Fanatics...

[dusken]

Somebody smart can also (and I think SHOULD also) have fun with not-so-smart things. There's nothing wrong with that from time to time.

That is all well and good. What I am saying is that it is a not-so-smart thing.

As for film, I agree. It's a bad analogy.
Here's a better one: Anonymouse always seems to have a favourite for the next UFC match. Is it different to be a supporter of a single fighter instead of being a supporter of a team?

No, it is not different. It sounds like hypocrisy to me.

[Anonymouse]

Somebody smart can also (and I think SHOULD also) have fun with not-so-smart things. There's nothing wrong with that from time to time.

As for film, I agree. It's a bad analogy.
Here's a better one: Anonymouse always seems to have a favourite for the next UFC match. Is it different to be a supporter of a single fighter instead of being a supporter of a team?

I would say it is different. For single fighters you follow their career, their ups and downs, their struggles, their personalities, and you can compare them to other fighters, and we seek to associate with individuals who we feel more in common, hence why I see Fighter A as the favorite yet someone looking at the same fight will root for Fighter B. But with that said, you can't apply the same standards to team sports which is more holistic ( i.e. people like the L.A. Lakers simply because they are from L.A. and they have to like them because they are cool and it's a bandwagon mass-mindedness thing ). But I like fighters from all around, some from Russia, most from Brazil, some from Europe, and it makes no difference.

As far as fanaticism goes, I am a fanatic for the sport known as Mixed Martial Arts, or K-1, but not for the individual fighters, whereas I know people who are not about the sport but simply root for the Kings or the Lakers simply because they are of their city.

[Darorinag]

if fans made absolutely no difference in a team's performance the word advantage would not be part of the expression home ice/turf/court advantage... it doesnt take a genius to figure out that a team is more likely to win at home than away. its not a HUGE difference, but enuf that its clearly the case.

Actually, game 7 for teams on home ice has a 60% percentage of wins. So it doesn't make much of a difference. Anyone who thinks that home ice decides the outcome of a game in any way is dead wrong. And I can list many many examples for this.

& a game is incomparably more enjoyable to watch when u CARE about what the outcome is gonna be.

Yes, that's why I do a value judgement on both teams in a game, and if it doesn't change by period 2 (out of 3, for hockey), I'd rather see the better team win.

but Darorinag, dont go hipocrite on me & tell me u wouldnt rather see philly whip the leafs' a$$...

Did I ever deny that? But there are many reasons for it. Not because I'm a Flyers fan, because obviously I am not. But I would cheer for any team against the Leafs, because they're a bunch of crybabies who whine, whine, whine & whine about anything and everything, have an old and rather lame (& lucky) team. Most of the goals they score aren't due to skill, but due to pure luck or bad officiating (for them, good officiating, I suppose).

[ardenik]

Actually, game 7 for teams on home ice has a 60% percentage of wins. So it doesn't make much of a difference. Anyone who thinks that home ice decides the outcome of a game in any way is dead wrong. And I can list many many examples for this.

"its not a HUGE difference, but enuf that its clearly the case."
60% i believe is enuf that its clearly the case.

Yes, that's why I do a value judgement on both teams in a game, and if it doesn't change by period 2 (out of 3, for hockey), I'd rather see the better team win.

thank you.

Did I ever deny that? But there are many reasons for it. Not because I'm a Flyers fan, because obviously I am not. But I would cheer for any team against the Leafs, because they're a bunch of crybabies who whine, whine, whine & whine about anything and everything, have an old and rather lame (& lucky) team. Most of the goals they score aren't due to skill, but due to pure luck or bad officiating (for them, good officiating, I suppose).

how is disliking a team any less ridiculous than liking a team?

[Darorinag]

"its not a HUGE difference, but enuf that its clearly the case."
60% i believe is enuf that its clearly the case.

How is it "clearly the case"? It could've gone both ways. It could've been a 60% win for the away team. It's very random. You should first compare it with the away numbers, etc. to come to such a conclusion.

how is disliking a team any less ridiculous than liking a team?

One can like a team for the way they play and the skills they demonstrate. One can dislike a team for reasons similar to why I dislike the Leafs. I didn't say liking a team is ridiculous. I like the Devils because they have solid play. I like their style of hockey. But at the same time, I'm not a fanatic. I admit that they sucked big time against the Flyers, for example, and give full credit to the other team for the win. The Flyers deserved it. I'm glad they won. I wouldn't have been too happy if the Devils had ousted the better team. This is what I'm talking about. Leafs fans would rather see their sucky team win the cup than admit that the other team was better and give credit to that team. THAT is what I'm criticizing.

[ardenik]

How is it "clearly the case"? It could've gone both ways. It could've been a 60% win for the away team. It's very random. You should first compare it with the away numbers, etc. to come to such a conclusion.

u said game 7, the home team wins 60% of the time. like i said, its far from being something u bet ur life on, but 60% is far from 50%.. & all i meant was that it was probably over 50%.. i wasnt even expecting that it would be as much as 10% more than 50.

[Darorinag]

10% does not predict much, does it... You're basing your whole theory on 10%? Do you have a better point? It could've been 40%. That still wouldn't have meant that home ice has the opposite effect. Eh?

[ardenik]

OMG i cant believe im still having to explain this to a grown man..... my 8 year old cousin would have understood me by now...

60% of games are won by the home team, right? thats more than 50%.. that means that SOMETHING about playing at home gives a team an advantage.. it doesnt mean in any way that if a team is playing at home, they are gonna win. it doesnt even mean that if a better team is playing at home against a clearly weaker team, that the better team is gonna win. theres an infinite number of factors that come into play... but when observing the home vs. away tendencies, the home team has won 60% of the time.... & 60% is a larger number than 50%.

its statistics.. its simple.. its straightforward..
if u dont understand & agree with what im saying, ure clearly not trying & im not gonna try explaining anymore.

[loseyourname]

I think it's worthwhile to point out that the team with home ice also finished the season with a better record, and so in theory is the better team, making them more likely to win anyway. That could contribute to the additional 10% as well.

[loseyourname]

I believe the figure is much higher for Game 7's in baseball, though, and for NFL playoff games. The playing fields in these sports aren't uniform the way they are in hockey or basketball.