Soxbadger

QUOTE (Carter224 @ Jul 9, 2012 -> 09:47 PM) So f***ing leave the team and help your son until you're comfortable enough to come back. Stop making excuses for him. Its a f***ing game, go watch the Oprah channel if you wanna feel sorry for people in unfortunate situations. What if I just want the Sox to win more games, and that is more likely if fans arent booing Adam Dunn. Then what channel should I watch?

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jul 9, 2012 -> 09:43 PM) It's a shame the search function doesn't work. I'd love to go back to 2004/2005 when Wood and Prior's arms wouldn't cooperate. Nobody here showed any mercy whatsoever. Adam Dunn signed a huge contract. He then subsequently forget how to hit a baseball. You get booed when that happens. You do understand that we are Sox fans not Cubs fans, so cheering against Cubs players doesnt really matter.

QUOTE (Carter224 @ Jul 9, 2012 -> 09:25 PM) After this post, I am never posting another thing again except for to follow you around and quote and boo every post you make from now on.. I want to see if the quality of your posts go down because im not supporting you. Wont matter to me, I like negativity, so feed m. QUOTE (thxfrthmmrs @ Jul 9, 2012 -> 09:29 PM) DUDE WHAT PLANET ARE YOU FROM? Who cares about how the fan feels? Then why do they even have sports shows, forums like this, message boards on ESPN? Because THOSE ARE THE REACTIONS OF THE FANS WHO STAYED AT HOME! Don't you think it would yield the same impact as booing if the player comes on here and reads a negative comment about themselves? And no, fans are not cheerleaders. That's why they are different terms. Fans pay to see the game, it's not their job to cheer for everything that happens during the game. Cheerleaders get paid to do that job. I can't care about how the player feels, I pay to see the game, it's for entertainment, I am not there to do a job. You are all over the place. How do sports shows, which are created to make money, have anything to do with a players performance on the field being impacted by booing? Do you even understand the word "fan"? Fan: A person who has a strong interest in or admiration for a particular sport, art or entertainment form, or famous person. Admiration: Respect and warm approval. If you are there for purely entertainment, and not to root for the Sox, you are not a fan of the Sox, you are a fan of baseball and then feel free to boo/cheer for whoever you want. But if you proclaim to be a "FAN" of the "SOX" you should cheer for them. Since when is cheering a job, lol.

QUOTE (thxfrthmmrs @ Jul 9, 2012 -> 09:11 PM) The issue is, you keep worrying about the players feelings, like how does fans reaction impact the players feelings, but does the player have to worry about if they just suck, how would it impact the fans feelings? I mean there are tens of thousands of them, they ought to react differently. Last time I check, the fans aren't cheerleaders, there area specific people for that, I guess that's the point you are missing. I find it funny when you would blame the GM and the manger, but not the players when the team is losing, when the players are the one who are playing the game!! Who cares about how the fans feel, the fans dont have to perform. No one is asking you to go on the field and hit a 90+ fastball, so I really dont care about you or other fans feelings. The fans SHOULD BE CHEERLEADERS, that is the point you are missing. Do you even understand the function of a cheerleader? They are supposed to get the FANS CHEERING. CHEER LEADER The point of a game is to win, if you care about the team, you should do everything in your power to help that team win. If you dont care about the team, go ahead and boo, it will make you feel better, and that seems to be what you care about, how you feel, as opposed to the team winning.

