I completely disagree that I would have been wrong just because we won a bad division in 2008 and couldn't hang with the serious AL contenders. If Dunn were himself, we'd probably be at the top of this division, but we'd still be a weak playoff contender in comparison to the rest of the AL. I have wanted us to rebuild in order to attempt to make ourselves a powerhouse playoff team.

Well, I guess it's just a difference of opinion then.

 

I think this team has been built to succeed in the postseason; the problem has been they haven't been consistent enough within the division to get there.

 

I would rather have kept this current core and had chances at postseason play and then rebuild when the core has passed their prime than rebuild back in 2008. But I guess it's a point reasonable men can disagree on.

But they didn't start booing until June. So you're telling me the team just sucked for some mysterious reason in April and May, was about to completely turn things around but the fans stopped that from occurring because they started to occasionally boo?

 

No. What I'm saying is that once the players were playing bad, they fans booed them. Booing effects players and this can contribute to a players performance. I'm not saying it caused the whole year. I've even said it is no way the only reason they are playing poorly. all I'm saying is that fans effect the players and this can effect their performance. To think otherwise is short sighted and wrong. These are prima donna people not robots.

But they didn't start booing until June. So you're telling me the team just sucked for some mysterious reason in April and May, was about to completely turn things around but the fans stopped that from occurring because they started to occasionally boo?

I'm with you on this argument. I will agree that a player like Dunn might be affected by the boos after his third strikeout, and he probably feels a lot of pressure to start performing. But an entire team plays poorly because they got booed yesterday or might get booed today?

 

If people I worked with told me I suck, I'd probably take offense, but my performance wouldn't change for the worse. However, if my boss told me I suck, my performance would most likely change...for the better. Maybe the players' bosses need to do that. Maybe that'll get Dunn out of his slump. However, maybe that did work for Rios (finally)...we'll have to wait and see.

Bad play leads to booing.

 

Booing does not lead to bad play.

Well, I guess it's just a difference of opinion then.

 

I think this team has been built to succeed in the postseason; the problem has been they haven't been consistent enough within the division to get there.

 

I would rather have kept this current core and had chances at postseason play and then rebuild when the core has passed their prime than rebuild back in 2008. But I guess it's a point reasonable men can disagree on.

 

I suppose.

 

But I'm still right!

So who is going to let me berate them at work to test out and see if this theory holds any water?

First of all, that really says nothing about what is really going on in his mind when he is playing...

 

And secondly, that is exactly my point. There is really no causal link anyone can establish between the fans' behavior and the player's performance.

 

I would guess there is a larger incidence of referees/umpires falling victim to the influence of the fans and having an impact than the players...

 

when dealing with people there is rarely conclusive evidence to say anything in terms of causal relationships unless you run a true double blind, random sample study.

 

In MLB clubhouses the players will talk about how they are treated by fans. It effects players in different ways. It can effect their play if they take it personally. I've seen it happen to many players in slumps. Players do react to fans. Remember when a white sox player went into the stand in Milwaukee because of what a fan said? It does effect them and can effect their play.

So who is going to let me berate them at work to test out and see if this theory holds any water?

I'm game.

So who is going to let me berate them at work to test out and see if this theory holds any water?

 

And by berate you mean boo for 7 seconds, approximately 4 times per week, right?

I'm game.

me too

And by berate you mean boo for 7 seconds, approximately 4 times per week, right?

Shhh, I'm trying to run up his long distance bill...

So who is going to let me berate them at work to test out and see if this theory holds any water?

 

Don't forget to do it out in the middle of a room where everyone else can see them and the focus is on them. Also make an announcement before hand so everyone knows that person will be out there alone.

Edited August 8, 201114 yr by ptatc

when dealing with people there is rarely conclusive evidence to say anything in terms of causal relationships unless you run a true double blind, random sample study.

 

In MLB clubhouses the players will talk about how they are treated by fans. It effects players in different ways. It can effect their play if they take it personally. I've seen it happen to many players in slumps. Players do react to fans. Remember when a white sox player went into the stand in Milwaukee because of what a fan said? It does effect them and can effect their play.

I really don't know why you keep repeating this to me.

 

See post #29 of this thread.

Don't forget to do it out in the middle of a room where everyone else can see them and the focus is on them. Also make an announcement before hand so everyone knows that person will be out there alone.

If he wants others to show up to watch in my building he's going to have to buy the beer.

 

This is getting better and better...

Don't forget to do it out in the middle of a room where everyone else can see them and the focus is on them. Also make an announcement before hand so everyone knows that person will be out there alone.

 

Such a perfect analogy. One profession is the kind where thousands of people pay to literally watch you perform your job while the ones you are comparing it to are typically jobs done in solitude.

Such a perfect analogy. One profession is the kind where thousands of people pay to literally watch you perform your job while the ones you are comparing it to are typically jobs done in solitude.

 

You're right. We should make it thousands of people. I have dealt with about 100 a time in a hostile crowd on the trading floor, but 20k would be much more realistic.

 

Shhh, I'm trying to run up his long distance bill...

 

Who pays a long distance bill anymore?

I really don't know why you keep repeating this to me.

 

See post #29 of this thread.

 

It is kind of important. He actually knows how players feel, versus the rest of us who are just guessing.

Who pays a long distance bill anymore?

The poor, since they aren't allowed to have cellphones. (/filibuster).

The poor, since they aren't allowed to have given free subsidized cellphones. (/filibuster).

It is kind of important. He actually knows how players feel, versus the rest of us who are just guessing.

Just read the f***ing post already...

 

I said the same exact thing as he did hours ago.

 

 

Professional atheletes have to know getting into it that they will be scrutinized much greater than just some guy working at a desk somewhere. I think we can all agree that these guys are not robots and they have feelings. And, okay, a player's feelings can be hurt by 25,000 people booing when he's not performing like his $12 million paycheck would suggest. I can even say that the fans booing could be a very minute factor in poor play...for a player or two, but not for the whole team. Does Konerko go up to bat and think, "I don't think I can hit today because the fans booed Adam!"

Just read the f***ing post already...

 

I said the same exact thing as he did hours ago.

 

You've said that, and then ignored it.

You've said that, and then ignored it.

No, I explained the distinction I was making later on in the thread...you and he apparently aren't understanding that distinction, even though it is spelled-out very simply.

 

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink...

Am I seriously the only person who thinks this means nothing and is just randomization?