PDA

View Full Version : Is there such a thing as fun bad?


gobears1987
05-06-2011, 07:37 AM
This is something I'm wondering. Part of me just wants to declare the Sox fun bad and stop worrying, but I just can't do it. Teams can be "fun bad" when you don't care for them, but I just can't declare my team to be "fun bad," even if I really should.

Hartman
05-06-2011, 08:13 AM
It's official...WSI has lost it.

Madvora
05-06-2011, 08:19 AM
Fun would mean you're enjoying it. This is more numb-bad to where the losses have no effect on me anymore.

Procol Harum
05-06-2011, 08:36 AM
The Sox' woes have elicited something of a black, gallows-like humor here in the last week, but it's more akin to living on the edge of the classic choice between laughing or crying. This is bad, but it sho' ain't fun.... :lol: :whiner:

gobears1987
05-06-2011, 08:37 AM
It's official...WSI has lost it.

I'm guessing you aren't familiar with the concept of "fun bad." "Fun bad" is a term I've heard used by B&B on 670 several times in the past few years to describe certain teams. For example, Bernstein used it last year to describe the Cubs.

I'm asking the question because no matter how much this team sucks I just can't define them as "fun bad" as the crap i'm seeing is in no way fun.

If there is such a thing as fun bad, this team would be that to the neutral observer. The errors, the inability to catch a ****ing ball, the hitting, etc. I just can't find anything fun about this team.

veeter
05-06-2011, 08:52 AM
I know what you're saying. But there's 126 million reasons why the Sox aren't fun-bad. They're insulting -bad to me. ****ers.

doublem23
05-06-2011, 08:58 AM
They're pretty fun bad right now. Everytime I watch them I just sit there and laugh. What else can you do? I could sit there and be miserable or try to have some fun with it.

miker
05-06-2011, 09:30 AM
Watching this team could be "fun bad" -- like the epic hangover after a three-day bender. :gulp:

skobabe8
05-06-2011, 09:43 AM
Fun would mean you're enjoying it. This is more numb-bad to where the losses have no effect on me anymore.

That's kind of where I'm at right now.

Chez
05-06-2011, 09:56 AM
The Sox aren't "fun bad." No one on or off the field seems to be having fun. On the other hand, Boers and Bernstein are sometimes "fun bad," but usually just plain bad.

tebman
05-06-2011, 12:52 PM
The '62 Mets were fun-bad. Here are Frank Thomas (no, not that one), Gil Hodges, Don Zimmer (!) and Roger Craig from that team inexplicably celebrating:


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cgmw3LNpnvM/TZUUe9jUWqI/AAAAAAAAHJc/FQ_L4doamww/s400/1962_Mets.jpg

The Sox were fun-bad in 1977 because they were sloppy in the field but mash-happy at the plate, all while they weren't expected to contend.

The 2011 Sox were supposed to be fun-good. It's the expectations that make the difference.

tstrike2000
05-06-2011, 01:03 PM
I even have fun just by making bets with myself during the 2-3 seconds a pop-up is in the air as to whether Juan Pierre is going to catch it or not.

Moses_Scurry
05-06-2011, 01:23 PM
I think a team can be "fun bad" if they are expected to be bad going into the season. A team with Freddy Manrique, Donnie Hill, Dan Pasqua, Jose DeLeon, Bob James, Juan Agosto, Reid Nichols, Dave LaPoint, Eric King, and Melido Perez can be considered "fun bad" (although I was pretty miserable those seasons too).

The Sox are miserable bad because they were expected to be good.

soltrain21
05-06-2011, 01:27 PM
Fun bad would be a bunch of rookies for a team not expected to compete.

This just blows. Blows more than Boers and Bernstein.

white sox bill
05-06-2011, 01:33 PM
If I were enjoying it, I would say bad fun.

geofitz
05-06-2011, 02:01 PM
IMO, it would be the '93 Florida Marlins. Their first year. Not expected to contend at all. But it seemed all of their players, youngsters or veterans, gave it everything they had. Which except for Jeff Conine didn't turn out to be too much. But I managed to see some 20+ games and enjoyed them no matter the outcome.

The Big "O", Junior Felix, Bret Barbarie, Scott Pose, Chucky Carr.

soxnut1018
05-06-2011, 02:48 PM
Watching Pierre try to catch fly balls and AJ try to throw runners out is actually kind of fun bad.

sox1970
05-06-2011, 02:53 PM
There's nothing worse than a bad veteran team, and that's what they have been so far...a bad veteran team. So it's not a team you want to watch and have it reach fun/bad status. It's just a team that's unwatchable right now.

miker
05-06-2011, 02:57 PM
IMO, it would be the '93 Florida Marlins. Their first year. Not expected to contend at all. But it seemed all of their players, youngsters or veterans, gave it everything they had. Which except for Jeff Conine didn't turn out to be too much. But I managed to see some 20+ games and enjoyed them no matter the outcome.

The key phrase is "gave it everything they had". I can admire a team with marginal talent working as hard as they can.

Now granted, I (and others) may have been guilty of giving the 2011 White Sox more credit for their talent than may actually be the case.

RedHeadPaleHoser
05-06-2011, 03:58 PM
There is such a thing as fun bad. It's called Chicago Cubs baseball.

We might be bad, but it's not fun. It sucks to lose.

rdwj
05-06-2011, 04:47 PM
I don't think fun bad can exist when you are a big fan of a team and have an emotional investment. There is certainly fun bad when you don't care.

StillMissOzzie
05-06-2011, 09:42 PM
Fun bad is watching my daughter's softball team. This is not fun bad.

SMO
:gulp: