56 replies to this topic

[Max Venerable]

Dopes feel free to lock, but I think this is an interesting debate on the place of fans in terms of the team.

Continued from the CF thread:

Posts: 377
EDIT: (sorry to participate in a thread hijack, Soxfan's post just got me thinking...)

QUOTE(soxfan121 @ Jan 16 2006, 11:47 AM)
"We" are fans of the Red Sox. "We" can be upset, elated or unaffected by rumors regarding the Red Sox.

"They" are the Red Sox; the players, the Front Office.

Saying "we are giving up way too much" is inaccurate. Unless you mean that we, the fans, value Bronson's guitar playing skills and haven't properly adjusted his baseball value to compensate. Saying "the Red Sox are giving up way too much" is not only more specific but it also makes clear WHO and WHAT is being discussed.

"We", the fans, don't give up anything; the team does. Proper usage of terminology makes EVERYONE understand YOU better. IMO, it's lazy and silly to use "we" in a post about the Red Sox; unless you're Eric Van or otherwise employed by the Red Sox, you're not part of the "we" regardless of your "RSN membership card".

I think you've got it backwards. We are the Red Sox. They, the owners, are businessmen with an investment in a particular business; they, the owners, would have just as happily invested in the St. Louis Cardinals or the Detroit Red Wings or the Mitsubishi Corporation. They, the players, are employees who were drafted or traded into service for the Red Sox organization, or agreed as free agents to play for the Red Sox because we offered the best money, best location, best job benefits, or whatever. They are just mercenaries, and nothing else. If the history of the Boston Red Sox: the sale of Babe Ruth, the 86 years of curse, the history of players like Ted Williams and Carl Yaztriemski and Bill Lee and Luis Tiante and Nomar Garciaparra, the 2004 redemption; if all of that history means anything, it only means something to us. It certainly means squat to Mark Loretta and Manny Ramirez, and if it means anything to John Henry, it is only in his secondary role as a fan of the game; in his position as an owner, all he cares about is the tickets being purchased, the players on the current roster, and the bottom line of the corporation.

Now, maybe the history and legend of the Red Sox doesn't mean anything and we're all just deluded. But that's what being a sports fan means. And if we're going to play pretend, we might as well admit it; we may be nothing more than a consumer of the Red Sox product line, but part of that product is living with the illusion that "we" are somehow intimately connected to the Red Sox. Given your logic, why were you upset when Aaron Boone homered in Game 7 in 2003? Nothing had happened to 'you', just to 'them'.

It is absurd, but it's pretty absurd that we're all posting to a message board about the employment decisions of a corporation we don't have anything to do with. As Dave Barry said,

QUOTE
"Suppose you have a friend who, for no apparent reason, suddenly becomes obsessed with the Amtrak Corp.
He babbles about Amtrak constantly, citing obscure railroad statistics from 1978. He puts Amtrak bumper stickers on his car. When something bad happens to Amtrak--a train crashes, for instance, and investigators find that the engineer was drinking and wearing a bunny suit--your friend bcomes depressed for weeks.
You'd think he was crazy, right? "Bob," you'd say as a loving and caring friend, "you're a moron. The Amtrak Corp. has -nothing to do with you-."
But if Bob is behaving exactly the same deranged way about the Pittsburgh Penguins, it's considered normal guy behavior. He could name his child "Pittsburgh Penguin Johnson" and be considered only mildly eccentric."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As someone who understands exactly what Soxfan was saying, I respectfully think you miss the point.

No one is divorcing themselves from the team emotionally when they chose not to refer to them in the first person.

Okay 'we' are the Red Sox. We are the beating heart of a storied old baseball warhorse.

And Tom Yawkey didn't sign Willie Mays.

The point is - there is some stuff that we as fans, can never be responsible for. Therefore, saying something like "WE should go out and sign X next season but WE shouldn't spend more than 13m, because WE'LL need the money for Z."

Well, that's silly and presumtuous.

It presumes that you are part making the dicisions. It also presumes that you know how much the Red Sox can or cannot spend. It also presumes that you know what the strategy of the team is.

Look, I'm more rah-rah than the next guy - I bleed red and white and blue, but I can't help the team make trades, and I can't write their checks. My blood pressure couldn't handle it.

