What is the point of professional sports?

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

I saw this posted in the Walker Buehler thread and it got me thinking:

Midnight Ryder Jones said:
My god do I hate the "there's no risk!" line of thinking. If the thing you're most afraid of is getting stuck with a "bad deal" like the Price contract, then, sure, there's no risk. If the thing you're most afraid of is "the 2025 Red Sox won't be contenders" then there's plenty of risk: the risk that he's not nearly as good as several other options still out there.

The goal is not to win the World Series in 2025. The goal is to win the World Series as many times as possible before we die.

I'm not really talking about MRJ's post (which, unsurprisingly I mostly agree with); but I'm confused about Rasputin's post and that's mainly: what is the point of professional sports?

*I* think that the point of pro sports is to win, every year. I know that that is 100% impossible, so I don't expect it; but what I do expect is for the team that I follow to give their best effort year-in and year-out to field the best possible team so that they could realistically win every year. I don't subscribe to the notion that a team needs to go through a fallow period in order to emerge on the other side as some sort of phoenix destined to dominate their sport for a generation.

It doesn't work that way. Let me amend that thought, aside from the Astros, it doesn't work that way. Many teams have tried to do this, few have succeeded. The teams that are successful year after year after year adhere to the "reload not rebuild" philosophy. Part of the intrigue of sports is that it's unpredictable so I completely understand that injuries happen, players have poor year, hurricanes destroy stadia and you can't predict everything. It's a double-edged sword.

But punting away years. Or saying that "the goal isn't to win the World Series in 2025", like what the fuck are we doing here? Would we like to see a decades long dominance of the Red Sox? Of course we would. Absolutely, if you were a Pats fan during the last 20 years, how much did you look forward to Sundays and February football? But that's hard to do. And it's almost impossible to plan to do that (who could've predicted that they land the greatest football player of all time in the SIXTH ROUND!? How many simulations could be run where that result is determined?) so maybe it's better to hedge your bets a bit and setting yourself up to win now.

IDK, I'm just kind of sick of missing out on the third wild card and thinking that everything is going to be rosy in two, three, four years because reasons. Let's win in 2025, it's much more fun than the alternative.

 

[brienc]

Fenway Sports Group doesn’t believe in bridge years, or rebuilding with Liverpool because relegation would be catastrophic. The fact that American sports fans willingly accept and root for tanking and other methods of attempting to lose often is widely mocked in the rest of the world. Draft lotteries don’t seem to dissuade teams from tanking, perhaps promotion/relegation is the only way to force all teams to at least attempt to compete, but will never happen for many reasons. Salary cap floors would be the most realistic way to force teams to compete in MLB I guess.

 

[ThePrideofShiner]

Interesting thread topic and one that in my mind is related to the other argument we often see bear out on these pages, which is prospects and whether they should be traded at will or held onto.

Anyway, I guess people get different enjoyment out of different things, but the ones who are more worried about the long game are bizarre to me. I want to win. There are no guarantees in life and certainly no guarantees when it comes to titles, so as fans it feels like I should be rooting for my favorite teams to be the best they can be and try to win a title every year. That doesn't mean signing every free agent that is out there, but I'd much rather suffer through the backend of a Max Fried type than be like the Mariners and never sign anyone.

 

[Dummy Hoy]

The point of professional sports for fans is entertainment. Winning is often equated with entertainment, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be so. When winning becomes the only point of being a fan, I think we really lost something.

For players and coaches winning is the goal, or at worst competing and working to your maximum potential.

For owners it’s making money and personal status.

 

[Timduhda]

Fenway Sports Group doesn’t believe in bridge years, or rebuilding with Liverpool because relegation would be catastrophic. The fact that American sports fans willingly accept and root for tanking and other methods of attempting to lose often is widely mocked in the rest of the world. Draft lotteries don’t seem to dissuade teams from tanking, perhaps promotion/relegation is the only way to force all teams to at least attempt to compete, but will never happen for many reasons. Salary cap floors would be the most realistic way to force teams to compete in MLB I guess.

Aren’t the Athletics being forced to up what they are paying for salaries? This is from the MLPA and not a salary cap floor, but it’s somethin.

 

[Sille Skrub]

For fans, it is winning. For FSG, it is making money.

 

[joe dokes]

The human drama of athletic competition.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

The point of professional sports for fans is entertainment. Winning is often equated with entertainment, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be so. When winning becomes the only point of being a fan, I think we really lost something.

I'm not saying that I disagree with this statement, but I'd like you to explain it more because I'm not sure exactly what you mean. As fans we aren't members of the team, nor do we work for the team. Other than winning, what else is there? What are we, as fans, getting from a team that loses (which is less entertaining) more than it wins?

 

[brienc]

Aren’t the Athletics being forced to up what they are paying for salaries? This is from the MLPA and not a salary cap floor, but it’s somethin.

It is a start!

 

[greek_gawd_of_walks]

To distract me from my inevitable demise.

Althought watching the Pats makes me want to hasten the end.

 

[joe dokes]

I'm not saying that I disagree with this statement, but I'd like you to explain it more because I'm not sure exactly what you mean. As fans we aren't members of the team, nor do we work for the team. Other than winning, what else is there? What are we, as fans, getting from a team that loses (which is less entertaining) more than it wins?

I get something from games in which I have no rooting interest. I get a lot of that in games where I do. Even if my team doesn't win. Some games are shitty/not entertaining even when my team does win.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

We've had this discussion before.

