matt leach has albert's unabridged comments about the booing in st louis. there's a long discussion about booing in this morning's VEB post, a lot of thoughtful comments -- thanks to ev'ybody who weighed in. also see The Dude's diary and Bowen's diary on this topic. in my view there's no right or wrong here; i understand why people are booing, and i also understand why it offends people. call me wishy-washy, but my sentiments fall into line with rockin' redbird's, viz. -- "I believe people have every right to boo if they want. . . . I choose not to because, to me, it solves nothing."
as for why fans are booing, maybe will leitch wasn't all that far off when he wrote at baseball prospectus a couple months back about (as he titled it) the cardinals' offseason of discontent. quoting from that article (which you can read here if you're a BP subscriber:
It's not just one thing. It's a combination of all of it, the unwanted new stadium, the lack of respect for radio tradition, the sudden (and promise-breaking) penny-pinching. Suddenly, this doesn't resemble the fuzzy love of Cardinal Nation; it feels like just another team. Like a business. It is a business, of course, but when you're messing with Cardinals tradition, you're in serious danger of killing the golden goose. If the fans turn against the franchise, the Cardinals really are just another team. And that's disaster.
maybe the guy was on to something. a booing fan is an unhappy fan -- and no, stl fans are not just unhappy because izzy coughed up a homer or encarnacion dropped a fly ball. the boos are a warning sign; they're important feedback. hope dewitt and company are listening.
my post about that article generated a lively discussion (71 comments), and the followup post got another 23 comments. might be worth a read (or re-read) in light of this discordant first homestand.
0-1, 4.09 0-2, 8.10