Give yourself a break. And keep rooting for shirts and pants.

Edited by Max Venerable, 16 January 2006 - 05:33 PM.

[MainerInExile]

You're reading way WAY to much into it. It's shorthand. It's a lot quicker and easier to say "we" than it is to say "the red sox" all the time.

[Max Venerable]

You're reading way WAY to much into it.  It's shorthand.  It's a lot quicker and easier to say "we" than it is to say "the red sox" all the time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, that argument has been made, but in my experience people are pretty careful with words around here.

I think it goes beyond that. I wonder sometimes with all of the entitlement in sports, and especially in RSN - are people actually feeling involved?

[jp]

Personally, it really doesn't matter to me what pronoun people use.

[Lose Remerswaal]

You're reading way WAY to much into it.  It's shorthand.  It's a lot quicker and easier to say "we" than it is to say "the red sox" all the time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agree 100%. No one, (or almost no one) here thinks they are part of the team.

[Arock78]

You're reading way WAY to much into it.  It's shorthand.  It's a lot quicker and easier to say "we" than it is to say "the red sox" all the time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I second that, but would add that two issues are confused: the use of "we" as shorthand, and the crazy inability of some to psychologically deal with it when the Sox aren't playing well.

The former neither implies nor leads to the latter. I use "we" as shorthand, but I tend to be among the more stoic when it comes to the Sox playing like shit.

[Max Venerable]

Agree 100%.  No one, (or almost no one) here thinks they are part of the team.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm talking about emotional investment. About being so involved, that you actually feel as if it's your money being comitted to payer x.

We're sitting here banging our heads, and waiting for something to happen.

I'm tired of talking about Marte for Lugo. Sue me.

[Oil Can Void]

Agree 100%.  No one, (or almost no one) here thinks they are part of the team.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Theo and I agree with the above post.

Is January "Take yourself way too damn seriously month"?

[TheoShmeo]

While I rarely use "we", I think it's harmless and only reflects that people identify with the particular team they are referring to.

I assume that most people here identify with the Red Sox to some extent, and that most people know the difference between the Sox and themselves, regardless of whether they use the convenient expression "we" when referring to the team.

[5belongstoGeorge]

Speaking for myself, I have no trouble comprehending the fact that I am really not on the team, regardless of the pronouns I select. I also rarely confuse any posters with players. When people say "we" in a post I don't imagine Manny at the Keyboard.

Any Colour You Like was and is my favortite song on that album anyway.

[Lucen]

Yes, that argument has been made, but in my experience people are pretty careful with words around here.

I think it goes beyond that. I wonder sometimes with all of the entitlement in sports, and especially in RSN - are people actually feeling involved?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It does go beyond that. As I pointed out in the other thread, human beings are social creatures and it's completely natural to want to view ourselves as part of something rather than being on the outside looking in. Part of being a fan is feeling like part of the team. It's why we get so caught up in every little detail of the season (or even the off season in the case of some), it's why we feel jubilation with each victory and despair with every defeat. We're emotionally invested in our team and there is nothing wrong with using the term 'we' when discussing the team.

Aside from the hypertechnical incorrectness of it, there's no reason to harp on people for using that particular phrasing. Most sports fans do it. I don't think any of them do so hoping to pass themselves off as one of the check writers or decision makers of the organization though. And to be honest, I think it's kind of petty to call people out on it. It doesn't hurt anything, especially in a community of rational adults where we certainly know the difference between 'we' and the Sox front office.

[Todd Benzinger]

Splitting hairs is silly. Everyone knows that "we should get Dunn whatever the cost" in a post on SoSH REALLY means "The FO should..."

If you are going to insist on be overly precise, saying "The Red Sox should get Dunn" isn't all that much better than "We." After all, who are the Red Sox? You can call Manny a "Red Sox." Can you Call Jed Hoyer a Red Sox? Can you call JWH a Red Sox? LL? Theo the consultant?

Do you really want Manny, Trot and Beckett working the phones to land a CF?

[Arock78]

Theo and I agree with the above post.

Is January "Take yourself way too damn seriously month"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No but it's National Oatmeal Month! Woo-hoo!

