Friday, September 19, 2008

Would you rather...

I don't have a whole lot of time to make a big post right now (virus is still on computer), but I wanted to ask a question: would you rather be a fan of a team who was supposed to be good but disappoints (i.e. the Braves this year) or a team who wasn't supposed to be good and proved those assumptions right (i.e. the Nats this year)?

Would you rather
Root for a bad team that was supposed to be good
Root for a bad team that was supposed to be bad
Doesn't matter, it sucks to root for a bad team no matter what free polls

Discuss in comments.


  1. The Nats weren't supposed to be quite this bad, but they're still my team and the indicators are pointing at progress next season. It's not hard to root for a team like that.

  2. There were alot of people who felt that the Nats would build on their 'sucess' from last season and be a good team. No i don't think anyone thought playoffs but I think most people thought they'd would be near .500. Maybe the Braves have had a bigger fall but the Nats have fallen far as well. The true answer to your question are teams like the O's and Pirates who everyone thought were bad and ended up being just that.

  3. You can count me in as a person who expected the Nats to be better than last year, but I'm not so sure I agree about the O's. Remember how they started hot and all of their fans got all high and mighty? They were 44-41 on the Fourth of July.

    I guess the better way of putting it would be adding to the question: Would you rather:
    Root for a team that starts off (and plays bad) that was supposed to be good (the 2008 Braves)?
    Root for a team that was supposed to be bad, starts off good but fades back into suckiness (the 2008 Orioles)?
    Root for a team that was supposed to be bad and lived up to their poor expectations (the 2008 Nationals)?

  4. But again the Nats were never "supposed to be bad", no one thought they were going to take the NL east but I think many people thought Florida would finish well behind them after trading away M-Cab and Willis. I'm sure most pundits figured the Nats would win between 70-75 games. They could finish 10 to 15 games below that pace. The Nats were figured to be an 'average' team this year when in reality they are quite capabale of having the worst record this year. The O's on the other hand everyone was giving them the Nats 2007 treatment, that this team was going to be historically bad and that they might not win 50 games. So while they still had a crap record, which team would you rather be a fan of the O's who even losing 90+ games this year have a bright future. Or the Nats?

  5. Fair enough.

    I'd rather be a Nats fan than an Orioles fan in any circumstance. Angelos will always get in the Orioles' way of being a great team. On top of that, they have to compete with the elite: Boston and Tampa Bay (and the Yankees and Blue Jays won't be cellar dwellers either). The Nats have the choking Mets, dysfunctional Phillies, underachieving Braves and soon-to-be-torn-apart Marlins.


Please leave your questions and/or comments here and I'll get back to you ASAP!