Teams tank because tanking likely gives a team the best chance to accumulate the talent sufficient to win championships. Sure it doesn't work every time and sure it's not the only way to do it but unless your team has sufficient resources to buy sufficient talent on the FA market or unless your team has a GM that can steal a few top-flight players through trades, the normal course of building a team is through the draft.

And the odds of building a championship team drafting 15-25 year after year is pretty slim in today's game.

There are 29 other teams in MLB and they are all generally run by smart people these days (my personal opinion is that the average front office is smarter than it was 20 years ago but I don't have any evidence for this). Baseball has also tried to put as much parity into team-building - well, other than teams just spending hundreds of millions of dollars on free agents and luxury taxes - as possible. All I want from my team is a coherent vision on how they are going to accumulate the talent necessary to compete for a championship.

The rest, as they say, is entertainment.

 

[TapeAndPosts]

Entertainment, excitement, and a sense of belonging.

I like fun baseball games that entertain me, as well as engaging and enjoyable players that I like to watch. I like the excitement of wanting to win a game, win the World Series, but also the excitement of looking forward to a prospect panning out, for a new signing to mash, for a plan to come together. And I don't think any of us would be posing on this ancient Red Sox message board if we didn't get some sense of belonging from the whole thing. We belong to the team and the fandom and the team and the fandom belongs to us. What exactly that means is different for each of us, but it's all about belonging.

 

[tims4wins]

I'm not saying that I disagree with this statement, but I'd like you to explain it more because I'm not sure exactly what you mean. As fans we aren't members of the team, nor do we work for the team. Other than winning, what else is there? What are we, as fans, getting from a team that loses (which is less entertaining) more than it wins?

Well, discussion is a form of entertainment. We don’t just watch X games for Y total hours. We spend even more time discussing on SoSH than watching the games. For all sports.

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

The point of professional sports for fans is entertainment. Winning is often equated with entertainment, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be so. When winning becomes the only point of being a fan, I think we really lost something.

I dont agree with this wording. Winning doesn't have to be the ONLY entertainment, but enjoyment of a team is almost always tied directly to winning.

Liking a team of scrappy players is fun...if they're winning enough games. Nobody "enjoys" rooting for a scrappy team that goes 65-97. They at least need to be competent.

Watching good/young players on a bad team is entertaining because they're playing well...and playing well means they are more likely to win games. Seeing Mike Trout hit a bomb that gives a team the lead is entertaining. Seeing Mike Trout hit a bomb to make the score 10-3 in the 8th isn't. Hell, it's probably more depressing than entertaining.

There are obvious exceptions to the rule - a neutral fan watching and enjoying a game, for example. But even then, I doubt they would "enjoy" watching a bad game. There's a reason good teams draw larger audiences. People want to watch good play, and good play equates to winning.

 

[axx]

You don't play just to play. You play to win the game.

 

[CR67dream]

The point of professional sports for fans is entertainment. Winning is often equated with entertainment, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be so. When winning becomes the only point of being a fan, I think we really lost something.

QFT. All of it, but particularly the bolded. It's not all about winning. Otherwise, how could I have remained a steadfast Red Sox fan from 1975 to 2004? Or a Pats fan before 2001? Losing sucks and losing ugly is even worse, but these things are cyclical. One can be upset at the way things have gone in the recent past and still look at the future and be excited for the next chapter. For me personally, sustained outrage for what is past is both extremely unhealthy, and completely useless to my enjoyment of the games/teams I love, especially when the future looks to be pretty damn bright, which to me looks true for both the Sox and Pats, albeit with each having different challenges.

We all deal with it differently, but when the anger, angst, and frustration overwhelm the joy to the point where it's no longer fun, I'm out. I have enough of that in my life already, and certainly is not the point of professional sports.

 

[Petagine in a Bottle]

I think it’s more about the idea of winning- the hope of it, and less about it actually happening. More about the journey than the destination, at least for me.

 

[Nixon Now!!]

Your original question: what is the point of professional sports? My answer: bread and circus.

I'm always reminded of walking up the Appian Way a few years ago, asking my Roman friend about the meaning of the millions of Latin words chiseled in the multitude of gravestones, monuments and ruined buildings from 2000 years ago. My friend said most are complaints about politics and laments about how misguided young people are these days. The rest said the chiseler was a lifelong supporter of the green team.

I Googled 'roman chariot races green team' and found a wiki saying they were the MFYs of the time. The green team often stole the most popular drivers from other teams with exorbitant payments. They won - a lot - and those from other teams hated them for it.

Check this piece from Smithsonian magazine, it reminds me of the MFYs vs Red Sox rivalry:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/blue-versus-green-rocking-the-byzantine-empire-113325928/

I could go on, but you get the point. I'm from New England, and Red Sox / Patriots / Celtics / Bruins literacy provides a way to have a friendly interaction with just about any taciturn local auto mechanic, policeman (or woman), politico, banker, bully or competitive work colleague.

Plus sports are fun, whether you do them or just follow them. Look at all the money involved.

 

[Yo La Tengo]

The point of professional sports is money.

If your question is what is the point of rooting for a professional sports team, I would answer, broadly, "entertainment" which can provide distraction, camaraderie, and joy. But entertainment is not a one size fits all endeavor, which explains much of the disagreement on here about how the Red Sox should approach creating a team for 2025 and beyond.

 

[johnlos]

I saw this posted in the Walker Buehler thread and it got me thinking:





I'm not really talking about MRJ's post (which, unsurprisingly I mostly agree with); but I'm confused about Rasputin's post and that's mainly: what is the point of professional sports?