I do think a discussion about perspective on team success and failure might make a very interesting thread. We don't need to marry it to a discussion about the use of the word "we." I think that's what's distracting the (potential) discussion.

[EricM80]

I can't believe nobody has used the predictable "I thought this was about Pink Floyd" line yet.

[Max Venerable]

there is nothing wrong with using the term 'we' when discussing the team.

to be honest, I think it's kind of petty to call people out on it.  It doesn't hurt anything, especially in a community of rational adults where we certainly know the difference between 'we' and the Sox front office.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm really not trying to call anyone out - I think the role of the "uber-fan' is an interesting one.

I'm not accusing anyone of thinking they are "actually" a part of the front office. That's silly.

What happens on the field is real and there for everyone to see. What happens behind closed doors is more often imagined than revealed. That's where I see a flaw.

Ces't la vie.

[Oil Can Dan]

My old manager still has a voicemail I left him after the final out in 2004 of me happilly saying "we did it...we really, finally did it".

Was that wrong of me?

edit - does it matter if you're officially part of Red Sox Nation with those little cards or whatever people bought? Maybe "they" can say 'we' but "we" can't?

Edited by Oil Can Dan, 16 January 2006 - 05:54 PM.

[5belongstoGeorge]

I can't believe nobody has used the predictable "I thought this was about Pink Floyd" line yet.

Dude,
See the 4th post up from yours...

Any Colour You Like was and is my favortite song on that album anyway.

[Max Venerable]

After all, who are the Red Sox?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's my question.

"Who am I?" - Derek Zoolander

Edited by Max Venerable, 16 January 2006 - 05:56 PM.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Did you guys celebrate when the Sox won the World Series, and if so, why? It's not like you won- they did. And since we aren't part of it, why was there excitement.

I dunno, I like saying "we". "We" as fans are the only thing that remains constant, and when the Red Sox win....I feel good, and I think most of us do. When they lose, I feel less good.

I realize I'm not a part of the team that's on the field, but I do feel an association with the team and I have for a long long time and I expect that to continue.

And if only those associated can say "we", how far does that extend? If I sold tickets, would it be "we"? If I cleaned the bathrooms? Was it OK for Van to say "we", but of course he can't anymore since he doesn't work there? I'm confused. Seems like a big deal about nothing....if you don't like saying "we" don't, just don't see why it's OK for people to say it.

[Future Sox Doc]

I think it is more like this (living in Pittsburgh now, I will use the Steelers as an example)


Today: "I can't believe that we beat the Colts! It was awesome! We had a great game."

Next Week: "I can't believe they lost to the Broncos! 3 picks, 2 fumbles? What were they thinking?"

[TheoShmeo]

On reflection, the only reason why WE are contemplating our navels to this extent is because THEY haven't made a move that WE can discuss in too long, and THEY and WE have problems at SS and CF that are making us all a little nuts.....

[Max Venerable]

Did you guys celebrate when the Sox won the World Series, and if so, why? It's not like you won- they did. And since we aren't part of it, why was there excitement.

I dunno, I like saying "we". "We" as fans are the only thing that remains constant, and when the Red Sox win....I feel good, and I think most of us do. When they lose, I feel less good.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There's a big difference between celebrating your team's victory, and pretending to know the mind of the front office.

Baseball games are the product. They are presented for us to see and be a part of. We are part of the product, therefore we are part of the team. We encourage them. WE BUY THEIR STUFF!

Between April and October they are 'WE' 'US' whatever.

I sometimes wish the front office had to parade around after making a deal while fans pass judgement on them. But alas. "WE" as fans have no effect on the offseason.

Edit: And Rudy, I don't really care who says 'we' - for gods sake If it drove me up the wall that much, I would have been bitching four years ago. I think it's an interesting sociological detail, that in recent frustrating weeks, has begun to irritate me.

Edited by Max Venerable, 16 January 2006 - 06:05 PM.

[Arock78]

There's a big difference between celebrating your team's victory, and pretending to know the mind of the front office.

Baseball games are the product. They are presented for us to see and be a part of. We are part of the product, therefore we are part of the team. We encourage them. WE BUY THEIR STUFF!

Between April and October they are 'WE' 'US' whatever.

