What is the point of professional sports?
- Thread starter John Marzano Olympic Hero
- Start date
You literally said “the goal is not to win the World Series in 2025.”
If the goal is to not win the WS this year, what, exactly, is the goal?
To say that someone is "willing to punt" on a season might minimize someone's thoughts on what, I think you'll agree, is something that's just not that simple. The various threads about the issue have more nuance in them (at least most of them) than I think you're giving credit.
My brother said to me a few years ago that he'd rather his team be competitive every year than win a ring and then suck for five years. I think there's a lot to be said for that, particularly if you've won recently.
And frankly, I think the front office is firmly in the space of being willing to suck for a bunch of years and then have a one or two year window. It's not what's consistently happened under them. A bunch of our shit years (Bobby V) were years where they absolutely were trying to compete.
Yeah, they signed some bad contracts, but did the team have even one year where they weren't profitable? I'd be very surprised.
And frankly, I think the front office is firmly in the space of being willing to suck for a bunch of years and then have a one or two year window. It's not what's consistently happened under them. A bunch of our shit years (Bobby V) were years where they absolutely were trying to compete.
Yeah, they signed some bad contracts, but did the team have even one year where they weren't profitable? I'd be very surprised.
This is something I was trying to type up and you just did it. So thanks for that.
Baseball is also my happy place. It's the soundtrack of summer. I am at my happiest in life, mostly, when there's background noise of the Red Sox game on the radio when I'm driving or at the beach, or on TV when I'm cooking dinner or doing dishes or others of life's mundanities. Few things in life are as wonderful as walking into Fenway when it's beautiful outside and eating a hot dog and drinking a beer and watching baseball at sunset. And day-to-day, part of what I find relaxing about baseball is that there's always another game tomorrow, you don't need to get too worked up as you say.
So I'm a love of the game person... but.
But... I want there to be a realistic chance of those games being meaningful most of the time. I want Fenway to be buzzing, and fans to be interested. And as the leaves start to change and the sunlight starts to fade I want the Sox to prolong summer many years.
Great quote. I think what many of us are debating is the definition of "great striving." Will just say to this:
First off, I swear I'm not related to Dombrowski.
Second, I will again say I find the slander of him on this board for "mortgaging the future" to be baffling. In terms of winning baseball games -- many of our goal, reading this thread -- he oversaw the greatest Red Sox team in the franchise's more than century-long history in 2018. Moreover, the Red Sox won 3 AL East titles in a row having never finished in 1st place in their division or its predecessors in 3 consecutive seasons until he got here. Mookie, JBJ, Benintendi, Devers, and others developed into stars. And in terms of "strip mining" the team for wins, during his tenure he traded away mostly players who never quite reached their potential (Margot, Moncada, Kopech) while the team drafted Houck, Casas, Crawford, and Duran and signed Bello as an international free agent among other moves.
The team decided to part ways from him for reasons, many of which I understand, but I don't understand why he gets discussed as something of an albatross on here. End rant.
Your argument here seems a bit disingenuous, since I don't believe you to be suggesting that the 1987 or 2002 Sox are an actual candidate for "greatest story ever in sports". But your other example actually shows my larger point excellently. You are quite wrong about Bucky Dent. The Collapse of the 1978 Sox and the Bucky Dent game are indeed one of the greatest Sox stories of all time -- you can tell by how frequently they are told and how poignantly they are remembered. Will anyone remember the 2007 team as clearly as the people who lived through it remember 1978? For a Sox fan it is a sad story, but it is still a great story. I was a little too young for that one, but I remember 1986 very clearly, and that season also was a great story and one I treasure in my memory of Sox-generated narratives I have enjoyed. Or, to choose an even closer parallel to 2004, the 2003 Sox season was a great story, though I hated how it ended (I went straight from my grandfather's funeral to watching Game 7 in 2003 -- not my best day ever). The 2004 Sox story was the greatest ever because it was unparalleled, and yes, it would not have been so if not for the victory at the end. But that is a mile away from "They won, so that was great." 2004 was unique. I loved the Sox's next three WS victories too, and there were many great stories in those seasons. I would put 1986 above most of them, however, if I were ranking the greatest Sox stories of all time. 2007 was fun but that winning season was definitely not, in my opinion, a better and more interesting story than the 1986 team or maybe even the 1999 team. 2018 was rather exhilarating, but I enjoyed 2013 much more (for the same reasons you did), and the story of 2003 was much more compelling and remarkable. I am grateful to have experienced them all. 2004, however, was one of those stories which, if it had been fiction, would have been dismissed by critics as "ridiculous and unrealistic." But that's sports, and that's why I love it.
