Middle Buffalo

Since the attendance comparison is really always made in relation to the Cubs, here's the history of attendance at Wrigley. Their attendance can ultimately be linked to winning in 1984, Harry, becoming a tourist destination, and the rejuvination of the area. Before 1984, Wrigley attendance was not so great. I get sick of hearing about how loyal their fans are. I remember late 70's/early 80's when portions of the upper deck were roped off because they didn't want to pay ushers to work sections with just a handful of people. Too bad all the columnists don't take the time to do a little research. They'd rather write about a stupid effing goat and attend the day games. Chicago Cubs attendance at Wrigley Field 2004 3,170,154 2003 2,962,630 2002 2,693,096 2001 2,779,465 2000 2,789,511 1999 2,813,854 1998 2,623,194 1997 2,190,308 1996 2,219,110 1995 1,918,265 1994 1,845,208 1993 2,653,763 1992 2,126,720 1991 2,314,250 1990 2,243,791 1989 2,491,942 1988 2,089,034 1987 2,035,130 1986 1,859,102 1985 2,161,534 1984 2,107,655 1983 1,479,717 1982 1,249,278 1981 565,637 1980 1,206,776 1979 1,648,587 1978 1,525,311 1977 1,439,834 1976 1,026,217 1975 1,034,819 1974 1,015,378 1973 1,351,705 1972 1,299,163 1971 1,653,007 1970 1,642,705 1969 1,674,993 1968 1,043,409 1967 977,226 1966 635,891 1965 641,361 1964 751,647 1963 979,551 1962 609,802 1961 673,057 1960 809,770 1959 858,255 1958 979,904 1957 670,629 1956 720,118 1955 875,800 1954 748,183 1953 763,658 1952 1,024,826 1951 894,415 1950 1,165,944 1949 1,143,139 1948 1,237,792 1947 1,364,039 1946 1,342,970 1945 1,036,386 1944 640,110 1943 508,247 1942 590,972 1941 545,159 1940 534,878 1939 726,663 1938 951,640 1937 895,020 1936 699,370 1935 692,604 1934 707,525 1933 594,112 1932 974,688 1931 1,086,422 1930 1,463,624 1929 1,485,166 1928 1,143,740 1927 1,159,168 1926 885,063 1925 622,610 1924 716,922 1923 703,705 1922 542,283 1921 410,107 1920 480,783 1919 424,430 1918 337,256 1917 360,218 1916 453,685 Attendance figures courtesy of Total Baseball

QUOTE(fathom @ Jun 10, 2005 -> 12:35 PM) I think it's funny that a lot of the Red Sox hitters have seen their power numbers go down this year (in the season of steroid testing). I was told by a MLB scout early last year that the Red Sox had a roster full of steroid abusers. This was said well before steroids became a big issue in baseball. Hold on. Curt Schilling testified before Congress that he's only played with 3 or 4 steroid abusers in his career. I can't believe that Mr. Schilling would lie.

Juan Agosto was the first guy I thought of. I do agree with the DWells and Navarro hatred, though. Hated Jerry Hairston. Least clutch PH in history. Don't much care about Johnny Damon's "pin." OK, so I DO care.

He's thinking of Jerry Koosman, I think. Got his miracle mets mixed up.

Gold Gloves are soooo much about reputation. No CWS has a chance this year. I'm pretty sure Raffy Palmeiro won one a few years back when he mostly DH'd.

I like to judge my performance by whether or not I outlasted any single by the Romones. Why mess around?

QUOTE(ptatc @ Jun 2, 2005 -> 09:25 PM) Sure it's possible to gain weight. But once you start getting in the 20's it's gets difficult to put on significant muscle weight. He will gain some I'm sure but it's by no means a given that he will. The Sox should hire Greg Anderson. He helped Barry gain significant muscle well past his 30th birthday.