I sometimes wish the front office had to parade around after making a deal while fans pass judgement on them. But alas. "WE" as fans have no effect on the offseason.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dude, that makes us the customer, not part of the product. I think it might be instructive to say that the consumer model is incomplete in discussing a sports fan. You have to introduce something along the lines of a national allegiance, which, in a somewhat limited sense, being a Sox fan actually implies.

[Max Venerable]

Dude, that makes us the customer, not part of the product.  I think it might be instructive to say that the consumer model is incomplete in discussing a sports fan.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe so, but If you think that 35,000 screaming fans is not a part of the appeal to potential customers, then I don't know what to say. The fans are a product of a well run team. Better team = More fans.

Why can't we be both customer and product?

Edited by Max Venerable, 16 January 2006 - 06:11 PM.

[Oil Can Dan]

Wait - you mean all that I am unoriginal and unfunny. Please put me out of my misery during the regular season doesn't impact the games? What?

[The Long Tater]

This is one of those "debates" where everyone is pretty much right. I personally try to avoid using "we" but I don't mind when others do and understand why they do.

The only time "we" really bugs me is when people think that because their team did well this means something about them. We (Red Sox fans, not the team) frequently point out this behavior in Yankee fans but if you really want to see it check out southern college football fans. Alabama vs. Auburn anyone?

[satyadaimoku]

It's true that this is probably a silly diversion inspired by lack of news, but I find it at least somewhat interesting...

I suppose my post, while inspired by Soxfan's curmudgenly comment about the use of the word 'we', wasn't really meant to be in direct response to that. I understand that most people, when they use 'we', are just casually using it as shorthand. But shorthand for what? I would say, for a complicated relationship that all of us have to the Red Sox that is kind of hard to describe. The Red Sox are, after all, a corporation. But we are obviously more than that. The city of Rochester, New York is intimately tied to the Kodak corporation; almost a third of the city is employed by Kodak, and the city probably would not be of the same size and importance were it not for George Eastman's corporation. And yet, when the Kodak corporation has a major success (a merger, say, or the defeat of one of its rival competitors), the city of Rochester does not take to the streets in celebration of their home corporation, even though that does mean jobs and actual, tangible benefits to the city. When the Red Sox won the World Series, that did not improve my life, or the life of the city of Boston, one iota in any tangible way. And yet, we celebrate like madmen and practically riot on the streets of Boston. Why?

The Red Sox mean something to us, and to the city of Boston. And frankly, that meaning is lost on most of the players and the owners. I don't agree with the notion that the financial investors and employees of the Red Sox are the Red Sox while the fans are just consumers of the Red Sox product. As far as an actual organization, with payrolls and business decisions and personnel decisions, sure, that is theirs and not mine. But as far as an identity, as a thing to be celebrated and studied and obsessed with, for years on end? That is the greatest part of what the Red Sox are, and that is for us only, the fans. John Henry grew up a Cardinals fan, then owned the Marlins, and may some day sell the Red Sox and own a different baseball team. David Wells was Mr. Yankee for almost a decade, then played for the Padres, and now is a Sox even though he doesn't want to be. I, like most people here, was born a Red Sox fan, I had my heart broken by this team a dozen times, I was there when we finally won it all, and I will die a fan of the Red Sox. IMO, the Red Sox are more ours than they are theirs.

BTW, the link to the Dave Barry article got lost in the transfer, but I think it's pretty funny and says a lot about the absurdity of being a sports fan:

http://forums.simcen...ead.php?t=43075

Edited by satyadaimoku, 16 January 2006 - 06:19 PM.

[Arock78]

Maybe so, but If you think that 35,000 screaming fans is not a part of the appeal to potential customers, then I don't know what to say. The fans are a product of a well run team. Better team = More fans.

Why can't we be both customer and product?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I see that more as advertizing. It's a pretty obvious way of using culture to exploit an advertizing opportunity. Someone who goes and buys a shirt that says "Red Sox" on it becomes a walking ad for the team.

But I think my bigger point is that the Amtrak example is silly because it's incomplete. A rail line and a sports team do completely different things. One provides a transportation service and the other provides entertainment for spectators to follow. Being passionate about the success and failure of the Sox is closer to having a national allegiance in wartime, only the stakes are quite different.

