[The Decline of White Sox Fan Culture]

This isn't complex. Apparently you remember the 50's Great. 90% of people alive today, don't. When it comes to a "narrow viewpoint of the world", that would be your own. Mine is covering 90% of people.

 

Do me a favor, and if you are going to be a on a "mission of mercy" at least have the facts on your side.

 

I presented facts that you conveniently ignored because it didn't quite fit your narrative.. The facts of the Sox record between 1951 and 1967.. Consecutive winning seasons and a run of being the #1 baseball team in Chicago

 

which was in response to your unbelievably inaccurate set of "facts"

 

Chicago is a Cubs town, and pretty solidly has been since the 1950's and early 1960's. That is three generations now.

 

You're like a drowning man that keeps swimming further out to sea...

 

The point of all of this, guy... is that yours and others contention that Chicago is was and always will be a Cubs town is just flat out incorrect... When Sox ownership put together CONSISTENT winning seasons, the Cubs had to fight for relevancy, rather than the other way around.. as it is now...

 

Why would Einhorn and Reinsdorf have purchased the Sox in 1981 if it was a foregone conclusion that this is was and always will be a Cubs Town... ?

 

The fatal flaw in your approach is that is absolves ownership of all accountably and puts the blame squarely on the "historically" disloyal Sox fan...

 

 

[The Decline of White Sox Fan Culture]

Realistically, less than half of that 116 years is even relevant anymore. If you want to make an honest assessment of the situation, you probably narrow your search and should consider the people who are actually alive today. The actual circumstances are for the vast majority of the people who are alive today and going to games who are fans of either team, Chicago has always been a Cubs town, even if the Sox managed to outdraw them on a rare occasion in the past few decades.

 

Chicago is a Cubs town, and pretty solidly has been since the 1950's and early 1960's. That is three generations now.

 

I'm fascinated by your posts, frankly... how somehow could have no idea what they are talking about, yet continue to hammer away, as if they are the definitive authority

 

Here's a little friendly advice...If you're not sure about certain periods of Sox history, my suggestion would be .. ask someone who actually knows..

 

the White Sox had a great run from 1951-1967. consecutive streak of winning seasons.. The Cubs were an afterthought in this town behind the Bears, Blackhawks and White Sox.. the Cubs didn't achieve any sort of notoriety whatsoever until Durocher and the gang in and around the crazy 1969 season..

 

Also fascinating is how you've arbitrarily picked less than half of the 116 years as relevant to how we currently view the state of the Sox vs Cubs, attendance. etc...

 

If you want to make an honest assessment of the situation, you probably narrow your search and should consider the people who are actually alive today. The actual circumstances are for the vast majority of the people who are alive today and going to games who are fans of either team

Pure BS... Your narrow viewpoint of the world tells you that no one that followed the Sox before 1975 is alive today..

 

I could go on and on.. I'm on a mission of mercy here.. just stop.. please.. just stop....

[There are plenty of White Sox fans]

The one realistic place I have heard suggested where a stadium actually could have been built in the late 80's was the south loop. The rest are ideas from crackpot fans who have no grasp on reality.

 

 

Kind of comforting to read a post from SS2K5.. never changes, always consistent with a very unique POV..

 

You never miss a chance to take a shot at whiny, disloyal Sox fans, do you?

 

On what research and actual facts, (based on opinions from urban planners and stadium architects and designers), do you base your opinion that the south loop was the ONLY realistic place for a Sox stadium?

 

 

[Cooper has extension offer]

Lee Elia didn't get fired for calling Cubs fans unemployed cocksuckers.

 

He also called them "country cocksuckers". I could never figure out what a "country cocksucker" was... Maybe lower in rank than your standard "cocksucker"..?

 

Elia made it about 3 more months before he was canned..

 

On other note, there was about 9,000 at the Elia Rant game against the Dodgers at Wrigley.... the game before there were 3.000

 

so much for superior Cub fan loyalty , I guess..

[Wild Card Games Thread]

I was just thinking the same thing.

 

OOOOOOPS!

 

 

[Who stay...who goes???]

Conclusion:

 

I believe the Sox have too many positives to decide on a total rebuild. That may seem like a foolish view to many, but I like the starters and the top of the lineup too much to agree with tearing it all down and rebuilding.