The players' silence and unwillingness to step up and get steroids out of the game puts every player under a cloud of suspicion. They brought this on themselves. Chavez is right, but I hardly believe that he didn't suspect/know that Giambi was cheating. Consider your own work-place. Don't you know stuff about people just because workplace gossip has a way of getting around to everyone. You know who cheats on their spouses, who does drugs, etc. Think MLB clubhouses aren't the same? Chavez' head in the sand act is the same that Schilling pulled before Congress.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ May 28, 2005 -> 09:50 AM) Conversely it shows that he, and I'm just playing Devil's advocate here, has a spine of Jell-O. They push polled in states insinuating that McCain had an illegitimate black child. For more info... From the web: http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2004/...in_and_bush.php After McCain's surprising defeat of Bush in the New Hampshire primary in 2000, the Bush campaign targeted South Carolina, the next big primary, and began calling voters, particularly elderly voters, to ostensibly take a poll. But rather than asking how they felt about an issue, they asked this question: "Would you be more or less likely to vote for John McCain if you knew that he had fathered a bi-racial child?". Now, they didn't actually say that he DID father a bi-racial child. But at campaign stops, you could see McCain and his wife Cindy with their dark-skinned daughter, Bridget. They adopted Bridget from an orphanage in Bangladesh. This is how you play dirty politics, folks. You plant seeds that push buttons, all with plausible deniability. But it's vile as hell. It didn't stop there. They also put out "anonymous" pamphlets all over South Carolina telling people that McCain's wife had a history of drug addiction (she apparently was addicted to prescription pain killers at one point). Again, plausible deniability while spreading vicious rumors to kill one's political opponents. For a full report on the smear campaign, go here. Even worse is Bush's association with Ted Sampley, the absolutely loathsome former green beret and POW/MIA pimp who has claimed that John McCain is a traitor and even a communist spy that the Soviets had turned into a "Manchurian candidate". He's the same guy behind the attacks on John Kerry now, by the way. After what the Bush campaign did to McCain in 2000, you'd think that McCain would be pretty pissed off, wouldn't you? He said in 2000 that there was obviously no limit to how low Bush would go to win election after what they did to him, at one point even yelling at Bush when Bush grabbed his hand and telling him to "get your hands off me". But this is politics and McCain is now lending his image and endorsement to Bush in 2004. Why? Because it's his party and if he doesn't go along, he doesn't get party money and support when running for reelection to the senate. Again it is the political party "You will follow the party line, eh comrade?" dictating all the rules -- because if McCain calls shenanigans and actually voices his opinion of being pissed off about those slimeball tactics, he gets on the outs with the party & then will have a very difficult time in getting a Presidential nod. The whole monolithic concept of political parties seems to keep any deviation from the party line to compromise in check. There is no way for candidates to get approval for working together and actually getting things done that don't f*** over the American people because whatever they do -- they're bound to piss off the "Party faithful" which can be a problem come election time. Great stuff - and exactly what I was talking about. My problem with McCain leading up to the '04 election is that he swallowed his pride (which I'm sure is immense) because he was keeping an eye on the '08 election. He really should have kept a low profile. Of course, GWB needed a true American hero to trot out to counter Kerry. For what it's worth, I think Kerry way overplayed the war hero thing. Remember, also, that there was talk of McCain running with Kerry as his VP candidate. Wishful thinking? Probably.

QUOTE(BobDylan @ May 27, 2005 -> 11:03 AM) And who likes to pee in big tubs? Well, since you asked...hey watchou lookin' at?

Chris Rock really needs to give up movies and stick with the stand-up. He looks awful in that new Longest Yard. Actually, Burt Reynolds looks awful, Rock just acts badly.

I'd drop Timo just because his name is close to Tito - as in Landrum. Oh, and he sucks ass.

Who's taking his place in the rotation? Is Duke ready to go already?

QUOTE(Kalapse @ May 27, 2005 -> 03:24 PM) We could all greet them at the Cell on Monday against the Angels. Unless it's cold, or the only seats available are in the upper deck. Man, that's steep! Anyone else notice that?

I have a TON of respect for McCain, but I can't stand that he went around stumping for GW before the last election. GW showed McCain no respect in 2000, but because McCain wants to run in '08 he swallowed his pride and went with the party. I'm tired of the politics in politics.

I doubt that Frank will ever see this.

From what I've heard, Koufax was more dominant. MB = Maddux is a better comparison. Consistent, consistent, consistent. Always prepared. Always around the plate. Always solid. What more could you want?

I'm sure Dan Lebatard is finishing up his column where he poses the question, "Does everyone think thiat I'm an incredible dickhead because I'm white?"

When's the first column about big bad Sox fans acting badly in Wrigleyville? Sunday? Monday? Totally unprovoked, of course. It's gotta happen.

Thanks for the info.

They owe us for Todd Ritchie.

Is this game on WGN? Cubs announcers?

Holy run-on sentences, WS.

Don't forget Detroit and their "natural" rival - Arizona. What genius came up with that?

Soxatow? I think DJ is trying to work some "pirate" into his broadcast in order to make Hawk feel more comfortable. Listen, he'll be sprinkling some "aaaarghh"s into his convesations as the season progresses.