[502 to Right]

I think it is more like this (living in Pittsburgh now, I will use the Steelers as an example)
Today: "I can't believe that we beat the Colts!  It was awesome!  We had a great game."

Next Week: "I can't believe they lost to the Broncos! 3 picks, 2 fumbles?  What were they thinking?"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A few years ago I read about a study a psychologist did in which he found that sports fans commonly say "we" when their team does well, and "they" when the team loses. Sounds about right.

If this is a poll, I don't say "we" ever when referring to the Red Sox. I didn't win the World Series in 2004--they did (but I certainly enjoyed it).

[Max Venerable]

Your comparrison to the Kodak corporation is bizzare. Let's just say - they make cameras, not spectacle. Kodak is not in entertainment.

But I get your point about being linked.

I agree with most of what you say. I want to agree with all of it, but I think that would be wishcasting. In the winter the Red Sox are a business team. In the summer they are a baseball team. I wish what they did in the winter was up to us fans, but it's not. What they do in the summer is very much up to us. We buy the merchandise, we sit in the seats. We effect the air temerature in the stadiums. We make it impossible to hear. We are upset when they lose, and thrilled when they win.

I happen to disagree with the meaning being lost on the owners and players. Just because they are not from here, does not mean they don't see the effect they have on most of New England +. I think ownership has responded in kind for the most part to the passion of the fans - they could have really blown it up. I'm not saying that business decisions did not play a part, but on some level they have our emotional interests in mind. Namely: a quality team.

[Max Venerable]

But I think my bigger point is that the Amtrak example is silly because it's incomplete.  A rail line and a sports team do completely different things.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And if you look above, you'll see I agree.

[Jay A Zee]

I saw the name of this thread and thought for some reason we were talking about MFY fans vs. us (is it ok to say "us" in this case?). Something has to happen soon with the ballclub, cause this thread is showing we need something to think about. I hate the January/February timeframe prior to ST.

[gaelgirl]

I'm talking about emotional investment. About being so involved, that you actually feel as if it's your money being comitted to payer x.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you buy tickets and merchandise, isn't it your money that's being committed by proxy to Player X? It's not a dollar-for-dollar ratio, of course, and money is sourced from myriad different places, but the sport doesn't exist in a vaccuum. Without fans, there would be no Player X to discuss. It's kind of a symbiotic relationship, after all.

I don't see any problem with "we" or "us" to describe your favorite team. People have to feel a strong pull towards their favorite teams, a sort of camaraderie and identification with these people you don't know. It's only natural that after you develop that sort of relationship, that you identify with them, using the "we" pronoun to discuss the team. After all, you live and die by the team, as the saying goes.

[Lucen]

I'm really not trying to call anyone out - I think the role of the "uber-fan' is an interesting one.

I'm not accusing anyone of thinking they are "actually" a part of the front office. That's silly.

What happens on the field is real and there for everyone to see. What happens behind closed doors is more often imagined than revealed. That's where I see a flaw.

Ces't la vie.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I didn't say you had called anyone out. But another poster did in the other thread. This certainly is an interesting dynamic and one where I don't think we can clearly define anything. Most of it is up to interpretation.

But there is a difference between assessing rumors and possible moves and making stuff up. When supported by a credible source, discussing a rumor can be very interesting and even productive. There's nothing wrong with that. And it's a seperate thing from feeling connected to the team. But often the two intercede and we see people (myself included) saying things such as "We got great value back in the Beckett trade" or "We've done a great job of assembling a deep pitching staff." In neither case would I be trying to suggest that I had anything to do with aquiring Josh Beckett or a deeper pitching staff. But I associate myself as being part of the Boston Red Sox. I'm a fan. I'm emotionally invested. Saying "we" is natural and doesn't have to mean specifically that I would be included in the front office or as an employee of the organization.

My whole point is that it's only incorrect in a hypertechnical sense and to let it annoy you or bother you is really a waste of time. Fans will always associate themselves with their team of choice.

[Max Venerable]

When supported by a credible source, discussing a rumor can be very interesting and even productive. 

