Comments on: The Fan Preference Question

By: Doug Lampert

Doug Lampert — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:02:42 +0000

Pre 2004 I’d have gone for the championship, post, I’ll take the winning seasons.

I think you need a championship during the fan’s lifetime for the winning seasons to be more important. I grew up watching the handful of RedSox games covered in Alabama in the 70′s and 80′ (no cable), and by the 90′s I’d mostly given up and rarely watched regular season RedSox games. The unending collapses were just too much.

Then came 2004 and the comeback against the Yankees, and after that the series win was actually an anticlimax and somehow the series seems less important and the regular season more important. 162 games is much better than at most 19 games at judging a team.

But if they’d lost to the Cards in 2004 and to the Rockies in 2007 would I still feel that way? I think it takes one win.

By: Golly G

Golly G — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:35:36 +0000

Nobody here mentioned the Marlins as the perfect example. 2 World Series Titles and mostly misery the rest of the time and more importantly, no fan base whatsoever to speak of. I think this is enough evidence that ENTERTAINMENT trumps CHAMPIONSHIPS, although they are closely linked.

By: Duncan

Duncan — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 04:32:38 +0000

Regular season, always. It’s the ongoing tension of success against failure, possibility against improbability.

In the playoffs, I can always pick a temporary allegiance, but my true joy is the year long soap opera of the local team.

By: Gee

Gee — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 04:13:19 +0000

haha… relax guy

By: walkoffblast

walkoffblast — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 04:04:51 +0000

In the short-term you take the consistent winning team but the problem is as the years stack up you start to lean towards getting the championship.

A question I always thought would be interesting pose to fans is would you like an above average team that kept a pretty consistent roster or a great team that had a lot of new faces every year. For me it is just about the cap on their heads but it seems a lot of people really like to identify with the players. This might hurt the desire for the 2 champ scenario.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:22:02 +0000

Without question I prefer the 83-93 win, consistent team, with my answer driven primarily by the timeframe of eight years…8 yrs is a blink of the eye in fan years. The consistent team says to me that they have a method to stay competitive and the WS will come eventually. For me the breakeven point would be about 25 to 30 yrs. I would probably prefer a two time WS winner with lots of bad seasons in between, over a 25-30 yr consistent winner with no championships.

By: Eric Seidman

Eric Seidman — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:41:21 +0000

Let me revise, since this has veered off into more of a semantics discussion than actual opinions.

Forget the hindsight. The question is really would you rather be a fan of a team that would win 83-93 games or so each season for 8 yrs, making the playoffs in many of those seasons, with a chance to win the world series, or a team that would that go 70-92 in 6 of those seasons while going something like 96-66 in the other two, steamrolling their way through the playoffs.

All this asks, at its root, is whether or not you would prefer a team with good success in the regular season, like the Braves or the As, or success in the playoffs without much in the regular season, like the Marlins. Forget money or any other characteristics – do you like the 3-week playoff success or the chance to watch your team win 56-60 percent of the time over the course of 6 months.

By: puck

puck — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:34:17 +0000

I agree; the Braves are also a stark contrast to Eric’s postulated “steady” team. During their run of division titles in 14 of 15 years, the Braves averaged 98 wins (pro-rating ’94 and ’95 to 162 games).

By: puck

puck — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:28:46 +0000

I agree with you guys. You don’t really get the choice as posed.

A variation of the question would be:

Assume your franchise has very limited financial resources. Would you rather be a fan of a team that aimed at respectability each season (80-85 wins), making disaster years (90+ losses) but also playoff years (90+ wins) less likely?

Or a team that risked some 90+ loss years as it cycled and traded players in an attempt to make genuine runs at 90+ win seasons?

By: LeeTro

LeeTro — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:17:38 +0000

Why does everyone keep thinking the Braves are like the Buffalo Bills? The Braves actually won a title in ’95. I realize, given 14 appearances and the 8-team playoff system for all but 3 of them, they should be expected to win 2 titles, but every comment makes it seem like they never won one. Considering what the last 3 seasons have been, I’d much rather see consistent winning.