*I* think that the point of pro sports is to win, every year. I know that that is 100% impossible, so I don't expect it; but what I do expect is for the team that I follow to give their best effort year-in and year-out to field the best possible team so that they could realistically win every year. I don't subscribe to the notion that a team needs to go through a fallow period in order to emerge on the other side as some sort of phoenix destined to dominate their sport for a generation.

It doesn't work that way. Let me amend that thought, aside from the Astros, it doesn't work that way. Many teams have tried to do this, few have succeeded. The teams that are successful year after year after year adhere to the "reload not rebuild" philosophy. Part of the intrigue of sports is that it's unpredictable so I completely understand that injuries happen, players have poor year, hurricanes destroy stadia and you can't predict everything. It's a double-edged sword.

But punting away years. Or saying that "the goal isn't to win the World Series in 2025", like what the fuck are we doing here? Would we like to see a decades long dominance of the Red Sox? Of course we would. Absolutely, if you were a Pats fan during the last 20 years, how much did you look forward to Sundays and February football? But that's hard to do. And it's almost impossible to plan to do that (who could've predicted that they land the greatest football player of all time in the SIXTH ROUND!? How many simulations could be run where that result is determined?) so maybe it's better to hedge your bets a bit and setting yourself up to win now.

IDK, I'm just kind of sick of missing out on the third wild card and thinking that everything is going to be rosy in two, three, four years because reasons. Let's win in 2025, it's much more fun than the alternative.

Answering your question literally: pro sports are glorified clubs. Watch this doc and you’ll get it
https://www.joinordiefilm.com/

 

[sezwho]

Your original question: what is the point of professional sports? My answer: bread and circus.

I'm always reminded of walking up the Appian Way a few years ago, asking my Roman friend about the meaning of the millions of Latin words chiseled in the multitude of gravestones, monuments and ruined buildings from 2000 years ago. My friend said most are complaints about politics and laments about how misguided young people are these days. The rest said the chiseler was a lifelong supporter of the green team.

I Googled 'roman chariot races green team' and found a wiki saying they were the MFYs of the time. The green team often stole the most popular drivers from other teams with exorbitant payments. They won - a lot - and those from other teams hated them for it.

Check this piece from Smithsonian magazine, it reminds me of the MFYs vs Red Sox rivalry:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/blue-versus-green-rocking-the-byzantine-empire-113325928/

I could go on, but you get the point. I'm from New England, and Red Sox / Patriots / Celtics / Bruins literacy provides a way to have a friendly interaction with just about any taciturn local auto mechanic, policeman (or woman), politico, banker, bully or competitive work colleague.

Plus sports are fun, whether you do them or just follow them. Look at all the money involved.

That is fabulous! Let’s hope none of the Fenway faithful resort to throwing spiked curse tablets on the basepaths.

 

[BigSoxFan]

My answer to this question has evolved quite a bit given the 20+ year stretch that we were fortunate enough to enjoy.

Before 2001 and certainly 2004, I was hyper focused on one of my teams winning a title since I hadn’t experienced it (only 4 years old in 1986). After 2001 Pats and 2004 Sox, I was relieved but it wasn’t mission accomplished because winning gets addicting. I wanted more. Even after Brady won 3 out of 4, I was despondent in 2014 when Kearse caught the ball because I really wanted #4 and for him to join Montana. And then after he did, I wanted him to BEAT Montana. Every Pats playoff run was extremely stressful because of this.

Obviously, even if you have a really good team, you’re not winning every year so treating each playoff run as do or die just isn’t healthy. Now that the Celtics have won their title, I’m in a place where I care far more about entertainment.

I want my teams to be fun. I want my teams to be competitive. If they win a title, great. If they don’t, that’s ok. Biggest thing for me is they need to be entertaining. The Patriots are a mess right now but I follow every week. Why? Because Maye is fun. You see what he could become with proper support and guidance and that’s fun. Same thing with Mayer, Campbell, Anthony, etc.

Watching a team that is hyper conservative, on and off the field, just isn’t fun for me. I can deal with losing if it’s fun. If you’re bad and you’re not taking chances, then it’s far less fun. It sounds weird but even losing can sometimes be fun. Following a high draft pick process definitely is fun because you can dream on one of these guys being someone whose jersey you eventually give to your kids. And sharing sports with your kids is super fun.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

Otherwise, how could I have remained a steadfast Red Sox fan from 1975 to 2004?

The Red Sox won quite a lot from 1975 to 2004. Did they win everything? Of course not, but there weren't a lot of seasons when the Sox were terrible. They won more than they lost in those 29 years. They also played two of the most exciting World Series ever and made the post season in 78 (ugh), 88, 90, 95, 98, 99 and 2003 (double ugh). They were filled with at least one Hall of Famer just about every year so even when they weren't very good, they were interesting.

As far as the Pats? IDK, because it's football? The Patriots had more than one foot out the door because they were so awful for a majority of that time, so I'm not sure if everyone feels the same as you did.

 

[Tuor]

Entertainment, but for me, the entertainment is in the stories. I love an interesting story, and sports allows you to enjoy many fascinating stories all unfolding spontaneously. Baseball is my favorite sport because the nature of the action allows you to follow all the stories at once, from large to small. From the drama within each AB to the unfolding of an inning to the flow of a game to the trend of a series to the dynamics of a season and to the progression of season to season, baseball is full of fascinating stories that you can enjoy, all at once. (I like football too, but each play in football has a dozen stories all happening at once, and you can’t enjoy them all without studying the all-22 film, and I don’t have time for that. Baseball is more satisfying therefore.)