My whole point is that it's only incorrect in a hypertechnical sense and to let it annoy you or bother you is really a waste of time.  Fans will always associate themselves with their team of choice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I basically agree with that. However - much of the discussion of rumors would be improved with a knowledge of what the FO was thinking, as opposed to what some writer either thinks or wants to think about them.

Wouldn't it be nice to be a fly on the wall? I think so.

People occasionally get upset at rumors around here (I, as well). They throw stuff and bellow and beat their chests and threaten the FO, and they probably know absolutely NOTHING about what is going on.

We are all about hypertechnicality here, haven't you noticed? Careful, informed discussion, right? To me, it does a disservice not to notice and discuss the little things. Do I care about the legal ramifications of the MLB using a player's name and that whole rigamarole? Not really. Is it a detail worth discussing? Yep.

I'll take this opportunity to say that you, Lucen, are one of the more outspoken and detailed posters here of late, and I really enjoy reading what you write.

[shoebox91]

It must be a really slow day in Red Sox Nation to be having this debate. I would love to chime in but I have to go split some hairs...

[Lucen]

I basically agree with that. However - much of the discussion of rumors would be improved with a knowledge of what the FO was thinking, as opposed to what some writer either thinks or wants to think about them.

Wouldn't it be nice to be a fly on the wall? I think so.

People occasionally get upset at rumors around here (I, as well). They throw stuff and bellow and beat their chests and threaten the FO, and they probably know absolutely NOTHING about what is going on.

We are all about hypertechnicality here, haven't you noticed? Careful, informed discussion, right? To me, it does a disservice not to notice and discuss the little things. Do I care about the legal ramifications of the MLB using a player's name and that whole rigamarole? Not really. Is it a detail worth discussing? Yep.

I'll take this opportunity to say that you, Lucen, are one of the more outspoken and detailed posters here of late, and I really enjoy reading what you write.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you, I appreciate the compliment. I tend to be very blunt and sometimes that goes from being compliment worthy to something less possitive, but my intentions are usually good.

I do agree it would be great to be a fly on the wall. But that's obviously not an option, so we go with the best information we have. Namely, what the media presents. We do a pretty good job here of seperating the bullcrap from the legitimate possibilities. And that's really all we can hope to do. The discussions are certainly careful and detail oriented. But I wouldn't say to the point of hypertechnicality.

There are a few ways to approach the assessment of various players, trades and signings. One is to look strictly at the numbers (very detail oriented). Another is to look strictly at the intangibles(usually more anecdotal and less detail oriented). As is usually the case, it's probably best to do a little of both, and doing so often means finding a balance between the little details and the big picture. Or to put it another way, the specifics and the generalizations. You can't get a comprehensive outlook with just one or the other, so to be hypertechnical at all times wouldn't necessarily be the best way to post.

There's quite a bit of value in the numbers and the little details... but there's also a good deal of value in the other side. Some people think in terms of numbers, others in terms of intangibles. Luckily, this forum provides us with a place to share the kinds of information that we're all best at. Then we can see other prespectives and further our own understanding of what's going on.

I probably appear to be rambling at this point... so how does this tie into the original topic? There are certainly little details that need to be closely monitored. But some things just aren't that important and getting hung up over them will prevent us from focusing on the important stuff. Whether a poster uses "we" or "them" really isn't that important in the grand scheme of things.

That's not to say this topic isn't productive though. This is an interesting topic and hopefully it'll lead to some understanding between those who use 'we' and those who don't think anyone should.

Edited by Lucen, 16 January 2006 - 08:46 PM.

[sfip]

The point is - there is some stuff that we as fans, can never be responsible for. Therefore, saying something like "WE should go out and sign X next season but WE shouldn't spend more than 13m, because WE'LL need the money for Z."

Well, that's silly and presumtuous.

It presumes that you are part making the dicisions. It also presumes that you know how much the Red Sox can or cannot spend. It also presumes that you know what the strategy of the team is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your example doesn't presume any of this. As pointed out, the "we" reference is a figure of speech that isn't meant to be taken literally, as I noted in this thread of the Backwash forum 10 days ago. Also, we know the Red Sox have a limited budget. No, it's not the Royals' budget, but it's limited. Even though we don't know yet what that limit is for '06, we know that we want the Sox to get good value/production from the money they're spending. We don't want the Sox to spend $10M a year for the next 5 years for a pitcher who will produce $7M of value the 1st year, $6.5M the 2nd, $5M the 3rd, and won't even be serviceable for the 4th-5th years of his contract when the same $50M could be spent on better production.