 

Having said that, the obvious problem is how they acquire the pieces needed. There is no easy answer to that ...

 

Conclusion Part Two:

 

Some of your half-fulls could fit easily fit in your half-empties..

 

There will never be an easy answer to the dilemma you speak of, because you've decided to hang on to anything that has any value whatsoever on the trade market...

 

The obvious problem has a pretty obvious answer, if you really think about it.. The answers to the problem of filling the Sox holes are buried in other teams' organizations...and maybe to some extent, their own organization with the improvement of the way they've approached play development...

 

It certainly isn't buried in the free agent market, at least not for the next couple of years...

 

So the bottom line is, the Sox are in a position to hold the hot hand in a rebuild.. an opportunistic situation that the franchise has never before had handed to them...an opportunity to make the most of what they have in two upcoming weak free agent markets... Now whether or not the Sox have the FO horses to pull that off, is a whole other issue altogether...

[Renteria to Replace Ventura]

He's pretty much the definition of a 4-5 hitter. Those are your power guys. If they one thing he does well is put the ball out of the ballpark, why would you put him at the bottom thus limiting his chances to do so? You lose roughly 17-19 plate appearance every spot you drop someone in the order over the course of the year.

 

I'm glad you and I aren't responsible for making out the lineup, but I've had my fill of watching Frazier strike out with a man on third and less than two, thank you

 

However, the reality is he will probably hit 1-5 if he's still on the Sox in '17

[Renteria to Replace Ventura]

Based on what criteria?

 

My criteria for constructing a lineup are: 1-3 hitters get on base (OBP of .330 or higher) and the 3-5 hitters ideally hit 50+ extra-base hits per season (high SLG). Based on that, my 1-5 lineup for the Sox this season would've been...

 

1. Eaton

2. Melky

3. Abreu

4. Frazier

5. Morneau

 

Higher percentage of your #4 whiffing with the bases loaded, then hitting a grand slam. With this lineup

 

[Renteria to Replace Ventura]

Last I checked he was also 2nd in home runs and 7th in RBIs.

 

So what? still not a good 1-5 hitter...

 

[Renteria to Replace Ventura]

I'd like to argue this morning that a Frazier extension is a poor idea for the White Sox. Todd Frazier is a guy who I think is likely to be among the "fast dropoff" players. He is a guy with one strong plus tool - power. He has poor plate discipline overall - a strikeout rate above 20% and a walk rate only 8%, for his career. That means he's a guy who swings a lot, makes limited contact, but gets value when he makes contact because the ball goes far.

 

Last I checked, Frazier leads MLB regular 3rd base guys in strikeouts, and lowest BA..

 

The original plan was to have Frazier as the guy in the lineup to protect Abreu.. it didn't happen.. as far an extension, I think it depends on how the rest of the lineup shakes down.. despite the power, I don't see how Frazier fits into the 1-5 hole.. too many lost offensive opportunities in 16' without enough bonafide hitters 1-5

[USA Today: White Sox Will Retain Robin Ventura, If He Wants to Return]

And that has nothing to do with LOYALTY!

 

That has to do with the location of the park, the history of the park, the trendiness of the team, the fact that it's a bar-type college bro atmosphere. The reason they draw has NOTHING TO DO WITH BASEBALL

 

Come on man. This is obvious.

 

Of course it's obvious.. Old Man Wrigley figured it out 80 yrs ago. How to put those butts in the seats even though the team sucked. So anyone that thinks those all or most of those 41.268 that are sitting there in that nice old vintage ballpark are doing so out of their sheer love and loyalty to their team, just flat out doesn't know what the hell they are talking about

 

From The Atlantic. July/August 2016

In the mid-1930s, the Cubs’ owner, chewing-gum magnate Philip K. Wrigley, was poring over yearly figures when he noticed a correlation he didn’t like: When the Cubs won fewer games, fewer people came to games. When a team executive mentioned that the public had been conditioned to expect a winner, Wrigley averred that this could be changed. “See those people going by,” he said from his office overlooking Michigan Avenue. “They are all consumers of chewing gum.” They could be made into consumers of baseball, too, with the right advertising campaign.

 

Wrigley’s gum company spent as much as 25 percent of its revenues on advertising—“a rate,” Fortune marveled, “matched not even by the cigarette industry”—and in many ways functioned like an ad agency disguised in a gum wrapper. Philip Wrigley himself wrote copy, selected artwork, and oversaw ad placement.

