Dodger Fans do... IMO because they are a division rival. The Padres and D-Backs stink so they don't care. Why is it that Reds and Brewers fans are in this thread talking about how insufferable the Cards are? They are a rival that wins. I can remember Cubs and Cards fans that thought the Astros "Killer B's" were insufferable when they were winning. Now they suck and they have gone back to a "no opinion" team.

With just teams I follow...
Bengals fans think Steelers are arrogant.
Mizzou fans think Kansas is arrogant.
Rams fans don't really care but when they were good hated the Patriots.

Seems like a common theme.

5 years ago the Cards payroll was $88 mil. The last two years they've broken $100 mil, but they also could afford to because of their success. If the Rays and As win a world series and make 3 straight ALCS appearances, I would hope their payroll would creep up to over $80 million because of that success and the additional revenue it brings.

My point was simply that if you look at the winners of the World Series since the late 90s, only the Cardinals and Marlins weren't part of the top 10 big payroll club. And the Cards didn't need a massive firesale to afford it and have sustained their success.

And on top of that SF had a few great seasons, the Cards/Sox (like it or not) have been consistantly the top two franchises in baseball the past 10-15 years.

Again, you're being disingenuous. That is the ultimate in small sample size. "Who the Dodgers have used in five games proves they're really just this big money monster who haven't developed talent of their own."


Because a) June isn't the offseason and b) Ryu isn't fucking being paid "north of $42 million"? You're lumping in the total cost - which is fair when talking about the resources a team can bring to bear - and then asserting that the Dodgers are paying one of those players $61 million, which is flat incorect.


No, I'm trying to say that if you're going to assert something to make an argumentative point, you should try to make sure that your facts are, you know, correct. There are only two reasons to get facts wrong which are easily correctable with a Google search: either you're being deliberately disingenuous to exacerbate the difference between the Big Bad Dodgers and the plucky Cardinals, bravely resisting the financial juggernaut from LA, or you're afraid that being accurate in your reporting won't have the desired effect towards your argument.


So why are you talking about "16 Cardinals players making less than a mil" and then dismissing the Dodgers who qualify because, well, they haven't had an appearance? I mean, really? You're going to count all of YOUR guys, but find reasons to disqualify the guys you couldn't be bothered to accurately count in the first place?


Keep fucking that small sample size chicken. That Mattingly left Rodriguez off the NLCS roster when the Cardinals are weak against lefties is more an indictment of Mattingly's fuckery and less an indictment of whether Rodriguez is "ready."


My argument is that you're deliberately distorting YOUR argument and relying on small sample sizes to make your point - Rodriguez pitched in nearly 80 regular season games and was on the NLDS roster, but because he got dropped from the NLCS roster, he somehow doesn't count as being a homegrown part of what the Dodgers have done this season.

Have the Dodgers spent a fuckload of money on this roster? Absolutely. Can you make that point without distorting your argument? Absolutely. Have you bothered to? Absolutely not.

The Cardinals do a great job developing players.

It is this kind of shit that is why people are getting annoyed - YOU DO A GOOD JOB YOU DON'T HAVE TO OVERSTATE YOUR CASE.

You are comparing the Cardinals, who have been mostly between 9 and 11 in payroll each year the last 5 years (more or less, the data is different between sites and the differences between 8 and 12 are not large) to two of the bottom 5 payrolls.

Ah, the good ole jealousy argument ;). I'm used to hearing that from Yankees fans.

Out here in Arizona they are hated (not as much as the Dodgers, but close). No one here cares about the Rockies or Padres because they stink. Remember, the Giants didn't make the playoffs between 2004 and 2009 (with only 2 seasons over .500). They won the WS in 2010, missed the playoffs in 2011, won in 2012 and then missed again this year. That's two playoff seasons in 10 years. That's not enough to build mass "hatred". If they make the playoffs and the NLCS the next 2-3 years then you will see the animosity build. They just haven't had the sustained success. Since 2000, the Cardinals have made the playoffs in 10 of the 14 years. They've won the world series twice, made it to 3 times, made it to the NLCS 7 times and had four combined MVPs and CYAs. That's a lot of success to build contempt and hatred.

