The Ultimate Fan Question
I posed this in the comments thread of the Appreciating Pat Burrell article but feel it is an important enough question to merit its own post. In an NPR interview, author Dan Gordon discusses the psychology of die-hard fans in an effort to promote his new book, Your Brain on Cubs. Towards the 31-minute mark of that interview Gordon says something interesting: He essentially says that Cubs fans are able to stay dedicated because they have come close many times to the World Series and so the fans know how sweet it will be when the team eventually wins a championship.
I want to combine this thought with something I heard last year on the radio and bring forth a question. Quite simply, would you rather be a fan of a team like the Marlins or the Giants? Not necessarily the specific teams or how they look in 2007 and 2008, but would you rather be a fan of a perennial contender for eight years or a team that would win two world series in that span and be below average the other six years?
The Giants had a winning record every season between 1997 and 2004, finishing in either first or second place; their average record in that span was 92-70. They made the playoffs four times and were within two games of either the division or the wild card in three of the other four seasons. The Giants made the playoffs or fell just short in seven of the eight years in that span. The Marlins, on the other hand, had winning records in just three of those eight years. In 1997 and 2003, when they won the world series, they won 92 and 91 games respectively; in 2004, a year removed from their second championship, they went 83-79, just barely breaking .500. Their average W-L in that span is 77-85.
Now let’s revisit the question posed at the start of the post. Strip away what we currently know about the Giants and Marlins: The actual teams are irrelevant and we need to focus on the type of team each is to answer properly. Would you rather be a fan of a team that would go 92-70 each year and give you a shot at the playoffs and/or world series, but not necessarily win a championship? Or would you rather be a fan of a team that would go 77-85 every year, but would step it up to 90+ wins just twice and win the world series in both of those seasons?
On the one hand you have the idea of winning two championships which, I’ll admit, I’ve never felt as a Phillies fan. Then again, on the other hand, you have the idea of whether or not you would even watch your team if they went 77-85 or worse in several consecutive seasons. For instance, I know that last year, I cared less about what the Phillies did in the playoffs than I did that they simply got into the playoffs. I’m curious to hear thoughts on which team would have a bigger Web-fandom.
David Appelman said,
April 16, 2008 @ 12:06 pm
As a fan, I’d at least want to know my team is on the right track. It gives me hope. And if my team is going to be in constant rebuilding mode, it’s going to frustrate me. The Marlins are almost in constant rebuilding mode and I’m sure that’s partly why they have trouble with their fan base and have to do stuff like this: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89064843
Eric Seidman said,
April 16, 2008 @ 12:10 pm
I think this raises the question as to whether or not regular season or playoffs is more important. I mean, clearly, the easy answer is playoffs because winning a World Series is the ultimate goal going into each year. However, I know I watch all 162 games each year and I would have a very hard time being as into the game if I knew my team was more than likely to lose 60% of the games in a given year. Like you said, knowing the team is on the right track is key. If it’s a team that starts 54-108 and improves by 8-9 wins for five years until it results in a few playoff appearances and a world series that is something I could do - even though it would likely still be just 1-2 playoff appearances in an eight-year span.
Asa said,
April 16, 2008 @ 12:47 pm
As an Seattle Mariner’s fan, I would love to see the M’s get into (and win) the World Series, but I also appreciate a team that is in contention every year. In 2001, when the M’s won 116 games, it was a great year to be a Mariner’s fan, even if they ultimately disappointed in the playoffs. I think I was more disappointed they couldn’t win the record-setting 117th game on the last game of the season than I was that they didn’t win the World Series. But, then again, I’m more of a regular season fan - I love the grind of playing every day, of seeing the same opponents several times a year, the endurance of 162 games. Which is why I hate the current playoff system where the first series is best of five, and depending on scheduling (i.e., TV) a team could go over a week between series. But I digress. I’d rather have a team in contention every year, as I love going to games and love thinking my team has a chance to win every time they’re playing a game.
John said,
April 16, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
I would rather my team be in contention every season. Only one team is going to win the World Series every year, but to be close every year makes the games that much more exciting. That level of uncertainty makes everything more interesting. If it was boom or bust every year, what’s the point?
Zane said,
April 16, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
I also am a Seattle Mariner fan, and quite honestly i would much rather win the world series. I am surprised that there is really any debate on this. The whole reason for playing 162 games during the season is to reach the playoffs and win the world series. Nobody remembers if you were in contention 5 years down the road. Unfortunately as M’s fans we only have ‘95 and ‘01, which by themselves are nice enough stories, but in the end we came up short and failed when it actually mattered.
