Gauging internet reactions can be a bit misleading. Notice that many of the teams on this list are flat out bad (Indians, Reds, Stros, Nats, Orioles), while others are perennial underachievers (White Sox, Mets, and Dodgers). Using this model, teams like the Mariners understandably don’t make the list (because if you live in Seattle, even watching bad baseball games is a good thing), and we would expect to see teams like the Tigers and Cubs only post All-Star break (when a dose of reality sets in).
Another observation: almost every super market in baseball is represented here… New York, L.A., Chicago, Houston, etc. … Could it be that more people = more negativity?
I originally saw this on Deadspin (http://deadspin.com/5526440/indians-the-most-hated-baseball-team-says-science) and made a comment about it. I'll share it with you:
I think the answer is pretty obvious. The algorithm accounts for both positively- and negatively-connoted terms. While lots of people seriously hate the Yankees and Red Sox, lots of people also love them. Therefore, those teams' scores will be buoyed by their wide fanbases.
The Indians, on the other hand, are not widely loved. They're a comparatively small-market team with a light population density between the major cities in their region, and the other major cities tend to have teams of their own. Furthermore, the Indians really aren't that good and their fan base is probably fairly frustrated.
As a result, I can see how this ranking might have happened. And I agree, the algorithm is flawed; or, more accurately, the nomenclature is flawed. This isn't a measure of the most hated teams, it's a measure of the "net love" for each team.
"net love"? I think that's the newest addition to the sabermetrics toolbox.
Pedroia ranks highly in "net love".
I hate baseball as whole. Can we just put a fork in this thing already. Outside of Boston and New York, nobody really gives a isht.