It probably is why people hate the Yankees. They win, are in the playoffs all the time, are on TV all the time. Repeat this with Duke or UNC basketball or Pittsburgh Steeler or New England football or Miami Heat/LA Laker basketball. People either love or hate the really successful teams. Most people don't have a passion for Iowa State basketball or Washington Wizards Basketball or Cleveland Browns football.

Oakland's got a lot of success since 2000 - why aren't they hated now? ;)

People don't hate teams due to success - they hate teams because their fans become arrogant douchnozzles who feel they are owed success. People still hate Notre Dame football even though they haven't done anything relevant for years.

They do? Is that like NCAA tournament appearances? They made the ALCS once in all those playoff appearances.

They played in the national title game last year!

I get the point you are making but hopefully you can also see that the examples being provided to negate the "people hate sucessful teams argument" are huge stretches.

:lol:

Before getting slaughtered in last year's title game, what was Notre Dame's record for the previous decade? How did they do in the Willingham and Weis years? Did anyone hate them less?

Oakland has been in the World Series in the past 20 years? And correct me if I am wrong but wasn't Oakland extremely disliked when they were winning World Series?

Not me!

Ok, so:

Make the championship game and lose = hated. Lose in the round before = reason not hated.

Got it.

Detroit and Texas are very hated teams in MLB, just so you know. ;)

I was comparing the two teams on the field now. Of course it's a small sample size, but I don't think it's a stretch to say if you haven't played in 5 games for the NLCS and aren't injured - you aren't a key guy on the team.

[quoute]Because a) June isn't the offseason and b) Ryu isn't fucking being paid "north of $42 million"? You're lumping in the total cost - which is fair when talking about the resources a team can bring to bear - and then asserting that the Dodgers are paying one of those players $61 million, which is flat incorect.

No, I'm trying to say that if you're going to assert something to make an argumentative point, you should try to make sure that your facts are, you know, correct. There are only two reasons to get facts wrong which are easily correctable with a Google search: either you're being deliberately disingenuous to exacerbate the difference between the Big Bad Dodgers and the plucky Cardinals, bravely resisting the financial juggernaut from LA, or you're afraid that being accurate in your reporting won't have the desired effect towards your argument.[/quote]
I never said Ryu makes more than $42 mil in salary, I said he was paid north of $42 mil as an FA. You choose to not count the posting fee to sign him - I do as it was part of the cost to get him. Neither are "wrong", they are just the way we each choose to present the information.

My exact statement was "The Cards have 16 guys who make less than a mil and play including 5 field starters, 2 SP and their top 3 bullpen guys." And, they have 16 guys who make less than $1 million and have played in Lynn, Kelly, Rosenthal, Maness, Martinez, Siegrest, Wacha, Miller, Chambers, Robinson, Descalso, Carpenter, Jay, Adams, Kozma and Wong. I could have counted their backup catcher Cruz (who hasn't played) or Axford (who was pro-rated via trade and given less in cash) but I left both off to be fair.

Who's splitting hairs now? BTW, Paco's 8+ ERA from September through the Braves series probably played a part in that decision.

My argument was not "full season performance" because I was talking explicitly about both these teams playing now. You may not like that argument because of the sample size (fair point), but my response would be that these are the key players on the team. Outside of maybe Shelby Miller (who maybe should be starter over Lynn and not in the pen) and Paco (who maybe should be on the roster over Marmol), these are the best players available for both teams.

The NFL teams picked always interest me as well. Since 2000, the New York Giants have been to the Superbowl the same number of times as the Pittsburgh Steelers - but its always Steelers thrown in with the Patriots as hated because of success. I never see the Giants in there. Or Baltimore for that matter.

Report: Albert Pujols gets 10-year, $220 million offer from Cardinals

No way the A's or Rays are able to do something like this.

The Cardinals have the 11th highest payroll in baseball this year. Not sure how their payroll looked in the last few years, but, come on...

St. Louis isn't some small market/moneyball team.

Every team has "arrogant douchnozzles" - even if they suck. I know plenty of Angels fans, Diamondback fans, Arizona Cardinal fans, Padre fans and Rockies fans who would qualify as "arrogant douchnozzles". Yet, there isn't a massive swell to hate the Padres or football Cardinals because they are mainly irrelevant.

Put it another way - why do people tend to hate the Steelers but not the Pirates. It's essentially the same fanbase - just one has had a lot more recent success.