Even when the Hawks went to the super bowl, i don’t remember much about the regular season (even though i watched every minute of every game). All i remember is that we got hosed in the super bowl.
FairweatherFan said,
April 16, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
I would much rather be a team that was constantly in contention than one that had one or two flukey years scattered between plenty of poor ones.
Kevin Orris said,
April 16, 2008 @ 2:39 pm
Giants for the simple reason that I couldn’t handle the Marlins ownership.
I’m not sure if anyone can verify it, but I remember reading after 1997, they sold the foul poles after painting them like pencils.
I think the fun thing with the Marlins is that they always have young talent. It would be exciting to watch Miggy Cabrera come up, rather than Dave Roberts patrol center field.
Eric Seidman said,
April 16, 2008 @ 3:29 pm
Kevin, forget about the specific teams. Not necessarily Giants or Marlins, but would you rather be a fan of a team that has had success like the Giants in that span or a team like the Marlins that won two world series but sucked every other year.
mra said,
April 16, 2008 @ 4:21 pm
I would want a perennial contender over a fluke world series win. For me, I would much rather have my team be committed to winning year after year & providing quality baseball long term. Even with the rings, being let’s say a Marlins fan would be difficult.
But I had this discussion with a few friends during the off season & the rest of the group (3 of them) picked winning the world series over the contender model.
Randy said,
April 16, 2008 @ 5:47 pm
One factor that I think you guys are underestimating is the overall entertainment factor of attending games for the respective teams. For example, without considering success, I’d much rather attend a Giants or Cubs game than a Marlins or Rays game. There’s a lot more history and the ballparks are beautiful. I don’t really consider the Giants to have been “perennial contenders” when they were almost making the playoffs. The Giants spent just enough to remain decent and they played in a relatively weak division. Brian Sabean clearly had no long term goal; he would trade prospects for average major league players just to give the appearance that they were trying to win a World Series. It’s no surprise this team sucks now that Barry Bonds is gone because their entire success was based upon having Bonds on the team and surrounding him with veteran players.It’s almost a Catch-22 for teams like this. On one hand you are assured of a good experience when you attend, but if you attend then you are approving of the management’s decisions. As for the examples given, I don’t think either team has a long term vision, but I’d prefer to be a Giants fan just because they have a history and a nice ballpark.
Eric Seidman said,
April 16, 2008 @ 5:49 pm
Randy,
As I mentioned in the post as well as an earlier comment was to forget the specific teams and just focus on the type of team. Would you rather be the fan of a perennial contender that would have a shot at postseason success each year or a team that would win 2 world series titles but stink the other six years?
Erich said,
April 16, 2008 @ 7:29 pm
Well in this age, with a team with average payroll, you have to contend regularly.
Unless you can regularly break the luxury tax mark, you would need to stock up for that big year, and likely lose the pieces of that team the next, or the year after. That’s terrible for team identity. I think that most fans will agree, being able to identify with the team’s nucleus is still important for enjoying the hometown team.
Eric Seidman said,
April 16, 2008 @ 8:34 pm
Erich,
It’s interesting that you say most fans would agree because that’s what I would think as well, but as we can see from conflicting results here as well as the results discussed by commenters in their own “questionnaires,” it would seem that there are more people than we would think that would take the two championships over growing with a nucleus of players.
Ryan said,
April 17, 2008 @ 4:37 pm
As a long time Twins fan, I can say I DEEPLY appreciate the journey more than the destination.
So many people get hung up on the destination and forget to enjoy the journey to reach that destination, if your thinking is “anything less than a World Series ring is a failure” than a majority of the time you are going to be disappointed. Even Yankee fans only get World Series rings once every 7 years or so (WS averaged out over the life of the franchise).
The joy of any sport, be it baseball, basketball or football is the competition and artistry that is displayed in a single game, not the culmination of a numbers in the W-L column of the newspaper.
For me it’s not even a question, give me a perenial contender with athletes I have followed and grown fond of over a free agent bonanza binge followed by an organizational purge… your rooting for a uniform at that point, not the players.