I'm sorry the final record for the season seems to have prevented you from enjoying the 2024 Sox. You have spoken many times of the last few years as if they have been pure misery to endure, since the Sox haven't made the playoffs. I feel bad for you, as you seem to me to have missed out on a lot of fun -- the 2024 Sox were great fun to watch, and I am very excited for the 2025 team.
To win the world series as many times as possible before we die.
When I said the goal isn't to win the world series in 2025, I wasn't saying the goal was to not win the world series in 2025, I was saying that winning in 2025 is too narrow a goal.
Don’t patronize me. This last paragraph of yours is bullshit and completely unnecessary.
Apologies if I offended you. I have just read many dozens of posts in which you share your unhappiness and frustration. My expression of pity is genuine; I don't like to see anyone suffering as the tone of your posts suggests you have suffered.
For me it really doesn’t make a difference anymore. I get what I need from the discussion around what pats might do with a top 3 pick than I used to determining their path to a playoff bye. But that’s where I’m personally at now…certainly wasn’t always the case.
I think part of it is my viewing habits have changed. I follow, though don’t watch nearly as much as I used to. So roster construction, in season ups and downs, hurdles created/hurdles cleared, young prospects improving, etc, are all just as interesting to me as the wins and losses are.
If everything works out well, to be only 10 games out of a playoff spot in Sept?Having a chance to do what?
(a 12 year old can dream...)
I read that to mean that the goal isn't to win in 2025 at the expense of the future.
First off, I swear I'm not related to Dombrowski.
Second, I will again say I find the slander of him on this board for "mortgaging the future" to be baffling. In terms of winning baseball games -- many of our goal, reading this thread -- he oversaw the greatest Red Sox team in the franchise's more than century-long history in 2018. Moreover, the Red Sox won 3 AL East titles in a row having never finished in 1st place in their division or its predecessors in 3 consecutive seasons until he got here. Mookie, JBJ, Benintendi, Devers, and others developed into stars. And in terms of "strip mining" the team for wins, during his tenure he traded away mostly players who never quite reached their potential (Margot, Moncada, Kopech) while the team drafted Houck, Casas, Crawford, and Duran and signed Bello as an international free agent among other moves. End rant.
[/QUOTE]
My reaction to the hiring of Dombrowski was based on his track record, which made me think he wasn't the best candidate to curate the aspirations of fielding a perpetually competitive team. That's it. What I wrote wasn't meant as a snipe. I appreciated Dombrowski's efforts here and don't think he operated in bad faith. The 2018 season was sheer joy, and I hoped to be watching Benintendi, Bradley, and Betts roam Fenway's grass for many more years.
Second, I will again say I find the slander of him on this board for "mortgaging the future" to be baffling. In terms of winning baseball games -- many of our goal, reading this thread -- he oversaw the greatest Red Sox team in the franchise's more than century-long history in 2018. Moreover, the Red Sox won 3 AL East titles in a row having never finished in 1st place in their division or its predecessors in 3 consecutive seasons until he got here. Mookie, JBJ, Benintendi, Devers, and others developed into stars. And in terms of "strip mining" the team for wins, during his tenure he traded away mostly players who never quite reached their potential (Margot, Moncada, Kopech) while the team drafted Houck, Casas, Crawford, and Duran and signed Bello as an international free agent among other moves. End rant.
