I honestly can't believe I have to argue this with you guys. Are you seriously telling me you don't understand that winning teams pick up a lot of front runner fans? Especially teams that have mega stars like Curry and Durant? Like.... seriously? Do you think the Bulls only had fans in Chicago? The Heat only had fans in Miami? How many fans do you think the Blazers would pick up over night if LeBron came here? How the hell is this such a difficult concept to understand?
I think you're missing my point. We're not talking about a poll about Steve Kerr's coaching ability that has been voted on by every Warriors fan. We're talking about the people on twitter or message boards. Are those the new fans? Are those the old fans? Do we have new fans because of Dame Lillard? Fans on twitter/message boards saying their coach is an idiot isn't exclusive to Portland and Golden St. Successful teams and unsuccessful teams, it's pretty universal. Some Blazer fans want to think their assessments are totally valid, but then laugh off the same assessments made by other teams fans as lacking perspective.
And I posted demonstrable facts pertaining to twitter and facebook. Where are your stats? Where is your evidence? So far all you and KJ can provide is anecdotal feelings. Side note - why is any of that relevant? KJ said I was being ridiculous saying that most of their fans didn't exist 10 years ago. I don't care if they're twitter fans, facebook fans, people in Oakland, people in San Fran, or people in another country. My statement was very clear. MOST of their fans weren't around 10 years ago. I proved that.
I thought you gave a number of the # of their old fans and then said "I'm making up the number." I didn't take that as fact at that point.
Ok to summarize our debate: Me: the Warriors gained a ton of fans in their title runs and MOST of those fans weren't around 10 years ago. The Warriors revenue more than doubled in five years and where does revenue come from....... that's right..... fans! The Warriors tripled their facebook followers in five years and went from 1.9 million twitter followers to 6.6 million in that same span. Linked an article which stated that The Facebook likes for the average NBA team has grown 156% since 2013 to 5.2 million. Meanwhile, the Warriors' popularity has soared 2,500% to 10.4 million. The Warriors now rank fourth in the NBA, behind only the Lakers, Bulls, and Heat. What does those three teams have in common? They were all dynasty organizations. You guys: Those sources are weak bro! It's like I'm arguing with Trump supporters. STOP THE COUNT!
All good data. Apparently I didn't read the entire thread and jumped into the middle (I'm guilty of that a lot), so my bad there! So the Warriors have grown their fan base more than the average team. Therefore, their new fans who watch the game don't have proper perspective on how to evaluate coaches. That has some reason to it. I would say, you need to lump in our fans in their 20's and younger as lacking some perspective too. Agreed?
We can debate the merits of their fans separately, but at this point I'm just trying to get KJ to admit that my statement wasn't ridiculous, which he doesn't seem to want to do.
I think there are a number of factors. 1. You have people follow a team specifically because of the star player. We all love Dame but we're Blazer fans first. I remember Rocket fans absolutely despising Yao fans from China because they didn't care about the Rockets, they only cared about Yao. We have seen this with other mega stars like MJ, LeBron, Kobe, etc. Those fans have a different motive to follow the team than the average fan. 2. You have fans who start following the team during the good years and only know winning, so they struggle to deal with down years. They can't understand why the team isn't good anymore. 3. You fans, as you mentioned, and this is really a subset of #2. Just don't have the seasoning yet to understand up years and down years.
Fair to say a lot of fans didn't have cell phones, computers, facebook or internet when Rick Barry and Wilt or Mullen played......also fair to say access to team websites has grown since the internet....intangibles are important ...I was a Blazer fan in the 70s but no stat would show me as one....this argument has no common ground given the changes in media access...the newspaper and radio were more popular than now in the day as well....no stat going to show you who was reading about them in the Sunday sports section
It's like you guys want to argue. What a bizarre thing to decide to cling to. Just so I'm clear - you don't think the Warriors picked up a ton of fans while they were winning championships and breaking the record for most wins in the regular season?
I've made one post without engaging anyone in an argument...you might try it sometime. It's like saying scoring titles shouldn't include shooters before the 3 pt shot was implemented.
Changes in data collection since the advent of the internet and how stats from the pre internet sports fan participation are fairly impossible to calculate .....one could also say Google translate has helped boost the NBA media....most Americans haven't read sports media in Mandarin Chinese or other languages either.....basketball growth globally has helped as well......the NBA has grown but the Warriors have always had a solid fanbase ...no chart is going to reflect the era of news print and radio and the era of computer internet access and cable or cell phone service. To pit these eras against each other is an unfair comparison...like scoring titles before and after the 3 pt shot....defense stats before and after handchecking....different eras completely.
Twitter fanbases also tend to be the most extreme in their reactions. Nobody rushes to Twitter to say, "I'm not enjoying how this season is playing out but there are a lot of factors we have to consider." They rush to Twitter A. to vent and B. to have the most noticed hot take.
I don't particularly care what kind of fans they are, just that there's more of them then there were 10 years ago.
I remember even when the Warriors struggled for a number of years they had solid support. When Don Nelson was coach and even Karl they had huge fans base. When I was younger living in Bay Area I saw a few games in the Cow Palace and Brodie in Kezar
You would have to read the string of posts leading up to that to have a chance of understanding. Sorry if that statement upset or confused you. Nate was talking about fans who don't have a long enough history rooting for a team lacking ability to make quality judgements. I was not saying I believe that to be true.
Really my point was that I question the wisdom of front runners and band wagoners. If you only follow winners, what do you know about losing?
