My sentiment didn't quite fit any answer choice. Not quite a tool of the devil, but it's pretty darn dorky and doesn't represent what I'd want players to think of fans. And it's just as dorky when "in moderation," and the first and last choice certainly don't work. You forced me into voting for the devil!

I'm just waiting for Mr. Wavestarter to catch a foul liner in the jaw while he's busy convincing people that standing up and sitting down (and watching others do the same) repeatedly is a worthy communal experience.

Guess which camp I'm in...

I think this kind of negative reaction is ridiculous and unjustified. I understand traditionalists' objection to the wave in certain situations; once in a while I'll think to myself, "Why don't they just sit down and pay attention to the game!" Generally this is my reaction if the wave suddenly sparks up during a pressure situation in the late innings when, in my opinion, all eyes should be focused on the field.

Besides this rare occurrence, though, I'm an enthusiatic participant. The way I see it, the wave gets casual fans into the game and creates crowd noise. The wave is all in good fun - if you're going to be anal about something so innocuous, sit at home and watch the game on television. The crowd is part of the experience of going to a baseball game. For some, including myself, watching the wave isn't as much fun as listening to a good bleacher bum reaming out the opposition's center fielder, but it's still crowd noise - and better yet, crowd noise that wasn't forced by the annoying, out-of-place PA system. So relax, join in, get the whole place buzzing - and then maybe the casual fans will stick around long enough to cheer on the good guys when they load the bases in the bottom of the ninth.

Why does the Wave remind me of disco?

Well, I think they started, or at least became popular, around the same time -- mid-1970s. I suppose you could play "Disco Duck" while the Wave went around a stadium and it would seem bang-on.

Nearly two-thirds of respondents are at least moderatly pro-Wave. This actually surprises me, though I admit I voted for that third Wave-is-like-beer option myself.

Nearly two-thirds of respondents are at least moderatly pro-Wave

That depends on how you interpret the third option. I chose it, and I'd clasify myself as "generally anti-wave but willing to accept that it improves the ballpark experience for some casual fans".

When people are doing the wave, they are no longer watching the game.

Of course, I knwo there is a sentiment here that fans should be makign as much noise as possible, which I also don't like.

What I love about baseball is the laid-back, casual atmosphere. Cheer your boys but not turn it into a circus.

This is also why I like minor-league ball live and major league ball on tv. Going to a mjor league park is sensory overload of too much, too loud music filling every spare moment.

When people are doing the wave, they are no longer watching the game.

Yeah, I hate it when people stand up and clap or shout, because they're no longer watching the game.  They have to pay so much attention to not falling off their feet!

Well it is true, when people do participate in the wave, nine out of ten follow the path of the wave and not the game in front of them--I'm even guilty of it sometimes. Shouting or standing up, or making noise that is directed at the game going on has absolutely everything to do withthe game, and is encouraged by me.

Now if the intentions of fans, was to distract the opposing team then I actually have no problem with it, heck, I'll encourage it. But if it's just some cheap thrill based on some stereotypical view on what going to a sporting event is, then it carries no meaning.

I personally don't even care about how the wave affects me, it's how the players on the field interpret it. The whole game experience is about them, not about the fans. Alot of people forget that.

 

 

I personally don't even care about how the wave affects me, it's how the players on the field interpret it. The whole game experience is about them, not about the fans. Alot of people forget that.

That's craziness.  The whole game experience is about entertaining me, which is why I'm paying for it.

I think the game experience certainly revolves around the game, but I also think that, as a fan, one only gets out of the game what one puts into it. Hence why I'm opposed to people sitting on their hands and waiting for the dancers and the jumbo-tron and what not to entertain them.

I think the counter-argument is that you're paying for it just to support the business. You are a generous patron who is granted the opportunity to observe, but your presence is not valued.

The only obligation to you in return for your investment is that the business does well. Probably easiest to think of it as giving to a charity, such as UNICEF. You may ask that they do good work, but they don't do anything for you because you gave money.

Whether you are at the game or not, the players' focus is to do their job. Gord Ash forbid that a player should be distracted by the crowd, that player will be reprimanded for daydreaming and lack of focus.

I'd still love to hear a Jays player say, "I struck out twice/gave up six runs here in Tampa Bay today because those stupid fans kept distracting me with 'The Wave'. I can't wait till we get back home to Toronto where I can trust our fans will allow me to focus."

If I counted right, this is the 248th poll we've run on Batter's Box, and only 7 of those have drawn more responses. Even with 16% of the (so far at this writing) 268 unique voters in this poll responding that it's unworthy of a poll topic, this seems to actually be a topic that people care about.

Amazing.

That's craziness.  The whole game experience is about entertaining me, which is why I'm paying for it.

Sorry, Aaron, but I can't tell if you're being sarcastic.