[/QUOTE]
My reaction to the hiring of Dombrowski was based on his track record, which made me think he wasn't the best candidate to curate the aspirations of fielding a perpetually competitive team. That's it. What I wrote wasn't meant as a snipe. I appreciated Dombrowski's efforts here and don't think he operated in bad faith. The 2018 season was sheer joy, and I hoped to be watching Benintendi, Bradley, and Betts roam Fenway's grass for many more years.
Apology accepted.
It’s a pro sports team, I assure you that I haven’t suffered one instance.
Not agreeing with moves the Red Sox have made doesn’t mean I’m unhappy and any frustration is mere momentary.
I love the Sox, but I’m not a child and understand that what I want and what FSG wants are two completely different things and at the end of the day, whatever. It’s fine.
Talking and kvetching about the Sox is a way to make the day go by. It’s nothing more than that.
Ah, I see, and sorry if I came off as more uncharitable than I meant to. I'll end the tangent here, but thanks for the quick response.
Sure seems like a yes. I hated it too, even though I’m a little more sympathetic to their suggestions that the 2018 iteration was toast except for Mookie and X, and they were actually in a rebuild without saying so.
When I was a kid, it was just the game itself. When I got older and dedicated more time, it became more games of the league, and then fantasy baseball, because I was so tuned into the game. Then I started giving a damn about roster construction and what players were worth(also thanks to fantasy baseball), and then I got a little older and personally my focus was forced to disengage a ton. I know fewer of every team's regulars, and know even less about roster construction, salaries, and who is a minor league stud. I'm relegated to really just enjoying the game in front of me and get increasingly bored with discussions about the value of players and hypothetical lineups.
As a result, I watch baseball a bit, but less of the Red Sox because they've been lousy year in year out for a couple of years. They show flashes of fun, but enough blown games and blowouts and increased prices in everything, I don't feel valued as a fan. I can't imagine being fine with sucking butt for several years to build up 1 title run. I'd rather be legitimately in contention every year, but it costs money and owners gotta eat, too. So I'll watch the Mets play and other teams that throw money at fun players. Does that make me a fair weather fan? Maybe, but what about fair weather owners?
That said, this off season signings have brought me back into the side of being excited. I like watching fun baseball teams, that's the point of a professional baseball team, to be fun.
As a result, I watch baseball a bit, but less of the Red Sox because they've been lousy year in year out for a couple of years. They show flashes of fun, but enough blown games and blowouts and increased prices in everything, I don't feel valued as a fan. I can't imagine being fine with sucking butt for several years to build up 1 title run. I'd rather be legitimately in contention every year, but it costs money and owners gotta eat, too. So I'll watch the Mets play and other teams that throw money at fun players. Does that make me a fair weather fan? Maybe, but what about fair weather owners?
That said, this off season signings have brought me back into the side of being excited. I like watching fun baseball teams, that's the point of a professional baseball team, to be fun.
Hmmm....
That's where I picked up the term outrage. A Dope here called for more, and this is basically my rebuttal to that. I'll admit I added sustained, because it's in the face of moves and obvious improvements made for the upcoming season that give real reason for hope. The anger at the front office talk absolutely has its place, but not in discussions of individual players. I just want better discourse in the baseball threads all around and not every thread becoming about the front office. That's it. The Sandoval thread got absolutely wrecked and it didn't have to be that way.
Not worth any more of my time. I'm no pollyanna, just really hopeful given the current state of things. I'm comfortable saying that. Doesn't mean I'm happy with the past shitty stretch but I'd rather look forward. YMMV. All I was trying to do is answer the question in the thread title from where I sit.
Skrub is an adult and can speak for himself and he knows that he doesn’t speak for me. So I’m not sure why you would respond to me for something he said. Especially without citing that.
But whatever. I was happy with the Crotchet move. I don’t like the Chapman move because I don’t dig assholes that hit women. And I’m meh on the Sandoval (probably won’t contribute too much in 2025, which is most concerned about) and Buehler.