And it would have been the worst move the Cardinals could have made. But again, have the Rays or A's had a guy who helped win 2 world series and 3 MVPs? The Pujols contract isn't a typical one for St. Louis. Their highest current contract is Holliday (7-years, $120 mil) which is comparable to what Tampa gave Longoria (6-years, $100 mil).

But are they really? I mean I think the Pirates would love to have the fanbase the Steelers have. They wouldn't have been facing money issues that way.

Actually, yes, people did hate them slightly less because they were irrelevant. Ask anyone with roots from a midwestern area to compare the hatred with Irish fans last year to during the Willingham years. It was much worse.

Not in this part of the country it wasn't. Regional and divisional rivals are going to hate teams that block them anyways. The rest of the country hates teams for totally different reasons - mainly involving arrogant fanbases.

No, they would love to have the revenue-sharing, TV deal and salary cap of football. Fanbase is largely irrelevant when it comes to revenue (outside of a small % of merchandising). A large chunk of "Pittsburgh fans" root for both.

Great point. Hated in the early 90s and then not hated in the mid 2000s. Sam fan base, I'm guessing success had something to do with it.

I will meet you halfway in that I think when you win, you're more obnoxious minority tends to be more outspoken. But, you have to win to get to that point. So, in essence, all teams have an obnoxious minority. When they win, that minority becomes more vocal. Hence, all successful teams end up becoming hated for a combination of jealously, aggravation at that obnoxious minority and just a sense of wanting to see someone else make it.

I would argue that the environment today isn't the same as it was during the Bash Brothers era; how many people even knew an A's fan back then? Sure there were Cowboy fans, Notre Dame fans and so forth and so on since those were major bandwagon teams.

I feel like in the past the players drove public opinion about a team (caveat being I was 9, thought the A's were cool, and didn't know they were hated). Now players are mostly dull and corporate, but we get inundated with fan opinion all the time on the internet.

But they're not Top Ten! They have gained their success the RIGHT way, not through some crazy free-spending ways like the Top Ten.

Not sure how posts like yours can be interpreted as anything but jealousy of the Cards success and Reds lack of but go ahead and tell yourself its because of some guy at Home Depot.

Rockies fans "arrogant douchnozzles?" Seriously? Holy crap. We have won 90 games once in our 21 year history and lost 90 games or more 5 times and there are those fans? Please, tie them up and bring them to me. I'll help handle the douchenozzle Rockies fans myself.

This thread is quickly reminding me of the multi-page threads we would have at the height of the Patriots heyday when it was all arguing back and forth between Pats fans who were basically saying everyone was just jealous of their success and everyone else saying there was more to it than that.

But yes, it is just simple jealousy if that helps you sleep at night.

By the way, IT WAS LOWE'S, LEARN TO FUCKING READ.

(That last bit was a joke in case it's not clear.)

Look at the TV ratings for the Steelers and Pirates. I'm guessing the Steelers get a far higher share than the Pirates do.


Um... what about the early 2000s? When they had back to back 100 win seasons? And won over 90 games 6 times in a 7 year span, including 5 years in a row (they won 88 the other year)? In the late 80s, people hated Jose Canseco. You'll note Mark McGwire was never hated in anywhere near the same way.

(2011) http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/m...-disliked.html
(2012) Cowboys, Packers tied for America’s favorite NFL team - Public Policy Polling

These polls are somewhat flawed (limited team choices) but at least they are legit polls. If it's just jealousy why are the Cowboys always ranked the highest despite their lack of recent success or even all time success (Steelers have won more Super Bowls).

Also, the Steelers are /not/ the most hated or even second most hated in either poll. In 2012, they are 5th behind Cowboys, Pats, Bears, and Broncos while in 2011, they are not even in the top 5. The Giants and Packers don't register despite winning the Super Bowl those two years (tho the polls are taken in December).

So, I think there's something more going on than just jealousy. Otherwise, that list would be some combination of long term winning and short term winning weighted properly and they just don't match up.

SI

The 8% that hated the Broncos are probably almost all Chiefs and old Browns fans.

You don't get bonus point for winning a World Series based on payroll. I look at it this way. I cheer for my team. Once my team is done, I don't care who else wins it although certain college football teams winning do tend to bug me. :D I figure even if the Tigers don't win it, each team has their own story as to why that title was great for them.