I therefore agree strongly with CR67 and Dummy Hoy. Winning isn’t everything. Yes, stories that include winning are more fun than stories that include tragic loss or futility, but they are all very interesting. The 2004 Sox provided the greatest story that I’ve ever seen unfold in sports. The 2024 Sox were great fun — I would have wished for a better ending, but I really enjoyed the story of last season. I’m enjoying the story of this offseason as well, and looking forward to watching the story of the season as it develops.

I used to have more of my ego invested in my teams winning, and I found it made me an angry person and much more unpleasant to be around (since every year, most teams don’t win the championship). Since I detached and let myself just enjoy the unfolding story, I’ve been much happier, and sports is simply fun, no matter what.

 

[ShaneTrot]

I am very grateful that Henry purchased the Red Sox and stopped the run of the team never getting over the mountain. But it's been painful to root for this team the last few years. They have been brutal defensively, they have had thin bullpens, they have paid guys decent money who are always injured, they have had no ace, and their one star (Devers) is great but he is not charismatic and is a one-dimensional player. I watch sports because I like to watch great athletes doing things that a normal person can only imagine doing.
If you are a fan of the MFY, a Cole start is a happening. Judge is a superstar and does the coolest thing you can do in the big leagues, he hits bombs. The Sox have been boring, and mediocre. Sure they have prospects but prospects are not sure things. I am hopeful that Crochet will be fun but he is a big injury risk.

 

[Rasputin]

*I* think that the point of pro sports is to win, every year. I know that that is 100% impossible, so I don't expect it; but what I do expect is for the team that I follow to give their best effort year-in and year-out to field the best possible team so that they could realistically win every year. I don't subscribe to the notion that a team needs to go through a fallow period in order to emerge on the other side as some sort of phoenix destined to dominate their sport for a generation.

If you know you can't win every year, isn't winning as many times as possible before you die the next rung down? Would you be more amenable to replacing "win the world series" with "have a fun competitive team that can compete for a world series?"

If you're not in the top few in the league in terms of budget, you can't put together those teams every year. You just can't. 2019-2021 is what happens when you try.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

The point of professional sports for fans is entertainment. Winning is often equated with entertainment, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be so. When winning becomes the only point of being a fan, I think we really lost something.

In response to the bolded, I too want to understand more about this concept.

I am assuming that this thread is asking each of us why we follow professional sports. For me the answer is winning however I am well aware that there are Red Sox fans (and fans of other teams and sports) who prefer prospect development or actual roster mechanics or team collectibles to the actual product on the field. Those folks don't bother me even though we can sometimes be of a differing opinion (prospect types mostly - Andy Marte!!!). In general, other types of fans don't affect my own fandom unless I go seeking grievances online.

As for the bolded, I would love to know how fans who root for winning cost other fans - it seems like these types have existed forever. Is there a new type of fan who is crowding out other fans with a singular focus on winning? And if so, what is the harm?

 

[RG33]

There are probably different answers to the posted question depending upon whether you are talking about ownership / players / fans.

Ownership = Making $$$
Players = Love of Game + Making $$$
Fans = Love of Game

Go Sox.

 

[tims4wins]

If you know you can't win every year, isn't winning as many times as possible before you die the next rung down? Would you be more amenable to replacing "win the world series" with "have a fun competitive team that can compete for a world series?"

If you're not in the top few in the league in terms of budget, you can't put together those teams every year. You just can't. 2019-2021 is what happens when you try.

I think you guys are arguing slightly different things.

If you try to maximize your wins in each individual year, it will increase your chances of winning in that year, but probably decrease your overall expected long term wins, because by nature you will make decisions that are short-sighted. So it is important to find that balance of when to play the longer game. I want my team to win it all every year too. And there are situations where you push all your chips in, like the Pats mostly did in the 2nd half of the Brady era, up to and including 2019. But as we saw in 2019, doing so had longer term negative consequences - Antonio Brown, Sanu, etc.

So I think it's a mix. When you think the team is already at a baseline of playoff team, that's when I want the team to maximize its return in a given year. But if they're at a baseline level of mediocre and pushing your chips in for a given year means "competing" for WC3, then I'm ok with a longer-term approach.

 

[shaggydog2000]

To prove the superiority of your geographic region over all other geographic regions.

 

[simplicio]

their one star (Devers) is great but he is not charismatic

Citation needed.

 

[Rasputin]

I think you guys are arguing slightly different things.

If you try to maximize your wins in each individual year, it will increase your chances of winning in that year, but probably decrease your overall expected long term wins, because by nature you will make decisions that are short-sighted. So it is important to find that balance of when to play the longer game. I want my team to win it all every year too. And there are situations where you push all your chips in, like the Pats mostly did in the 2nd half of the Brady era, up to and including 2019. But as we saw in 2019, doing so had longer term negative consequences - Antonio Brown, Sanu, etc.

So I think it's a mix. When you think the team is already at a baseline of playoff team, that's when I want the team to maximize its return in a given year. But if they're at a baseline level of mediocre and pushing your chips in for a given year means "competing" for WC3, then I'm ok with a longer-term approach.

Yeah...that's my argument.