There’s a lot of unknowns about Buehler where he could be a total steal (awesome!) or could he continue his bad 2024 (terrible). I mean if you can confidently say that Buehler is going to pitch as well as he did in his early Dodgers days, great.
But to characterize having questions about their last two signings as “negative” then I don’t know what to tell you. You’re a lot more confident than I am, I guess.
Skrub is perfectly entitled to and secure in his feelings, which is why I was comfortable pointing to his post. I only quoted him to show that I didn't come up with the term outrage on my own, after you told me that I shouldn't refer to what was happening on the board that way. And I certainly didn't characterize/say/imply that having questions about the latest signings are negative. I don't feel that way at all. There are always legitimate concerns, and you nailed a few of them.
All good, man, I didn't intend to do anything in this thread than explain my POV on the point of pro sports. That's it. I feel no need to continue to defend it, nor do I judge anyone who sees it differently. And certainly have no appetite to rehash anything here, that would be directly contradictory to what I do want, which is nothing more than better discourse all around, including from myself.
Winning alone isn't it, IMO. You have one off teams that don't really add to the experience beyond their year. Take the Celtics now for example. They won, but we know they're going to be competitive for the forseeable future even if they don't win again, and we knew that probably around 2016 or so. Even if the Celtics lost in the finals to Dallas, I'd rather have that run where you know they're likely going to be a 50 win team for a decade than have just a one off title where they fade away again (like the Chicago White Sox of 05, last year's Rangers). The current Sox could grab lightning in a bottle like they did in 2013 and almost did in 2021, but I would rather root for a team that I know is going to be competent and consistent from season to season.
A lot of this is subject to quirks of the franchise, and if the franchise hasn't won in a generation plus, that throws it off, like the teams above. But I would not trade competence for miracles. Maybe 20 years ago. I want to be entertained night in and night out and think the guy I root for tonight will be on the team 5 years from now unless he gets injured.
A lot of this is subject to quirks of the franchise, and if the franchise hasn't won in a generation plus, that throws it off, like the teams above. But I would not trade competence for miracles. Maybe 20 years ago. I want to be entertained night in and night out and think the guy I root for tonight will be on the team 5 years from now unless he gets injured.
I agree - I’d rather be a “contender” for 10
years without a title than win a single ring and have a losing record for the other 9 years.
But that’s easier to say as a Boston fan for the last 25 years. I’d have probably said the opposite prior to 2001, or to the 2004 Sox.
Right. While it generated some nice posts, the whole thread is premised on JMOH's misunderstanding of what I think was a pretty clear and uncontroversial statement from Ras.
In fact, I think JMOH and Ras are largely in agreement that the goal is to win as often as possible.
This is me. I love the daily aspect of baseball. Almost every day, there's a game to watch or follow online. While working full-time as a university faculty member, I also take care of twin adults with autism and intellectual disabilities which means that my days are often repetitive and mundane. Baseball is an escape from the dullness of their routines and an opportunity to witness the unexpected. I love to see players improve over time or come back successfully from injury. I also love to see great players come out of nowhere. Professional sports are a form of entertainment and that's it.
This is great.
From April through September, no matter where Im going, there's a game on. And mid-game, maybe coming back from dinner with my wife, if its an exciting part of an exciting game, the standings dont matter at that particular time.
What is the point of professional sports? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women.
Sure, but there is questioning methodology. Outside of the Crochet trade and a couple of edge trades, FSG's team building choices have been akin to laying down several parlays. No one wants to lose a parlay but if someone owes me money and say they will pay out when their surefire parlays hit, I am writing that off as a loss.
As for the point of professional sports, it is receiving entertainment for a price. The team doesn't necessarily have to win for it to be fun, look at the Mets last year. Mets were fantastic fun. I would say the Red Sox at this point are smug, joyless, and expensive. It is like going to see Megapolis in IMAX. Man I loved the Godfather and Apocalypse Now but I am not paying like 40 bucks to watch that "film". That said there are people who simply love Adam Driver or Shia LeBlouf who will go without a question or people who juts love going to movies. Sure ok. Then there other people who try to say it worth 40 dollars because Aubrey Plaza is hot, which I would question what one has to do with another. Finally there are people who will argue it is Coppola and I don't understand its genius. I still rather stay home and watch Master and Commander.