Edited by sfip, 16 January 2006 - 09:07 PM.

[Max Venerable]

Whether a poster uses "we" or "them" really isn't that important in the grand scheme of things.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Important isn't the word I'd use at this point, how about revealing? Most would say it's pretty obvious that we all feel strongly about the team. Yeah, so what?

What I find interesting are these little 'tells' of fandom. The "us/them" isssue by itself is nitpicky, but you'd never use it to refer to a band, or a film company, or some other entertainment enterprise. What is it about Baseball/Sports? Is it locale? Is it the perpetual nature of the sport?

You can't compare it to Amtrack or Kodak or The Greatful Dead. When have you heard a Deadhead say "Dude, we played a great set last night"?

I think this is all about competition and tribalism. The reason people get SO fired up here is because the Red Sox are preparing for war. Instead of peacefully idolizing of a rock group, we are constantly measuring our group against others. We are afraid they will lose. We band together in a show of solidarity - almost protection. Therefore, in battle, there is no seperation between us and them.

January always seems tense around here. Sensitive people spend there time accusing others of being too sensitive, and although we don't want to admit it, we hold on to any shred of rumor no matter how loudly we proclaim it false. We are so used to knowing, that not knowing makes us empty. No longer as public, the Red Sox are hibernating and *hopefully* making deals. We can't fight in this part of the war and it drives us batty.

[Max Venerable]

Your example doesn't presume any of this. As pointed out, the "we" reference is a figure of speech that isn't meant to be taken literally

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ok, Ok, say 'we' all you want. I was never trying to tell people what not to do - merely what is being observed, and why some people are bugged by it.

Anyways, in the spirit of learning, my opinion has softened since the beginning of the thread.

Edited by Max Venerable, 16 January 2006 - 09:27 PM.

[Lucen]

Important isn't the word I'd use at this point, how about revealing? Most would say it's pretty obvious that we all feel strongly about the team. Yeah, so what?

What I find interesting are these little 'tells' of fandom. The "us/them" isssue by itself is nitpicky, but you'd never use it to refer to a band, or a film company, or some other entertainment enterprise. What is it about Baseball/Sports? Is it locale? Is it the perpetual nature of the sport?

You can't compare it to Amtrack or Kodak or The Greatful Dead. When have you heard a Deadhead say "Dude, we played a great set last night"?

I think this is all about competition and tribalism. The reason people get SO fired up here is because the Red Sox are preparing for war. Instead of peacefully idolizing of a rock group, we are constantly measuring our group against others. We are afraid they will lose. We band together in a show of solidarity - almost protection. Therefore, in battle, there is no seperation between us and them.

January always seems tense around here. Sensitive people spend there time accusing others of being too sensitive, and although we don't want to admit it, we hold on to any shred of rumor no matter how loudly we proclaim it false. We are so used to knowing, that not knowing makes us empty. No longer as public, the Red Sox are hibernating and *hopefully* making deals. We can't fight in this part of the war and it drives us batty.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Interesting analogy. Being a former Marine, I'm not really comfortable equating sports to war, so I'm not going to discuss that. But the mention of tribalization is fascinating. I'm also an anthropologist, so I'm well aware of the tendancy for social groups to compete. Competitions used to be about survival, thus certain traits developed among humans over the centuries that helped the species flourish. Those traits are still present and often manifest through sports. Whether that's through rooting for a team or actually participating in sporting events, competition is part of our make up. Sure, most things in life, especially in a capitalist society are based on competition in some form or another, but there is still a heavy emphasis on physical competitions, hence the popularity of sports.

The use of a term like 'we' or 'them' definately suggests a tribalization mentality among sports fans. This is something that may be very interesting as a study... perhaps I'll do my thesis work on this in the fall. I've been searching for a topic I can really enjoy and you may have just zeroed in on one for me. Thanks.