The point is that the fans responsibility is to create an atmosphere that is condusive to winning and that the players appreciate. If the whole game experience was about me, I wouldn't make any signs, and I definitely wouldn't waste my energy cheering or standing up.

Now it's also important to note that the fans have to balance this. They need to have fun and let themselves have fun, and this can be accomplished through carefully chosen points in the game where a wave can be started, but alot of the fun also surrounds around the actual outcome of the game, which is in turn influenced by how much energy the fans give towards the game going on. It's a cycle.

It's not that the wave is all bad and evil, but it doesn't make the players feel good about the job that they're doing, especially when it's happening at an inappropriate spot in the game.

Unfortunately I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I guess it's about philosophy. I personally go to games for three reasons: To enjoy the game of baseball, to see my team kick ass, and my own responsibility to the organization to be there and make as much noise as I humanly can, and to show all the support I can at whatever the cost in the HOPES that others will join and the players can feed off this positive energy and direct it to the play on the field.

 

 

Batter's Box seems to be very concerned about the fact that the Wave gives the impression the fans don't care about the actual game. The fact is, most of them don't really care about the actual game. Baseball is a very slow game and is pretty boring to most. People go to ballgames for the social experience, the opportunity to absorb all the energy of a Big Event. The social element of being in this massive stadium with thousands of people is what makes being at the game so much better than watching it on your television.

If you're really that concerned about viewing every possible angle of the game, you can see the action a lot better on your TV. Being at the park is a different experience, and fan energy can make or break a good experience at a game. The Wave is a pretty dumb way of generating fan energy, I'll admit, but it still gets the fans all excited and puts a bit of a buzz into the seats. Ultimately, I prefer a few rounds of the Wave to being able to see ball four clearly.

The fact is, most of them don't really care about the actual game.

I don't totally buy this. I think there are alot of people at games who care about the outcome. It's just that these same people also like the wave.

Andrew,

If that's true (that the majority of fans don't care), then I'd rather they stay quiet and at least give the player's the impression that they are paying attention. The wave seems to project an attitude of indifference to what's going on on the field.

If that's true (that the majority of fans don't care), then I'd rather they stay quiet and at least give the player's the impression that they are paying attention. The wave seems to project an attitude of indifference to what's going on on the field.

I still don't see where you get this, especially where you get the comparison -- you're telling me that a player on the field will think a quiet crowd is paying attention and cares about the game, and a standing, cheering crowd means that they're not paying attention?

Challenge: find me a player who says something along the lines of "I don't like the wave because it means fans aren't paying attention".  Surely in all these years of baseball and the wave there would have been one who went on record if it's so obvious and true.  I'll give you an early 1990s Blue Jays wall clock that doesn't keep accurate time (provided I can find it in my basement) or some other fabulous prize.

The players are aware of what the wave is; they know that whatever sound the crowd is making isn’t related to the game or an attempt to motivate them. Hence, I do think the effect is negative since it sends the players the message that the fans don’t care. Silence on the other hand doesn’t have to be negative. A lot of people just aren’t the type to make noise. Maybe they prefer to sit in their seat, fill out their scorecard, and appreciate the game in a quiet, reserved manner. The fact that they are appreciating the effort though is important. The players may interpret silence as boredom and indifference all the same, and in that case it’s just as bad as the wave, but in my opinion the wave only sends one message (indifference) whereas at least with silence there’s the possibility that the player’s will figure that the crowd is into the game.

 

As for quotes… I can’t find any (and I don’t think that really proves anything since I doubt any journalist has really cared to ask such a question), but what if I was to ask a player directly? I typically get to the Dome for batting practice and get a chance to meet the players. The next time I’m at Batting Practice and I get the chance to speak to a player, I’ll ask them what they think, and provided they don’t think me a complete nut job and just ignore me, I’ll post the results of this informal survey here. I usually hang around with VBF so he can confirm the legitimacy of any responses I bring back to you. How about that? :-D

 

P.S Of course, such a survey brings with it certain questions and issues. How do we determine the legitimacy of a question and whether it is clear and objective? Who gets to decide on the question? You? Me? Both of us together? Next, what percentage of players’ responses can be construed as a definite answer to our question – 50%, 55%, 60%. At what point can we say “yes, players as a whole hate the wave”?

 

In all seriousness though, I’d be willing to do it if you want. It’d be kinda fun. Just to make it fair, if I’m wrong, I’ll give you a photo signed by Shea Hillenbrand, Frank Catalanatto, Scott Schoenweiss, and Miguel Batista.

A definite answer?  It would have to be above 60%, I think.

The question?  "Do you hate the wave?"  I dunno, might be too much.  Feel free to suggest one.

You could get Shea Hillenbrand to sign my All-Star jersey if you lose.