In conclusion, Master and Commander is a fantastic movie.
"Men must be governed! Often not wisely, I will grant you, but governed nonetheless."
I suppose I’m agnostic on the overarching point of professional sports. Football, basketball, hockey, and soccer are all the same general concept of moving the ball/puck/whatever up and down the playing surface and into the goal more times than the opponent before the allotted time runs out. Anything short of the Celtics or Patriots reaching their conference finals, I find the concept wholly uninteresting.
Baseball, on the other hand, has nothing to do with any of that. The specialized aspects of the sport, like fielding, base running, and culminating with the central chess-like duel between the hitter and pitcher… now *that’s* compelling to me. And to take it a step further, I find concepts such as optimizing batting order, roles on a pitching staff, and navigating compromise between offense and defense necessitated by ideas like the “defensive spectrum” push baseball into the realm of fascinating to me.
The Red Sox are -and I have no rational explanation for this- the only Major League team in any sport that I truly love. Short of a lobotomy or severe head wound, it will unconditionally remain this way.
All that said, winning championships is absolutely what I want most from the team. But the reality is that there are 29 other teams standing in their way. The nature of baseball is that there’s a certain disconnect between skill and results. The best team is guaranteed nothing: a screaming liner can find a glove, a bloop off the end of the bat can score the walk-off run in Game 7. It’s all part of the beauty. Therefore, I believe it’s exceedingly difficult for a team to be perpetually great. I can live with that. I just like baseball too much to walk away from even if I don’t get my own way. I still find the Red Sox just as interesting, even if not as entertaining, when they are bad. The storyline of turning a bad team around over time (and it takes time) and the players I’ve grown fond of keeps me invested through the lean years.
The question of ‘what would you rather have: a team that’s bad for nine years but wins the World Series every tenth, or a team that’s always a contender but never wins the World Series?’ has been brought up in this thread and others in the past. Man, either of these would be very depressing for me. Gun to my head, I suppose I’d choose nine bad years and a World Series title because winning it all is just sweet enough to be worth the long suffering and sacrifice. I look at it this way: I’d rather the Yankees always be great and never win a championship than always be terrible except when they manage to get another one once every decade. (Kinda pathetic my love of the Red Sox is always filtered through dislike of the Yankees but let’s be real, it’s much more fun than carrying that baggage around through real life.) If the choice was reduced to being bad every four years and then winning the World Series every fifth? I’d gladly sign up for that 100% of the time. That’s just me though, and I don’t think fans who feel differently than I do are doing it wrong whatsoever. We’ve all got our own thing that moves us.
Applying these thoughts to the current state of the Red Sox, what we all ultimately want (other than the excellent posters here who root for other teams) is for the team to be a perpetual contender *and* win championships. Being consistently good only increases your odds. I personally believe the best path to take the Red Sox there *right now* is to continue to focus on drafting and development, extending excellent young players whose best days are in front of them, and filling in the gaps with useful veterans willing to take short term contracts. Maybe I’m just traumatized from the fallout of the Price and Sale contracts, but it seems to me a roster that has too many expensive players with their best days behind them makes it much more difficult to keep the younger, productive players through their arb years and into their age 32 or so season. So as disappointing as things have been since Bloom took over, I truly believe the way he and Breslow combined have run the team has them set up for a sustainable run of excellence. If this proves to be the case, then these down years since 2018 will have been absolutely worth it. But, only time will tell. There are no guarantees in baseball. All you can really do is stack the odds in your favor as best as you can and let the guys you have on the field roll the dice.