 

The ad campaign he envisioned for the Cubs, he told team executives, would shift the emphasis to “the fun and the healthfulness … the sunshine and the relaxation” of a day at the ballpark. The idea, he said, was “to get the public to go see ball games, win or lose.”

 

To this end, in 1937, he had ivy planted on Wrigley Field’s previously barren outfield wall. A monumental hand-operated scoreboard was constructed that, even brand-new, looked like a mechanical holdover from an earlier era. Wrigley wanted the same “outdoor, woodsy” motif he had just used to convert another property, Catalina Island, off the coast of California, into a profitable escape from nervous tension. Only the eight Chinese elms planted above the bleachers refused to take.

 

Meanwhile, Wrigley set the gum company’s top illustrator, Otis Shepard, to work designing just about all the visual elements familiar to Wrigley-goers today: new uniforms whose colors would pop vibrantly against the field’s carpet of green; the circular red C on their front; the stylized cub-face patch; the W flag flown atop the scoreboard after each home win. Most striking of all, perhaps, were Shepard’s illustrations for the official game program, which began to feature the faces of fans—not identifiable players—in bright sunshine.

 

The final piece of the marketing puzzle was the one that hooked Moskowitz as a boy. Any radio or television station that wanted to broadcast the games could do so, free—with the understanding that the announcers refer to “beautiful Wrigley Field” whenever possible.

 

It worked. It worked so brilliantly that when the Cubs suddenly plunged to the bottom of the standings in 1948, a near-record 1,237,792 fans still came to the park that season. Wrigley, according to a biography written by a family friend, “took satisfaction in the phenomenal drawing power” of the team. It validated his theories.

[USA Today: White Sox Will Retain Robin Ventura, If He Wants to Return]

It's just stupid to compare attendance between the Cubs and Sox at ALL. They're just completely different entities in almost every way. It's like comparing New York and Chicago pizza. It's literally pointless because they're two different foods. They just happen to have the same name.

 

 

This. ^^^^^

 

Thank you

 

It's almost as divergent as LA Dodger fans vs NY Yankee fans. Two completely different environments, fan bases, experiences.

 

So to hold up Sox vs Cubs attendance #'s as a true mark of fandom loyalty..complete and total BS

 

[USA Today: White Sox Will Retain Robin Ventura, If He Wants to Return]

You aren't new here. This argument has been going in circles for the past year +. Everybody is bored with it

 

Valid point. Even though everyone is bored with it, there are those that still continue to take any opportunity to take a jab at Sox fans, and try to compare Cubs = Superior fans. Vs Sox = Inferior fans. Which then, adds a spark to tired debate

 

You follow?

[USA Today: White Sox Will Retain Robin Ventura, If He Wants to Return]

this... is.... not... a good... argument....

 

Pretty clever negotiating/debating tactic. When challenged to back up a statement, just say "I'm bored with this ..I don't want to talk about it anymore"

 

[USA Today: White Sox Will Retain Robin Ventura, If He Wants to Return]

Even when they have delivered a winner, fans didn't respond in the same way as Cub fans did. The difference wasn't Harry Carry, it was the fan bases. The Cubs fan base is more loyal.

 

C'mon guy, now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing

 

I recall having a difficult time getting a ticket to a postseason game in 2005.. Also, check the Sox attendance numbers for 2006.. or did those numbers that year not quite meet your approval/criteria for fan loyalty in response to a winner.

 

The Cub fan base is entirely different than the Sox fan base..the great majority of those "loyal" Cub fans show up for the party at Addison and Clark, not the game… every Sox fan that I've known in my lifetime has learned this as they exited the womb...

[My way too early off season plan]

The Sox are gonna dump Robertson and his $11 M on Boston? Not likely. They have Kimbrel for $13 M thru 17'

 

Burdi and Fullmer as the two critical pieces on the back end of the pen? You may as well concede 17' and go full rebuild by dumping Sale, Q, Frazier, and Cabrera

 

[USA Today: White Sox Will Retain Robin Ventura, If He Wants to Return]

Yeah, EVERYTHING OWNERSHIP DOES IS WRONG, EVEN WHEN IT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT!