Winning the World Series as many times as possible before you die means you have an overall strategy that maintains budget flexibility because shit happens. You get as many young players you can pay less than they're worth so you can afford to make the occasional big free agent signing whom you're going to have to pay more than they're worth. When you're close to winning, you make the spend. When you're not so close, you don't because you do not know what you're going to need when you are close.

The team tried to hang on to competitiveness after 2018 and for a lot of reasons, it didn't work. They've spent the last three years or so rebuilding. The 2025 team should make the playoffs and more importantly, integrate at least two of the big three into the major league team at which point the window is open and we're full steam ahead for 3-5 years.

 

[CR67dream]

I think it’s more about the idea of winning- the hope of it, and less about it actually happening. More about the journey than the destination, at least for me.

Amen. I hate when there's not a lot of hope, and the last few years have largely sucked (though I really enjoyed the Sox last year) but again these things are cyclical and part of the overall experience for virtually every team in every sport. Thankfully now, there are tangible reasons to be pretty damn hopeful.

The Red Sox won quite a lot from 1975 to 2004. Did they win everything? Of course not, but there weren't a lot of seasons when the Sox were terrible. They won more than they lost in those 29 years. They also played two of the most exciting World Series ever and made the post season in 78 (ugh), 88, 90, 95, 98, 99 and 2003 (double ugh). They were filled with at least one Hall of Famer just about every year so even when they weren't very good, they were interesting.

As far as the Pats? IDK, because it's football? The Patriots had more than one foot out the door because they were so awful for a majority of that time, so I'm not sure if everyone feels the same as you did.

I mean, I'm only speaking for myself and answering the question in the thread title from my perspective. I don't want or expect anyone, never mind everyone, to feel the same as I do. You and I are just never going to have a similar outlook or approach to our fandom, and that's fine. Vive la difference.... But my main point is, here, that the team the Red Sox will field this coming year looks to have the potential to be truly competitive, and without a doubt will be extremely entertaining and fun to watch, and they're not done yet. Really good baseball is on the horizon. That's all I ever ask for, and that's where I choose to put my focus, as nothing can be done about what's already happened, as much as I don't like it. Again, speaking only for myself, it's healthier than sustained outrage at the unchangeable, which is in my experience the most useless emotion for me to carry. My overall perspective is no more or less valid than anyone else's, but it is just as valid. It's all just perspective and opinion, there is no right out wrong answer. I mean, without some real disagreement, a discussion board is pretty friggin useless....

 

[jezza1918]

For me it's community. The primary (though not the only) reason I still follow is because the bulk of my family and real world* friends are still pretty into it. Im a single middle aged man, my world is small enough. If I completely divest from sports my world would be even smaller.

*this community is obvs important too, but I spend the bulk of my time on this site in non sports threads.

 

[Norm Siebern]

For owners, it is about money, then ego and competition.
For the athletes, it is about money/competition, ego and the sense of shared purpose in a locker room (community).

For the fans, it is about a million reasons, hundreds for each individual fan. It may be about money (gambling); civic pride or sense of community; familial connections; self fulfillment (ego); competition, entertainment, joy, distraction, or sisyphusian longing. Each individual fan has their individual hundreds of personal reasons why pro-sports matter.

 

[dynomite]

I think it’s more about the idea of winning- the hope of it, and less about it actually happening. More about the journey than the destination, at least for me.

This is close to where I am. And I definitely agree that thinking a season is a failure unless you win the championship is a bad and exhausting way to live life.

1) Particularly after a still hard-to-believe ("Can you believe it?!" My answer: barely) 4 -- 4! -- championships, I don't need the 2025 Red Sox to win the World Series. I just need it to be a realistic possibility.

We all understand that it's both a cliche and reality that only one team can win every year. Between the Dodgers, Mets, Braves, Phillies, and Padres only one will even make the World Series despite all being some version of what in a prior era would have been known as a "superteam." But I find it unacceptable for a big market team to go into a season with no chance of winning a World Series for more than 1-2 years. Good franchises in big markets make the playoffs consistently. That's all I ask.

2) There are exceptions, where a team is so historically good that anything but a championship feels disappointing. The 2004 to 2019 Patriots with Belichick and Brady were no longer really competing with the rest of the NFL, they were contending with history. And for the record, as a fan that was both exhilarating and exhausting. Every season they didn't win the Super Bowl felt like a Shakespearean tragedy, a devastating missed opportunity we would rue forever. The 2008-2011 Celtics felt similarly to me, as do the current Celtics -- last year it would have been crushing if that team didn't win a title. The 2004 Red Sox needed to beat the Yankees. Etc.

3) Regarding tanking:

Teams tank because tanking likely gives a team the best chance to accumulate the talent sufficient to win championships.

My response to this is: while there are other ways to win championships, poor/small-market teams tank because that's often their only chance to accumulate the talent sufficient to win championships.

The Orioles, Rays, Pirates, Tigers, Rockies, Reds, A's and others mostly can't (won't?) spend money to sign free agents or keep their own players. Their only path to contention is often to draft at the top of 3-4 drafts in a row, stockpile elite prospects, and contend for a 3-4 year window before that generation hits free agency, then restart the tanking cycle.

The Yankees don't "tank" for years on end. Neither do the Dodgers, the Braves, or the Cardinals (although we'll see about them).

As a Red Sox fan, I expect the same. And yeah, I'm sorry to say the money is part of why for me. If Fenway Park is going to be the most expensive ticket in MLB, if I'm going to need to shell out $30/month or whatever for NESN+SuperDuperFanTV, I need the team to be worth watching and Fenway not to be half empty.