Baseball, on the other hand, has nothing to do with any of that. The specialized aspects of the sport, like fielding, base running, and culminating with the central chess-like duel between the hitter and pitcher… now *that’s* compelling to me. And to take it a step further, I find concepts such as optimizing batting order, roles on a pitching staff, and navigating compromise between offense and defense necessitated by ideas like the “defensive spectrum” push baseball into the realm of fascinating to me.
The Red Sox are -and I have no rational explanation for this- the only Major League team in any sport that I truly love. Short of a lobotomy or severe head wound, it will unconditionally remain this way.
All that said, winning championships is absolutely what I want most from the team. But the reality is that there are 29 other teams standing in their way. The nature of baseball is that there’s a certain disconnect between skill and results. The best team is guaranteed nothing: a screaming liner can find a glove, a bloop off the end of the bat can score the walk-off run in Game 7. It’s all part of the beauty. Therefore, I believe it’s exceedingly difficult for a team to be perpetually great. I can live with that. I just like baseball too much to walk away from even if I don’t get my own way. I still find the Red Sox just as interesting, even if not as entertaining, when they are bad. The storyline of turning a bad team around over time (and it takes time) and the players I’ve grown fond of keeps me invested through the lean years.
The question of ‘what would you rather have: a team that’s bad for nine years but wins the World Series every tenth, or a team that’s always a contender but never wins the World Series?’ has been brought up in this thread and others in the past. Man, either of these would be very depressing for me. Gun to my head, I suppose I’d choose nine bad years and a World Series title because winning it all is just sweet enough to be worth the long suffering and sacrifice. I look at it this way: I’d rather the Yankees always be great and never win a championship than always be terrible except when they manage to get another one once every decade. (Kinda pathetic my love of the Red Sox is always filtered through dislike of the Yankees but let’s be real, it’s much more fun than carrying that baggage around through real life.) If the choice was reduced to being bad every four years and then winning the World Series every fifth? I’d gladly sign up for that 100% of the time. That’s just me though, and I don’t think fans who feel differently than I do are doing it wrong whatsoever. We’ve all got our own thing that moves us.
Applying these thoughts to the current state of the Red Sox, what we all ultimately want (other than the excellent posters here who root for other teams) is for the team to be a perpetual contender *and* win championships. Being consistently good only increases your odds. I personally believe the best path to take the Red Sox there *right now* is to continue to focus on drafting and development, extending excellent young players whose best days are in front of them, and filling in the gaps with useful veterans willing to take short term contracts. Maybe I’m just traumatized from the fallout of the Price and Sale contracts, but it seems to me a roster that has too many expensive players with their best days behind them makes it much more difficult to keep the younger, productive players through their arb years and into their age 32 or so season. So as disappointing as things have been since Bloom took over, I truly believe the way he and Breslow combined have run the team has them set up for a sustainable run of excellence. If this proves to be the case, then these down years since 2018 will have been absolutely worth it. But, only time will tell. There are no guarantees in baseball. All you can really do is stack the odds in your favor as best as you can and let the guys you have on the field roll the dice.
I think this states the goal perfectly.
For a small-market club, that might mean building to optimize a 2-3 year window once per decade. For a big-market club like the Sox, it means aiming to make the playoffs 8-9 times per decade to maximize the number of postseason chances you get, knowing it’s mostly luck once you get past the play-in. So I’m not sure the difference in philosophy being discussed in this thread should translate to much difference in tactics — maybe I’m more willing than @John Marzano Olympic Hero to tolerate one season per decade where the kids play a bit prematurely. 2024 was fun, as was 2015; 2022 and 2023 were not.
I want my professional sports teams to win as often as possible, and winning some championships along the way. But mainly, I want to see a good product. Like, the Pats didn't win a SB championship from the 2005 season all the way to the 2013 season. That's nine years of "futility". But we know it wasn't *really* futile. They were, simply put, the best team in football over that span of time. That they didn't win a Lombardi during that stretch was certainly disappointing and frustrating, but they were, year in and year out, a joy to watch. It was FUN rooting for them. They played an entertaining brand of football, had all kinds of fun personalities, and won a hell of a lot of games. So when I turned on the TV (or went to Gillette) to see them play, way more often than not I came away happy with their effort and performance, and the result of the game.