[Rudy Pemberton]

What I find interesting are these little 'tells' of fandom. The "us/them" isssue by itself is nitpicky, but you'd never use it to refer to a band, or a film company, or some other entertainment enterprise.

Film companies and bands don't compete in games like sports teams do, though. The nature of sports is competition, that's not really true of your other examples. How exactly would I root for my favorite band? Who do they play against? Do they stop playing concerts if they don't win? See- this doesn't even make sense.

Not sure if this was addressed, but are you able to root for a high school or college team if you attend that school? Is that a "We" situation?

[SoxVindaloo]

Well I am a shareholder of the Celts and Packers, and am therefore entitled to say We really suck.
Just kidding, about the shareholder part, not the sucking part.

[The Allented Mr Ripley]

I honestly can't even believe this is being discussed.

In an effort to make some argument about how folks who refer to the Red Sox as "we" should lighten up, you're actually showing that it's you who needs to lighten up.

I suspect that 95% of the people who use "we" when referring to sports teams are doing so because it's a form of shorthand.

If not, if it's because it's tribalism manifested or due to emotional investment or some other underlying psychological reason, it's because that's what sports is supposed to do. It could be worse; be thankful the team you support isn't dictated by religion.

Edited by The Allented Mr Ripley, 16 January 2006 - 11:27 PM.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

I honestly can't even believe this is being discussed.

In an effort to make some argument about how folks who refer to the Red Sox as "we" should lighten up, you're actually showing that it's you who needs to lighten up.

I suspect that 95% of the people who use "we" when referring to sports teams are doing so because it's a form of shorthand.

If not, if it's because it's tribalism manifested or due to emotional investment or some other underlying psychological reason, it's because that's what sports is supposed to do. It could be worse; be thankful the team you support isn't dictated by religion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Would that be Celtic and Rangers, Rip?

I'd agree that "we" really means very little unless you want to argue semantics all day long. "We" represents the emotional attachment one has to their team. I'd imagine most fans don't think they are really part of the team or really part-owners of it, unless of course they're plopping down $179 for the MLB extra innings package.

[24JoshuaPoint]

Our tribe needs a Centerfielder. Their tribe needs a Centerfielder. Either way if said CF was signed yesterday I don't think this discussion takes place.

I personally don't care how people refer to their sports teams. I think I do both, "'we', and 'The Red Sox'" because i'm typing 60 words a minute and don't have time to think about semantics; much less debate over them.

Meanwhile Comfortably Numb is one of my all time favorites.

[CarboCopy]

I prefer to use "I". I need to get a centerfielder. I like my chances of winning the division this year. I hope I hold on to Manny. And so on.

[kwa1430]

A while back on the Score in Providence, they had on a general manager from a Soccer Club in England where the people in the town owned the team (basically like owning stock in a company). But, the owners were really the fans. They would vote on determining which players to sign and post as well as who should be the coach, etc... Anyway, I taught it kind of fit in this discussion.

I think people need to generally relax with getting mad when one refers to a sports team with "We". I aggree with "We" representing the emotional attachment one's team. I hate listening to EEI and hearing Big O make fun of callers who use the "We" term. That fat loud mouth completely misses any point the caller is making and just tries to be funny. Maybe it was funny the first time but it is really annoying now.

[The Allented Mr Ripley]

Would that be Celtic and Rangers, Rip?

Yes.

When team colors (on both sides) are banned from pubs, I think that's a sign that people are probably identifying themselves with their team too much. That supporters wearing the wrong jersey in the wrong neighborhood are often attacked and sometimes murdered is also such a sign.

When a fan speculates how "we" are going to best spend "our" money during the offseason? Not so much.

It's not like I'm proud of the fact that Scottish football serves as a cautionary tale. But I do think some good can come from it if it's used an example to gain perspective.

[Max Venerable]

I prefer to use "I".  I need to get a centerfielder.  I like my chances of winning the division this year.  I hope I hold on to Manny.  And so on.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You must promise to use this from now on.

Ripley et. al.,

Please try to understand that I had no desire to alienate or belittle others, or stop people from doing certain things.

I'm sorry if I struck a nerve - I merely thought this would be a good launching point for a discussion of fandom.

Maybe there will be a trade for a CF today, so we can proceed with the more important things.