QFT. All of it, but particularly the bolded. It's not all about winning. Otherwise, how could I have remained a steadfast Red Sox fan from 1975 to 2004? Or a Pats fan before 2001? Losing sucks and losing ugly is even worse, but these things are cyclical. One can be upset at the way things have gone in the recent past and still look at the future and be excited for the next chapter. For me personally, sustained outrage for what is past is both extremely unhealthy, and completely useless to my enjoyment of the games/teams I love, especially when the future looks to be pretty damn bright, which to me looks true for both the Sox and Pats, albeit with each having different challenges.

We all deal with it differently, but when the anger, angst, and frustration overwhelm the joy to the point where it's no longer fun, I'm out. I have enough of that in my life already, and certainly is not the point of professional sports.

I have a ton of sympathy for this point of view. Rick Pitino's anguished "All the negativity in this town sucks!" resonates with me. I find it exhausting how often conversations about Boston sports turn negative. And that the ratings juggernaut on Boston sports radio for the past 15 years has been two hosts whose shtick is to constantly malign and insult Boston teams -- I find it depressing that this is what so many of our fellow fans want to listen to day-to-day, especially when the teams are good.

That said, I think "sustained outrage" and "anger, angst, and frustration" are inevitable when the Red Sox and Patriots are bad. We aren't Lions or Pirates fans who are used to spending decades as doormats. Folks in Greater Boston/Massachusetts/eastern New England area treat professional sports (especially the Sox/Pats/Celtics) with the level of passion that in many parts of the country are reserved for college sports. There's a reason this message board exists, bringing together thousands of people who are knowledgeable about every topic imaginable (from auto repair to politics to air travel).

The upside is we root for the Boston Red Sox, one of the most storied sports franchises in the world, and get to do so with a community of other Red Sox fans (including on SoSH). The downside is we root for the Boston Red Sox, and have to contend with other Red Sox fans (including some on SoSH).

 

[Montana Fan]

Sports are the ultimate reality TV and are the only version of reality TV I watch. Having watched multiple teams in multiple sports build and improve to get the the promiseland is extremely rewarding for the fan. Whether it be the 86 NYG, the 04 BoSox or the 23-24 Celtics, each team was built over a period of time and then tinkered with to improve to the level where they became unbeatable. Watching young players improve as we, ourselves did in our younger years is what keeps our interest and builds our loyalty to the players and the team. We fans of the northeastern teams have been exceedingly lucky to have had the opportunity to root for a bunch of well run teams, with good dudes, that have delivered Championships.

 

[chrisfont9]

The point of professional sports for fans is entertainment. Winning is often equated with entertainment, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be so. When winning becomes the only point of being a fan, I think we really lost something.

For players and coaches winning is the goal, or at worst competing and working to your maximum potential.

For owners it’s making money and personal status.

I'd say the point, for me, is to be entertained by people trying as hard as they can to win the championship. What constitutes entertainment is personal and not any one thing for everyone watching. I want the Sox to win but after four titles I'm not as interested in some random collection of free agents doing it. I would take a lot more satisfaction in a young, exciting team forging its own identity and building to a title, or multiple titles, not unlike what the Celtics have put together. Years ago I would have just answered "win all the titles" but not anymore.

Also being a parent makes me a lot more interested in seeing young people put it all together. It's hard for me to get past the jersey but for this I might. And I'm not saying you have to be a parent to appreciate this, though it does probably make it more likely.

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

For me, baseball is incredibly unique, because it’s basically a daily occurrence for half the year. Football is an event. Sox games are just part of what I do every day. I enjoy each game as an isolated event in addition to part of a long season. Lose today, okay, we’ll get them tomorrow. Of course, titles are amazing. But I’m way more of a love of the game person. Baseball is my happy place, so I just don’t get too worked up over an error or a stupid move by the manager. Maybe something cool will happen next inning.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

I therefore agree strongly with CR67 and Dummy Hoy. Winning isn’t everything. Yes, stories that include winning are more fun than stories that include tragic loss or futility, but they are all very interesting. The 2004 Sox provided the greatest story that I’ve ever seen unfold in sports. The 2024 Sox were great fun — I would have wished for a better ending, but I really enjoyed the story of last season. I’m enjoying the story of this offseason as well, and looking forward to watching the story of the season as it develops.

I'm not trying to be a shit here, but you talk about how winning isn't everything and stories matter (which I agree with BTW, it's why I love baseball and why Rickey Henderson dying over the weekend has continued to bum me out) but then you choose the 2004 Red Sox as the "greatest story that [you've] ever seen unfold in sport". And I'd say the reason for that is because the team, you know, won.

You didn't say that the "1987 Red Sox are the 'greatest story that [you've] ever seen unfold in sport'" or "2002 Red Sox are the 'greatest story that [you've] ever seen unfold in sport' or even "1978 Red Sox are the 'greatest story that [you've] ever seen unfold in sport'" because those clubs were terrible, dysfunctional or just a painful disaster (and I was too young for the 78 team, but for them to lose the amount of games that they did in the standings to the Yanks only to turn it on and tie them on the very last day, in real time that must've been absolutely exciting; until Bucky Fucking Dent.

But I digress. I'm not a Vince Lombardi type or a Red Auberach type or an Al Davis type where winning is the only thing that matters because, yes there are a ton of stories to be found in bad or mediocre seasons. But the clubs where the team wins are the ones that we remember, the ones that we look forward to. To put it another way, I was a member here as we were rolling in 2004, 2007 or 2018 and I don't recall anyone saying, "yeah, this is a lot of fun, but I really wish that the Sox won with some value." We were all pretty psyched with what was happening all year.