Robin said,
April 17, 2008 @ 6:42 pm
I am a lifetime M’s fan, and I’ve had this conversation with friends many times. If you put a gun to my head I would take the contending team over the WS team. But ultimately what I would like to see is a team that contends regularly (15 out of 25 years be in or close to the playoffs,) with one World Series win every 25-30 years or so. With 30 teams in the league that shouldn’t be too much to ask for. It would be nice if most of those “off years” weren’t abysmal campaigns, but I understand that rebuilding is a fact of life…. but back to the question:
I think this question can be answered in reverse. Does a team like the Marlins produce diehard fans? For the most part, no. I’m sure that even the few true dyed in the wool Marlins fans would even agree that there aren’t that many of them. On the other hand perennial contenders (and even not so perennial contenders, like the M’s) DO spawn diehard fans. In my humble opinion, it is the memories of successful season long campaigns that generate fans, not flash in the pan playoff success.
Zane said,
April 17, 2008 @ 11:11 pm
I don’t know if i buy the diehard fan argument. I think (as M’s fans) we are just trying to make an argument to make ourselves feel better about our situation. What about teams like the yankees or the cardinals. I would consider each of those teams to have diehard fans and the reason i think is that both have a deep history of winning it all. Name any team you think has “diehard” fans and most likely they are going to have some championships behind their name.
Eric Seidman said,
April 17, 2008 @ 11:20 pm
I have an inkling if we were to ask this question to 1000 people, 500 diehard fans that watch every regular season game, or most of them, and 500 fans that have transient interest, coming and going, the former group would have a much higher percentage of perennial contender while the latter group would have a much higher percentage of world series wins.
I think, as fans that watch every game every year we enjoy watching a team win 56+ percent of their games and contending for the playoffs because we appreciate the journey. On the other hand, the fans that watch maybe 25-30 games (due to interest levels and not conflicting schedules or preventative reasos) will be more conditioned to be effected by the prevalence the media places on the post-season.
Robin said,
April 18, 2008 @ 1:26 pm
The thing is I don’t know that many people in the 25-30 game category - though “people I know” definitely constitutes a small, and biased sample size. In any case, I would argue that people who watch fewer than 20 games probably aren’t really “fans”. Most fans I know are 60+ game a year people, with many in the 80+ games range (either watching, listening, or following online).
I guess that is quibbling over definitions, but the original question is phrased “would you rather be a FAN of…” I would prefer to be a fan of a contender, but I would rather be a relatively disinterested observer in the boom or bust city.
Pete Schneidler said,
April 19, 2008 @ 4:39 am
I’m with Zane. I’m a pretty hardcore M’s fan, and I’d rather have the championships. Not because I’m overly obsessed with winning it all. I think my choice comes from 2 life experiences:
1. It sucked in 2001 to have the best team on the planet and NOT win it all. We ran the entire marathon and had a 3 mile lead with 100 yards to go and lost the race. That’s how it felt to me. The journey was great, even glorious, I’ll never forget that team, and I believe I may never see a better one. But knowing its greatness, isn’t it painful that they fell on their faces?
1-B. Additionally, current M’s ownership is constantly talking about “putting a competitive team on the field.” How about going a little crazy and trying to win the whole freakin thing? The M’s are so corporate, and I think that experience makes me choose the “big winners every once in a while and subpar the rest of the time” team.
2. Just because my team wins 70-75 games a year the rest of the time doesn’t make it uninteresting. I think that is a silly insinuation many of you are making. I’m an M’s fan NOT since ‘95 but before, when 75 wins was a pretty good year. I remember in ‘91 when they broke .500 it made me cry, but I digress. Eric I think you have it backwards. The hardcore fans should be the ones who can find joy and things that are interesting about the subpar teams, while the casual fans don’t go to the games because there isn’t that “buzz” about them that season. There could be new prospects to cheer on as they develop and get playing time all summer because the team was out of it by June. Or the talented guy who is always hurt and can he stay healthy subplot, or whatever. When you have low expectations, every win is a big party. I also don’t buy the argument that the players would be changing over every year so there is no team cohesiveness or identity to relate with. That is possible, but it wasn’t part of the scenario he asked us to vote on. I could make up all kinds of conjecture about how the team might look to justify whichever side I want. Anyway, those are my thoughts. Frankly I’m shocked so many of you (who I’m sure are mostly diehard fans) choose the “continually competitive” but never good enough model. I guess the M’s have had that for most of the last dozen years or so and its left a bad taste in my mouth. : - )