I think there are tiers of resource spending. You have the the top tier with the Yankees/Sox/Dodgers/Angels (usually $180+M) who essentially have unlimited resources. You then have the Giants/Tigers/Phillies/Rangers (usually $140+M) who are basically topping out right now because of recent success but would need to trim payroll if they missed the playoffs for 2-3 seasons straight. After that is the massive middle class which ranges from $80 to $120 and includes most teams like the Braves, Cards, Nationals, Reds, Brewers, Orioles, Blue Jays... If any of these teams are successful, they could spike to $120M as a cap, but would still stay in the $100-$115 range.

IMO, the top tier is always going to have more animosity towards them because they are akin to the rich kid at the ivy league school. They've been afforded all advantages and can just spend more if they make mistakes. Even if they lose, people will hate them because of this advantage. Look at the Yankees this year, they stink and people still love to hate them. For that middle class, the animosity is almost entirely based on success. If they win, more people will hate them. If the Reds run off a 7-year frame like the Cards just did and win 2 World Series with 5 NLCS appearances - they will hated as much (if not more) than the Cardinals. Fan base and location have little to do with this tier, it's pretty much all success.

Football is a little different as you don't have the inherent resource advantage and it's a much more popular sport. When you win, the obnoxious crew is much more prevalent because there are simply a ton more fans across the country. Baseball tends to be more regional.

Of course they do, it's football. The Indianapolis Colts get a higher TV share in Kansas City than the Royals do - does that mean there are more Clots fans than Royals fans in KC? No, it's just the NFL. It's like comparing ratings between baseball and lacrosse, it's apples and oranges on TV.

McGwire was hated a great deal in Oakland. When he went to St. Louis after having year after year of injury for the As, a lot of fans disliked him. Then you add in the success he had combined with the Steroid cloud and I'd be hardpressed to find two more hated guys in baseball by many fans than Canseco and McGwire. Yet, in the late 90s, people didn't hate the As. Even when moneyball came out in the early 2000s - they didn't hate them a great deal. Now, if the A's come out and do what the Cards have done (2 WS and 5 ALCS in the next 7 years), there will be a lot of hatred for them - if only because of the sheer volume of the term "moneyball" on ESPN ;)

Get over yourself.

All of the above..

You keep parroting this but there really isn't anything to suggest it. It's too small a sample size to draw any conclusions from.

Nolan Ryan is retiring as CEO of the Rangers.

And what does McGwire being hated by A's fans after leaving Oakland have to do with the discussion? You brought up those A's as a successful team hated by other fanbases.

I don't think you're going to be very successful convincing everyone here that the reason they think they don't like the Cardinals is wrong, but I guess you can keep trying.

I think baseball is different because of the resource advantage. That's part of the reason people hate the Cowboys - they feel that Jerry Jones can just buy anyone they want. If the Dodgers, Red Sox or Yankees do well for a while, they will always be more hated because they have that perceived money advantage over everyone else.

Is this more filler? Maybe you just really really enjoy arguing against a large group.

I was just responding this comment by ISiddiqui: "You'll note Mark McGwire was never hated in anywhere near the same way."

No one is "wrong" for not liking the Cardinals. If you were reading my comments you would know that's not my argument. My argument is that the level of "hate" for a team is simply a combination of perceived resource advantage + success. If the Yankees and a mid-tier team (Cards, Reds, Brewers, Nationals) are both equally successful, the Yankees will be more hated because of their perceived advantage financially. The Dodgers, Red Sox and Angels are slowly moving into that discussion as well. However, if any of the Reds/Cards/Brewers become very successful, they will be more hated than they others that don't do as well because of that success. It's a pretty simply concept that has been proven over and over in baseball.

I'm not sure what this is. But I don't mind being outnumbered - esp when I'm right :D

No, no, no, no.

This all started with someone saying "the world is finally catching on to what a bunch of smug, self-satisfied humorless dicks that you are" and you responding that people are just envious of the success.

You aren't saying people are "wrong" for not liking the Cardinals - you are telling them that why they think they dislike the Cardinals is wrong.

It's the absolute perfect response to those who say that Cardinals fans are sanctimonious in that it completely proves the point.

For all you Cardinal haters, I'm really going to piss you off now.