I specifically left out 2013 because that year was so much different than the others. From the way that team came back from the Valentine disaster, to the way it was assembled to the Boston bombing; I don't think I've ever seen a season like that in my life. It was surreal (but in a great way).

If you know you can't win every year, isn't winning as many times as possible before you die the next rung down? Would you be more amenable to replacing "win the world series" with "have a fun competitive team that can compete for a world series?"

If you're not in the top few in the league in terms of budget, you can't put together those teams every year. You just can't. 2019-2021 is what happens when you try.

Yes. But there is no guarantee that the team will win as many times as possible. Why are you will to punt 2025 when there is absolutely no assurance that the Sox will be dominant in 2026, 27, etc? That's just wishcasting, as if sports works in a way that if you suck long enough, it'll eventually even out so that you're really good for just as long. If that happened that way, the Pirates would be in the midst of a dynasty right now. Same thing with the Jets in the NFL.

Choosing to lose, or making the choice not to give your best effort to win any year is, IDK fraud might be too strong of a word, but if you're charging major league prices and you're not doing your best to win or you have eyes towards future years, then you're not giving a majority your fans a good product. Yes, there are people who will watch the club no matter who they have out there, but that's not a great way to build a sustainable fan base.

And 2019-2020 was a self-sustained gun shot. The Red Sox could have done whatever they wanted with the 2018 team, they chose not too.

BTW, the disappointing 2019 won more games than any team in the last five years (except for the 2021 team). So I'd be pretty pumped with that team's record this year.

I mean, I'm only speaking for myself and answering the question in the thread title from my perspective. I don't want or expect anyone, never mind everyone, to feel the same as I do. You and I are just never going to have a similar outlook or approach to our fandom, and that's fine. Vive la difference.... But my main point is, here, that the team the Red Sox will field this coming year looks to have the potential to be truly competitive, and without a doubt will be extremely entertaining and fun to watch, and they're not done yet. Really good baseball is on the horizon. That's all I ever ask for, and that's where I choose to put my focus, as nothing can be done about what's already happened, as much as I don't like it. Again, speaking only for myself, it's healthier than sustained outrage at the unchangeable, which is in my experience the most useless emotion for me to carry. My overall perspective is no more or less valid than anyone else's, but it is just as valid. It's all just perspective and opinion, there is no right out wrong answer. I mean, without some real disagreement, a discussion board is pretty friggin useless....

No one is suggesting that you speak for anyone but yourself, I'm not trying to preach to a congregation or sway anyone, I was just curious as to what people thought of after reading Ras' original post.

As far as the bolded red, I think that one of the main problems on this board are people saying things like this. I don't see "sustained outrage", I think that people are disappointed that the Red Sox aren't doing what they used to do. I think that people aren't happy that the club charges what they do for the Fenway experience while seemingly not investing that capital back into the team. But I'm don't have sustained outrage. And when you characterize it as that, you put a negative spin on someone's feelings.

I guess it would be like saying that everyone who expresses toxic positivity are pink hats because they like everything the team does.

Projecting "sustained outrage" or "toxic positivity" to discussion board posts isn't healthy and it stifles a lot of discussion. Because your last statement is right, a discussion board without any disagreement is useless.

 

[Huck Masterson]

“You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat. Losing after great striving is the story of man.”
― Roger Kahn, The Boys of Summer

Ten-year-old me became a fan of the Red Sox during their 1975 season. Each defeat, particularly the exquisite examples of 1978, 1986, 2003, strengthened my connection to the team. Wait til next year, indeed.

As it stands, I’m unapologetically grateful for the current ownership, because I sincerely believe the goal throughout John Henry's tenure has simply been sustainable competitiveness. Albeit, some cringeworthy and reactionary decisions seemed to veer from that path; such as hiring Dombrowski, signing Hanley, Pablo, etc., but none of those things affected my appreciation for watching the Red Sox play baseball, and studying how they could become better.

Compared to the bitter unfairnesses of life — losing a loved one, say — baseball, at its worst, is sheer joy. I’d rather be eternally sentenced to be a White Sox fan circa 2024 than to attend another funeral.

Some of the whinging on here is top tier, but, once an m.o. is recognized, it’s easy enough to skim past those channels.

 

[Timduhda]

“You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat. Losing after great striving is the story of man.”
― Roger Kahn, The Boys of Summer

Ten-year-old me became a fan of the Red Sox during their 1975 season. Each defeat, particularly the exquisite examples of 1978, 1986, 2003, strengthened my connection to the team. Wait til next year, indeed.

As it stands, I’m unapologetically grateful for the current ownership, because I sincerely believe the goal throughout John Henry's tenure has simply been sustainable competitiveness. Albeit, some cringeworthy and reactionary decisions seemed to veer from that path; such as hiring Dombrowski, signing Hanley, Pablo, etc., but none of those things affected my appreciation for watching the Red Sox play baseball, and studying how they could become better.

Compared to the bitter unfairnesses of life — losing a loved one, say — baseball, at its worst, is sheer joy. I’d rather be eternally sentenced to be a White Sox fan circa 2024 than to attend another funeral.

Some of the whinging on here is top tier, but, once an m.o. is recognized, it’s easy enough to skim past those channels.

Very well said.

 

[MuppetAsteriskTalk]

The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat.