QUOTE (thxfrthmmrs @ Jul 9, 2012 -> 08:49 PM) Obviously, there are both sides to the coin. Everyone has feelings. The fans, by booing, are letting their feelings be heard. By booing, the fans could, according to you, impact the players mental make up. But if you don't have a strong mental makeup, it won't take you far in life. Some of the most successful athletes ever have strong mental makeups. The fans are paying to see the game, the players getting paid, who do you think should be understanding of the others feeling. I can understand that if it's a free game, than fans should not boo, but that's not the case. Just imagine if the fans cheer for everything during the game, how would the players react? I mean, I certainly remember the fans giving Adam some cushion for error, but he was HISTORICALLY bad, at what point do you boo him? If you are just plain awful at your job, you would be fired, no excuses. I just am not willing to take the risk of hurting the performance of a player on a team I root for. Its not about getting paid, its not about their feelings, its about winning and losing. If there is even a .0001% chance that my booing will negatively impact a player, I am not going to go do it. You keep talking about being fired from my job. Isnt that my bosses call, not random people on the street? I am not saying that players shouldnt be held accountable, I am asking the question if there is even some evidence that booing hurts player performance, why would you boo your own players? QUOTE (Carter224 @ Jul 9, 2012 -> 08:51 PM) Actually I got to Microsoft and stand outside the door and slap a high five to everyone who walks out because XBOX is undeniably better than the crappy $300 paperweight that is the PS3. Write a letter? Ide have to boo myself if I did that. I understand you're some kind of lawyer or lawyer in training so you think you can out argue everyone on this board, but your opinion doesn't matter any more than anyone elses here. You either boo or you don't, you'll never be able to justify that its wrong and ill never be able to justify that its right. Writing a letter is not an acceptable option and is more likely to be crumpled up and thrown away than read. This isn't 1950. Im not justifying its wrong, I am asking why would you boo players if there is a risk they will play worse. So far no one has answered that. It doesnt matter what I do outside of the boards, everyone is free to have an opinion here and be judged. Ive just yet to read a good argument for why you would want to hurt your own players performance. QUOTE (thxfrthmmrs @ Jul 9, 2012 -> 08:54 PM) Most of the sports fans are tied to the city they are from. If their teams suck, that's still their team. The team represent their city. But if you don't like the products you are using, you go buy another brand. Different scenarios here. I just don't understand your logic that if you don't ever boo at a game, and if everybody sucked like Dunn, how do you expect your team to win, if you only cared about the Sox winning. Well I expect that a manager like Ventura would do his job, or a GM like KW would do his job. I dont need fans doing something that may hurt the players performance that night. That is the point, if you boo Dunn in the 1st inning and it impacts the other 3 at bats, who did you help? I am asking, why do you want players to perform badly?

Write a letter? Do you stand outside of Microsoft and boo them because your Xbox is worse than PS3? Do people show up at your job and boo you if they dont like the product they bought? As a fan, I want to see the Sox win, not boo Sox players. Call me old fashioned.

Right, most people do not understand what it is like working in front of a random crowd of people who are judging you constantly.

QUOTE (thxfrthmmrs @ Jul 9, 2012 -> 08:31 PM) But you can't separate a team losing from the fact that players are not performing. I would argue that booing helps the same as cheering for failures. It shows that fans have expectations, and it puts more pressure on the players to perform rather than giving themselves more cushion because they think the fans would stand behind them regardless. Baseball is a business, and just like a traditional business setting, there are rewards and punishments. At work, the boss would give recognition for good work and give warnings for not meeting expectation, and yet those warnings keep you in check. The players understand this, and they often blame themselves for not performing. Rarely do I hear players blaming the fans for their failures. But if the stats show booing hurts performance, why take the risk? You keep comparing a boss to a player playing a sport. Imagine if in the middle of a presentation, your boss started booing you. How do you think that would go? After the game, behind closed doors, is an appropriate time to discuss failures.

0 evidence? Well I put it into the googles and this is what I found: http://thehoopdoctors.com/online2/2012/03/...mpact-his-play/ And more: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6894...3/ai_n57525309/ And onto the actual test: If this was a stadium, theyd be booing you.

QUOTE (Carter224 @ Jul 9, 2012 -> 08:20 PM) What? Who cares if they get their feelings hurt. They get to play a f***ing game as their job. They make way more money than the majority of us will ever see. If one of them cares about being boo'd, work harder. I watch sports to be entertained, most of us do. If you don't perform to the level that you're expected to, you're going to hear it. I don't see how that's a problem. Its a problem if you want the team to win and you have even a basic understanding of human psychology. You are entitled to boo, I just think its stupid to boo your own team, unless its something horrifically egregious that involves quitting on their own team. The reason I care about their feelings, is because generally people who are happy do better than those who are sad. Go figure.

QUOTE (Carter224 @ Jul 9, 2012 -> 08:08 PM) Im pretty sure a LOT of them couldn't give two s***s if they get boo'd or not. Its not like the Simpsons episode where Homer heckles Daryl Strawberry and then in the next scene he has a tear in his eye. Okay so how do I know which ones care? Isnt it safer to just cheer for them all and that way not risk booing for the wrong guy? At least argue that you believe booing is more of a motivator than cheering, but then you should always boo, so that cant be. QUOTE (thxfrthmmrs @ Jul 9, 2012 -> 08:09 PM) From my perspective, fans who boo at the game didn't pay $30-40 to get in to the game to comfort the players. Fans pay big bucks to watch a good game. This isn't a Little League game where everybody is a winner and nobody gets their feelings hurt. There are expectations when you are making $15 million a year. I care about my team winning and losing. I dont care about whether you had a good game. Im there for the Sox to win. So far you havent shown me how booing helps that cause more than cheering.