I played sports in high school and enjoyed them. I appreciate how hard it is to play at the highest level in any of the sports I follow and I like watching it. I went to Rays games for years when they were terrible and they weren't playing the Red Sox.
I like numbers, and I like the jigsaw puzzle of putting teams together as well - but really the game is enough - particularly at Fenway (biggest thing FSG did was saving Fenway).
I wanted the Red Sox to get over the hump - and when they did and the manner in which they did pretty much ended and anger I had. I expect the team to take reasonable efforts to win - which FSG clearly has over the last 20 years. I am also aware that I live in a capitalist economy - and owners will maximize profits. I also think talent evaluation in baseball is really hard - and for my team to make mistakes doing it.
One thing I HATE about Boston sports is the media - which revels in creating villains. I can't stand it.
I like numbers, and I like the jigsaw puzzle of putting teams together as well - but really the game is enough - particularly at Fenway (biggest thing FSG did was saving Fenway).
I wanted the Red Sox to get over the hump - and when they did and the manner in which they did pretty much ended and anger I had. I expect the team to take reasonable efforts to win - which FSG clearly has over the last 20 years. I am also aware that I live in a capitalist economy - and owners will maximize profits. I also think talent evaluation in baseball is really hard - and for my team to make mistakes doing it.
One thing I HATE about Boston sports is the media - which revels in creating villains. I can't stand it.
Professional sports is basically about playing the game at the highest level. This is a well designed game. Seeing it played by individuals who have dedicated their lives to it and have advanced to the show is a joy.
I like Red Sox baseball because there’s an ethic of playing every inning at a high intensity. They keep at it. Not every team nor every year - But enough to keep me in the park for 9 innings, ahead or behind. Last year was such a year.
I like the ebbs and flows that come in a game, a season and over a 5-10 year period. I try to react to the low times with patience rather than anger (outrage!), but whatever floats your boat. I’ve lost my cool a few times.
I like Red Sox baseball because there’s an ethic of playing every inning at a high intensity. They keep at it. Not every team nor every year - But enough to keep me in the park for 9 innings, ahead or behind. Last year was such a year.
I like the ebbs and flows that come in a game, a season and over a 5-10 year period. I try to react to the low times with patience rather than anger (outrage!), but whatever floats your boat. I’ve lost my cool a few times.
At 71, for me the purpose is to keep the dream, happiness, and joy going.
The dream of making the winning play in whatever sport.
The dream of being on the winning team and being a part of it.
The dream of getting that feeling one more time.
The nutty happiness it can bring me like when Manny high fived a fan in the middle of a play.
The joy of seeing a fraud unmasked like when ARod slapping the ball out of Arroyo's glove was 'punished' and over four beautiful games the Yankees finally were vanquished.
The community joy evident when there's a huge positive event the Mount Everest of which is, of course, the Sox in 2004.
The joy of that day to day feeling of fun and failure and community and competition that happens over the 162 game season.
The dream of making the winning play in whatever sport.
The dream of being on the winning team and being a part of it.
The dream of getting that feeling one more time.
The nutty happiness it can bring me like when Manny high fived a fan in the middle of a play.
The joy of seeing a fraud unmasked like when ARod slapping the ball out of Arroyo's glove was 'punished' and over four beautiful games the Yankees finally were vanquished.
The community joy evident when there's a huge positive event the Mount Everest of which is, of course, the Sox in 2004.
The joy of that day to day feeling of fun and failure and community and competition that happens over the 162 game season.
Such a big topic, I have a few answers:
1) Victor Wembanyama.
2) Titles are overrated as a sole source of ultimate sports pleasure*, for me 'style points' are roughly as important. The only two teams I have been a serious fan of for many years are the Yankees and the Knicks. I have seen the Yankees win seven World Series and the Knicks win zero NBA titles, but I think I have gotten more overall enjoyment from the Knicks (?). The 2004 Red Sox are almost certainly the biggest exception in the history of American team sports, tantric sports fandom.