 

[joe dokes]

But there is no guarantee that the team will win as many times as possible. Why are you willing to punt 2025 when there is absolutely no assurance that the Sox will be dominant in 2026, 27, etc?

I dont think "punting" is the right word here. At least that's not what I see them doing with the approach they've taken/are taking. I seriously doubt it's your intent, but the phrase "willing to punt" is a bit unkind.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

I dont think "punting" is the right word here. At least that's not what I see them doing with the approach they've taken/are taking. I seriously doubt it's your intent, but the phrase "willing to punt" is a bit unkind.

You’re probably right, I don’t think the Sox are pointing here but Ras seemed okay to do so. I should’ve made the distinction. Mea culpa.

I’m not sure what you mean by my last line. Unkind to whom?

 

[Auger34]

For me it's community. The primary (though not the only) reason I still follow is because the bulk of my family and real world* friends are still pretty into it. Im a single middle aged man, my world is small enough. If I completely divest from sports my world would be even smaller.

*this community is obvs important too, but I spend the bulk of my time on this site in non sports threads.

Agreed with this.

The community is much more fun when teams are winning.

I also agree with @Petagine in a Bottle. I don’t expect my teams to win every year. But I do expect them to try to be as competitive as possible.
For me that equates to spending the available money for better players and hiring the smartest/most qualified people to run and coach the teams.

When those aren’t met, it’s much more frustrating for me and easier to not follow as closely

 

[Auger34]

I'd say the point, for me, is to be entertained by people trying as hard as they can to win the championship. What constitutes entertainment is personal and not any one thing for everyone watching. I want the Sox to win but after four titles I'm not as interested in some random collection of free agents doing it. I would take a lot more satisfaction in a young, exciting team forging its own identity and building to a title, or multiple titles, not unlike what the Celtics have put together. Years ago I would have just answered "win all the titles" but not anymore

Completely agree with this.

For the sake of the Red Sox, don’t you think that’s why the Mookie trade was so damaging to fans opinion of FSG? He was a young homegrown superstar, the type you describe here and the type everyone wants to root for.

I’m not trying to relitigste the Mookie thing but I think it dovetails nicely into your post

 

[Rasputin]

Yes. But there is no guarantee that the team will win as many times as possible. Why are you will to punt 2025 when there is absolutely no assurance that the Sox will be dominant in 2026, 27, etc? That's just wishcasting, as if sports works in a way that if you suck long enough, it'll eventually even out so that you're really good for just as long. If that happened that way, the Pirates would be in the midst of a dynasty right now. Same thing with the Jets in the NFL.

Choosing to lose, or making the choice not to give your best effort to win any year is, IDK fraud might be too strong of a word, but if you're charging major league prices and you're not doing your best to win or you have eyes towards future years, then you're not giving a majority your fans a good product. Yes, there are people who will watch the club no matter who they have out there, but that's not a great way to build a sustainable fan base.

And 2019-2020 was a self-sustained gun shot. The Red Sox could have done whatever they wanted with the 2018 team, they chose not too.

BTW, the disappointing 2019 won more games than any team in the last five years (except for the 2021 team). So I'd be pretty pumped with that team's record this year.

If you're looking for guarantees, this is the wrong sport.

There are a million miles between going all out and punting. Nobody is punting on 2025. Nobody is choosing to lose.

How about looking at it this way?

You have a budget. You do your best to enter the season with a good team within that budget. When you're this close to being championship caliber, you let yourself go over the budget to fix specific holes so you can maximize your chance of winning.

 

[Gdiguy]

I dont agree with this wording. Winning doesn't have to be the ONLY entertainment, but enjoyment of a team is almost always tied directly to winning.

Liking a team of scrappy players is fun...if they're winning enough games. Nobody "enjoys" rooting for a scrappy team that goes 65-97. They at least need to be competent.

Watching good/young players on a bad team is entertaining because they're playing well...and playing well means they are more likely to win games. Seeing Mike Trout hit a bomb that gives a team the lead is entertaining. Seeing Mike Trout hit a bomb to make the score 10-3 in the 8th isn't. Hell, it's probably more depressing than entertaining.

There are obvious exceptions to the rule - a neutral fan watching and enjoying a game, for example. But even then, I doubt they would "enjoy" watching a bad game. There's a reason good teams draw larger audiences. People want to watch good play, and good play equates to winning.

Maybe as a Mets fan who grew up in the 90s I have a different opinion here (though I'd think a bunch of Red Sox fans of that era wouldn't be dissimilar), but I think it's less 'winning' and more 'having a chance' and 'stories'

One of the reasons I've fallen off of sports a bit is sort of explicitly because your attitude has taken root in a lot of front offices - but for me, I don't want to just root for laundry, I want to root for players. I didn't make it through a bunch of shitty Mets teams because I really deeply believed they were going to win the WS, but having long-term consistent players like Piazza, or Wright/Reyes, or DeGrom, or (now) Alonso, that story was part of why I cared

Which is why to me I lost a lot of interest in the Red Sox with the Betts trade, or why I think the Rays are never going to have long-term success in building a fanbase - because yeah those are nominally the correct strategy in terms of winning, and maybe that's even the best financial decision in terms of what drives ticket sales and cable TV deals... but if every 2 years the team is completely turned over, I really just don't care anymore

*edit

I'll add - like one of the low-key best things I think the LAD have done over the past decade is keep Kershaw... having that sort of long-term relationship between a fanbase and a player I think is huge