Fired or criticized by your boss, employer, superior, not some random off the street who has no clue. And do you think players react better to cheers or boos? I think that cheers make them play better, so I cheer. Thats the point right? I want my team to win.

QUOTE (thxfrthmmrs @ Jul 9, 2012 -> 07:50 PM) Why should people feel ashamed of themselves? Should we suspect that every athlete who struggles with their performances to be dealing with life crisis? It's not like people are booing him for this family issues. Fans have expectations and booing is a consequences of players failing to meet expectation. And maybe that is true. But as a fan, I want the players on my team to do well. So I can get over my need to boo my own player, to try and be positive and hope that they play better. I can only speak for myself, but a lot of people are hard on themselves, and the last thing they need is a group of people who cant remotely do what they do, booing from the sidelines as if they understand.

The entire office didnt have internet. Couldnt even access local drives on the network.

I think booing your own team is silly, unless the player actually commits an unforgivable mistake. Swinging and missing, sucking, it happens. I dont know a lot of people who react well to negative enforcement.

This site went down shortly after I posted that, leaving only 1 site. I dont think Ill manage another day without internet.

They could cut about 4 stories and be okay. A story I would be fine with is a Jessica/Tara lesbian arc.

Our computer systems are screwed at work, I can get to 2 websites, this being 1 of them.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Jul 8, 2012 -> 10:56 PM) I didn't get a chance to watch today, but Murray is far better in long rallies than Federer, and he's quick enough and good enough defensively to hang with Nadal and Nole in long rallies. IMO, he's real weakness is the apprehensiveness on ground strokes. He can open it up with the best of them on occasion, but he's too predictable. No backhand down the line. His serve in inconsistent, but he also has the ability to ramp it up a notch when he needs it. I don't know how many times I've seen him dig out of a 0-40 hole with a few great serves in a row. He's made it to 4 Grand Slam finals. At this point, it's more mental with him than anything. He just needs a bit of luck to get over the hump. He absolutely DISMANTLED Djokovic in the final in Dubai earlier this year. It's in him, he just can't put it all together in 5 sets. He was close against Djokovic in the AO semi this year too. I believe that Federer won 55% of the points that went over 9 strokes. Apprehensiveness is inconsistency, the difference between a Nadal/Djok from the baseline is that they believe in their stroke and hit it with full authority almost every time. Murray does not have the same belief, he plays conservative ground strokes to ensure that he stays in the point. http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-T...10&oId=F324 The big difference though is first serve and really what will hinder Murray. It doesnt matter if he can hit 3 aces in a row, what matters is long term consistency on the first serve. Yesterday Federer was 90/131 on first serves (68%) and won 75%. Murray was 88/157 (56%) and won 69%. The hidden number is the 131 vs 157 first serves, which means Murray had to work over 25 points harder on his serve than Federer. Even worse, Murray needed to use 69 second serves, compared to Federer's 41. It is important because neither won more than 50% on their second serve. The problem for Murray is that its really hard to beat an opponent who is +10% on first serve. The margin for error is very low in this matches. It is the little things like Murray's break points converted and break points saved. Each of those points may turn on whether a 1st serve goes in or out. You mention that he dismantled Djokovic, but he lost to Federer in the same tournament. Im trying to get the stats of the Djokovic match, but I would bet he had a much better serve. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/tennis/stor...nals/53331604/1 That article states he won 94% of his first serve points. If he needs that type of performance to beat Nadal/Djok, dont expect it to happen often.

Murray's first serve is pretty inconsistent which puts him at a disadvantage from the start. I wouldnt say Id pick Murray to out-rally any of the top 3 on a consistent basis either. Just not going to win a lot of majors with a 56% 1st serve rate, especially as Murray's second serve was almost always a predictable kick serve (I dont even recall a slice). Murray really needs to become more consistent on his first serve and long rallies.

Federer didnt even play exceptionally well and still beat Murray. If Murray wants to beat any of the top tier he is going to have to get a lot more consistent in all aspects of his game.

Rios is really on right now.

Shouldnt Wisconsin- MSU be one of the top 5, and that could be either the CCG or the regular season game (hail mary win for MSU). Likely Wisconsin has at least 3, if not 4 games on that list.

It makes sense on grass (first time they ever played on that surface), but I dont think people believed Federer had the mental edge anymore. Seems like Nadal really gives him the most trouble, but some guys just never are great with the left-right match up (instead of forehand-forehand cross court, its forehand-backhand which generally favors the left handed player). Shame it was the semi though as Federer should be pretty favored in the final.

Lawyers are also licensed by the state.