3) Elly De La Cruz stealing three bases in two pitches.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWSSy7ckbsI
*This is different if you are actually competing, not professional but it killed us in college to finish 3rd and 2nd at NCAAs my first two years, but we won my last two, and that was better.
1) Victor Wembanyama.
2) Titles are overrated as a sole source of ultimate sports pleasure*, for me 'style points' are roughly as important. The only two teams I have been a serious fan of for many years are the Yankees and the Knicks. I have seen the Yankees win seven World Series and the Knicks win zero NBA titles, but I think I have gotten more overall enjoyment from the Knicks (?). The 2004 Red Sox are almost certainly the biggest exception in the history of American team sports, tantric sports fandom.
3) Elly De La Cruz stealing three bases in two pitches.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWSSy7ckbsI
*This is different if you are actually competing, not professional but it killed us in college to finish 3rd and 2nd at NCAAs my first two years, but we won my last two, and that was better.
https://gocolumbialions.com/news/2013/1/30/206184062.aspx (I link this a lot but if you have not seen, me on the left in the pic, co-captains with legend Bob Cottingham our junior/senior years)
Jon Abbey's entry is an example of one thing that I enjoy in sports: witnessing the anomaly. The anomalous game, play, season, player. That brings me great joy.
And of course winning.
And of course beating your rival (because sports are also the usually benign practice of tribalism, too).
Which is why 2004 was so incredible - it was all of the above.
Sports is partially poetic/aesthetic and is partially about competition. The former can be enjoyed without the latter (watching young players blossom even as your team is losing, enjoying Pedro's magnificence even in the early 2000s when the team wasn't making the playoffs). For latter, you wanna win, and it's incredibly disappointing to follow a team that is not even competitive or loses at the end in painful fashion.
Of course folks on this site are also into the construction of a team, and on that front are greatly divided: has ownership and management done everything they could have done, since 2018, to win as much as possible? I'm in the camp that believes, no, they have not. Henry's new tighter purses have hamstrung the team (and please don't accuse me of wanting a team of all overpriced free agents because I don't want that either). So, that's a different kind of sports fandom frustration and maybe the subtext of the thread. If ownership is not doing everything they can to build a winning team, then, yeah, WTF's the point?
And of course winning.
And of course beating your rival (because sports are also the usually benign practice of tribalism, too).
Which is why 2004 was so incredible - it was all of the above.
Sports is partially poetic/aesthetic and is partially about competition. The former can be enjoyed without the latter (watching young players blossom even as your team is losing, enjoying Pedro's magnificence even in the early 2000s when the team wasn't making the playoffs). For latter, you wanna win, and it's incredibly disappointing to follow a team that is not even competitive or loses at the end in painful fashion.
Of course folks on this site are also into the construction of a team, and on that front are greatly divided: has ownership and management done everything they could have done, since 2018, to win as much as possible? I'm in the camp that believes, no, they have not. Henry's new tighter purses have hamstrung the team (and please don't accuse me of wanting a team of all overpriced free agents because I don't want that either). So, that's a different kind of sports fandom frustration and maybe the subtext of the thread. If ownership is not doing everything they can to build a winning team, then, yeah, WTF's the point?
This is exactly right. Betts was not just an MVP-type player He was the core of the team. The team lost much of its identity when he was traded away. Bogaerts, a good man and a good player whom I loved and who wanted to stay, also was allowed to leave. Their departure broke the leadership continuity that stretched back to Ortiz and Pedroia and we're left with the current team, albeit a young and talented bunch, who lack that leadership and identity.
My main criticism of Bloom is that he had no understanding or respect for team continuity. When John Henry fired Dombrowski, Tampa was not the right place to look for his successor
Where else in life do you get to see such a high volume of public failure? Only one team can win each year. There’s schadenfreude but it’s also comforting seeing extremely capable and motivated people fail most of the time.