply. It's either this or a porn site.

#38 Stuart Scott's Lazy Eye


  • Sad Sack


  • 1655 posts

Posted 02 July 2008 - 01:36 PM

We are getting closer and closer to pitchers reporting and the 2008 season getting underway. Hooray! For our statisticians who want cleanly arranged data, a helpful hint from the SoSHwiki:

How to Post & Align Columnar Stats and Data
An Excel spreadsheet is available for download, which contains a macro that will take the data from the spreadsheet, and produce the BBcode necessary to post the data in a table on SoSH.

Follow this link: Excel Spreadsheet

On that Web page is a link to the hosted Excel file. Just right-click and save.

Once you have your data in the spreadsheet:

1. Highlight a range of cells
2. Run the macro (either by clicking the 'Convert to SoSH Table' button or from the Tools menu, selecting the macro option)
3. The table will be named whatever the sheet name is called.
4. The macro will copy the BBcode for your table to the clipboard, just paste into the message body.



I keep trying that but I keep getting this:

x x x x x x x x x x x x
instead of this:

x x x x
x x x x
x x x x

how do I fix it or what am I doing wrong?

#39 Guest_mannytizzletek_*

Posted 07 July 2008 - 10:33 PM

Not it:

http://sonsofsamhorn...showtopic=33635

#40 grantb


  • Couldn't get into a real school


  • 1522 posts

Posted 07 July 2008 - 11:47 PM

Or http://sonsofsamhorn...showtopic=33637

Really, that conversation should be held here. That said, if you want to gather information, don't just gather the "ayes" or the "nays" get both. There are polls for that, by the way.

#41 nixon7

  • Pip
  • 31 posts

Posted 18 July 2008 - 05:44 PM

careful , you might get banned for expressing your opinions!

#42 yaz75

  • Pip
  • 55 posts

Posted 21 July 2008 - 11:20 PM

careful , you might get banned for expressing your opinions!


Boy this place is intimidating. I'll stick to lurking.

#43 Stuart Scott's Lazy Eye


  • Sad Sack


  • 1655 posts

Posted 29 July 2008 - 10:57 AM

I'm guessing 3 Manny threads and 2 "Peter Gammons hates Manny and works undercover for the Sox FO" threads isn't the best way to go.

#44 pockmeister

  • 265 posts

Posted 29 July 2008 - 11:06 AM

I'm guessing 3 Manny threads and 2 "Peter Gammons hates Manny and works undercover for the Sox FO" threads isn't the best way to go.


I'm guessing not too.

The quality down here is terrible at the moment, very little in the way of signals and an awful lot of noise. Could I make a plea for Sandboxers to read the main board more, and take that as a benchmark for quality (well, most of the time). There are a lot of one-line, flippant, "I'm smarter than you" posts going on in here at the moment, and not actually much in the way of rational thought. The Manny threads show a lot of this, as does the awful "Concoct a trade..." thread.

I wonder how long a leash the Dopes are going to give this place if current standards continue...?

#45 sleepyjose03

  • 2395 posts

Posted 29 July 2008 - 01:32 PM

Personally I find the current "Manny" threads abyssmal. The "Concoct a trade..." thread I actually have no problem with. I consider it a necessary evil. It sort of serves as a catch all for wacky and inventive trade ideas. It certainly is much better (IMHO) to a bizillion individual threads with their own crazy trade ideas. A single thread designed to host unfounded trade notions is not necessarily itself a bad thing. Yes, the level of discussion there has sunk at times, but on the whole I'd say its not all that bad, and it probably raises the level of other threads (Manny threads nonwithstanding) by eliminating those posts from infecting other areas.

One of the most telling things for me about the current level of discussion here has been reading through OUR Theo/Manny thread (which I have avoided posting in like the plague, although I was seriously tempted several times) and reading through the MainBoard's Theo/Manny thread. While we will still arguing whether or not Manny should have swung on that Rivera cutter and getting into pissing contests, they were analysing his defensive metrics, the actual pitchers he has sat against, and Boras' influence on the matter.

Manny is an emotional subject, and emotional subjects reduce objectivity, no matter how hard we try, but the past few days have been horribly embarassing for the 'Box. Then again, the Trade Deadline usually is, so I'm eagerly awaiting the end of the week and the improved discussion which will hopefully result.

#46 grantb


  • Couldn't get into a real school


  • 1522 posts

Posted 29 July 2008 - 03:40 PM

What makes a good sandbox thread IMO (or any thread in general) is the posters' ability to accept that people won't agree with them and not responding to every disagreeing post out there. I can say it's much more satisfying to see who out there actually agrees with you than shoving your opinion down everyone's throat. I'm not afraid to admit I've learned this the hard way.

#47 RedSoxinATL

  • 84 posts

Posted 29 July 2008 - 03:48 PM

What makes a good sandbox thread IMO (or any thread in general) is the posters' ability to accept that people won't agree with them and not responding to every disagreeing post out there. I can say it's much more satisfying to see who out there actually agrees with you than shoving your opinion down everyone's throat. I'm not afraid to admit I've learned this the hard way.



Well said, I couldn't agree more!

#48 Stuart Scott's Lazy Eye


  • Sad Sack


  • 1655 posts

Posted 31 July 2008 - 07:03 PM

Reactionary and overly-emotional posts and threads.

Trade Deadline Day is the worst time of the year.

:lol:

#49 kenneycb


  • Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play


  • 7183 posts

Posted 31 July 2008 - 07:10 PM

I cannot stress it enough to utilize baseball-reference, espn, fangraphs, etc. Sprowl's post a page or two back should be bookmarked.

There have been so many unsubstantiated posts that can be refuted with a simple google search.

#50 Stuart Scott's Lazy Eye


  • Sad Sack


  • 1655 posts

Posted 06 August 2008 - 10:39 PM

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.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users