 

Your usage of ALL CAPS is impressive, young man...it shows a strong conviction of your opinion, and does a lot to show us you feel very strongly about this..kudos to you

 

However, kindly give me an example of this ersatz, wacky hypothesis.. What exactly has this current ownership group done according to the exact wishes of the fans, that the fans later b****ed about?

[USA Today: White Sox Will Retain Robin Ventura, If He Wants to Return]

Yet even when the White Sox won, they still didn't do it on the south side in terms of turning ". The logic here is becoming circular.

 

And round and round it goes.

 

Let's give the wheel another spin, shall we?

 

Let's see, where does it stop?

 

Yep! "Sox fans are bums for historically never showing up, and don't deserve the gifts this current ownership has brought to SoxLand"

 

 

 

[USA Today: White Sox Will Retain Robin Ventura, If He Wants to Return]

And Harry has been dead over 18 years. Many of the people in the stands probably never remember him calling a game.

 

that's oh so true and sometimes, important for old farts like me to remember. The 80's don't seem that long ago to some of us

 

But in the context of the original topic, I think it's interesting to look back at the history of Chicago sports.. At the managers, players, announcers, coaches, etc...that drew and attracted the most fan interest. Mike Ditka, Caray, etc.. those types of personalities personify a sort of knock around, working class, hard drinking kind of town.

 

 

[USA Today: White Sox Will Retain Robin Ventura, If He Wants to Return]

Like the Tribune Company did with the Cubs.

 

After more than a decade of futility, the Tribune put Dallas Green on board to revamp the organization. They put a winner on the field in 84' and turned the franchise around

 

Jerry Reinsdorf: take note

[USA Today: White Sox Will Retain Robin Ventura, If He Wants to Return]

Except the White Sox leanest attendance years happened while Carry was still here.

 

That was due to John Allyn and Veeck not being able to figure out (with the exception of 72' and 77') how to put a good product on the field, not Harry.

[USA Today: White Sox Will Retain Robin Ventura, If He Wants to Return]

And JR and Einhorn's PR blunders between the early '80s and mid-90's, coupled with the Cub ownership's savviness, changed that culture. There's no easy way back now. Even the Sox winning Chicago's first WS in almost a century didn't convert Cubs fans to Sox fans.

 

I agree, all across the board......100%

 

There are two ways to look at it...

 

1) Does the current ownership fall victim to living in a town where they got a terrible luck of the draw? that despite bringing a WS to the city, they still play second fiddle?

 

or

 

2) Did the current ownership completely drop the ball by not being able to capitalize on being the only MLB team in this town win a title in 100 yrs?

 

 

 

 

 

[USA Today: White Sox Will Retain Robin Ventura, If He Wants to Return]

Because the White Sox are the 2nd team in the smallest market with multiple teams.

 

You're probably too young to remember this, but in my lifetime.. there was a rather extended period of time where the White Sox were the #1 MLB in the city, not the Cubs...a stretch of almost two decades..the 50's and 60's..as a matter of fact, it was cause for serious ridicule to publicly admit you were a Cub fan... so it's not a given that the White Sox are relegated to 2nd class status....

[USA Today: White Sox Will Retain Robin Ventura, If He Wants to Return]

Yes, Robin has a losing record as a manager. So does the janitor, I guess. Who cares? Neither of them win or lose games. Front offices use managers as "fall guys" to placate angry fan mobs. It's a nearly meaningless gesture and it SHOULDN'T be enough for you. Don't let them pass off a different manager as a proxy for change.

 

So according to that logic, the Cubs move to hire Joe Maddon was irrelevant... they'd have the same 100 win season with Ronnie Woo Woo as the skipper, right?

[USA Today: White Sox Will Retain Robin Ventura, If He Wants to Return]

You literally had to read it to get to that point of the post.

 

Yes, I see... it's hard to follow bits and pieces of posts scattered about..

 

You said:

 

To further expand on this. Even if the Sox ran the table, and made another $100 million, they would STILL be closer to Tampa in revenue than the Yankees.

 

If the Sox had a 40% increase in revenue, they would be tied for 5th in MLB with the Cubs in incoming $$$... Yes, they'd still be closer to Tampa in $$$ than the Yankees, but so would 25 other teams, so .. who cares?

 

the bigger issue.. why are the White Sox the smallest revenue earning franchise, among big city teams, in all of MLB? not even being able to crack the top 15?