Eminor3rd

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 19, 2015 -> 12:52 PM) Tulo has 2 walks in over 120 plate appearances and is hurting again. He is a guy who won't be able to live up to the expectations when he is traded. He's got a 10% career walk rate over his prior 4000PA, so we should probably wait a little longer than 120PA to draw conclusions about his diminished ability to take walks. Him not having a great start is the only reason he'd be available/affordable for us. That said, I don't think we'd win the bidding and it would be hella risky, indeed. I can't make a strong case, but it would still be a TON of fun.

CLAP! CLAP! CLAP, CLAP, CLAP! CLAPCLAPCLAPCLAP! TU-LO!

The problem with this is that these comeback streaks are typically unsustainable. I'll feel a lot better when we start getting leads early.

QUOTE (shysocks @ May 19, 2015 -> 08:50 AM) 1) The scoring play by Eaton was really not that different than a lot of the "dumb" attempts the Sox have made on the bases this year. A lot of people pointed out that the baserunning luck would turn around a little, and that was an example. Thank you.

For those that wonder about what goes into WAR, here's a graphical representation: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/instagraphs...sition-players/

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 18, 2015 -> 10:29 AM) To me the question is easy. Would the Sox have had a 9-3 run if Ventura had been fired? Which is completely unanswerable.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 18, 2015 -> 08:26 AM) If the players like Robin as much as the media tells us, it isn't that much of a stretch to think that they are playing smarter to make sure he doesn't get fired. I don't know, I guess I just don't feel like players can just "turn it on" whenever they want and it's just a matter of them being motivated enough to do so. Maybe I'm just easily frustrated by issues where we'll never have an answer.

This is the worst thread on Soxtalk right now. Have you guys noticed that everyone loves RV when we win; hates RV when we lose? Do you REALLY think that the FO said some words to RV that made him MAKE our players play better?

QUOTE (Condor13 @ May 14, 2015 -> 03:45 PM) Pretty sure that's the definition of two-faced Only if you assume he owes you transparency.

#TeamSanchez

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ May 14, 2015 -> 11:31 AM) Should they bat Sanchez in the 2 hole and move Melky to 5/6? Lillian?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 13, 2015 -> 02:30 PM) Small picture. Great. Big picture, his hitting isn't sustainable, but his bad defense is. He is about at bad at SS as he was at 3B last season. Right but he would have been our 2B, and if he's been worse than Micah, it sure can't be by much. I'm not suggesting renegging the trade or anything, I was just shocked at how well he's hitting.

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ May 13, 2015 -> 12:29 PM) I was widely panned for arguing Sanchez would be 20 runs better than Micah over the course of the season defensively. Turns out I lowballed it: Micah is on pace for one of the worst defensive seasons at 2B in history: -47 runs below average. It's well past time to make the change. Micah needs to be Ray Durham in his prime with the bat to offset his defense and he's not even close. How this decision was made continues to boggle the mind. Every warning sign was on full display in spring training wrt to his defense -- the game is simply too fast for him. That play at 2B last night was simply inexcusable and it's not the sort of thing you can teach IMO. He simply needs more experience and he shouldn't be learning on the job in a year the team expects to contend. Just to pile on: Micah has an ISO of .029. He's been on base 25 times and has erased himself with a pickoff or CS 6 of those times. His wOBA is .289. He's hitting like Carlos Sanchez and fielding like Micah Johnson. As a fan, it's just frustrating to see the Sox continue to push the Micah's through the org instead of the Sanchez' and for that matter the Semians. Can you run? You might want to go to open tryouts next spring the Sox will probably sign you. Maybe bring a glove if you think it will help, but it probably won't matter, just stretch your hamstrings well before you show up. or he could be Marcus Semien so far. Holy s***balls he is raking: http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playe...;position=3B/SS

QUOTE (Buehrlesque @ May 13, 2015 -> 01:02 PM) I think the bolded is true of everyone's postulates in this thread. No one's technically "right" or "wrong" because it can't fully be proven. And it doesn't have to be 100% "Sox fans are excuse-making, fickle jerks" OR 100% "Sox team doesn't win enough or try to" anyway. It's probably a combination of things. I think both camps are right to an extent. Sox fans are fickle (and skeptical) — it's not enough for the team to be good (2012) or for management to put an "all in" effort to make the team good (2011, 2015). The front office has to generate a lot of buzz in the offseason AND the team has to play really well in the ensuing season. Unfortunately, this has NEVER happened in recent White Sox memory. Either the team has been unexpectedly good with lower expectations (2008, 2012) or they've been built up with acquisitions and expectations and then thoroughly disappointed (2011, 2015 among others). Sox fans don't buy in in either scenario. The stuff about the Sox being a small market team because of city market share and unresponsive fans, while based in fact and somewhat true, is overblown. The Sox can spend, and have spent. The frustrating part there is that management has put the effort into winning to attract fans, and the team always disappoints in those circumstances, which turns off the fans! At the same time, there are tons of other facts limiting attendance (location, aesthetics, etc.) If the Sox had a beautiful, super new or super retro-new, downtown stadium, they would draw more easily. Unfortunately, they don't. I like the Cell, but objectively it's a generic-looking stadium, without an "aura," located substantially out of the way of the heart of the city. To me, it's an inertia thing. More fans being at the park begets more fans coming to the park. When there's no one there (often the result of a bad team), the park looks empty, lifeless and uninspiring. Truth is, perception (fair or not) is reality. It doesn't inspire someone watching at home to come out. Even if that random fan watching at home did want to go to a game, they know there's no reason to buy a ticket in advance when they could get it day of game and wait to see their home/work schedule, weather, pitching match ups, etc. And so by the time that game rolls around, they find a weather problem or a work problem or whatever other excuse to prevent them from going to the game. Basically, I think it takes commitment and execution from both sides — the team and the fans. The team has to build a winner AND they have to win to get the ball rolling. The fans have to come out and support it. I don't think Sox fans will ever just blindly come out to the Cell, it's just not going to happen. Once the ball is rolling, the rest will begin to take care of itself: more winning means more fans, which means more need to buy tickets in advance, which means more fans committing to coming out in advance regardless of match ups, weather, etc. The opposite — lots of walk up sales for a surprisingly serious late season contender — can happen as well: I remember the insane walk-up crowds late summer 2003 . But that is far less reliable. So I do think the onus is on the Sox to start it out, and it is a little more difficult than it is for other major league team, but that's just the way it is. Good news is, if they ever get it right, the effects could be longer-lasting than we've seen. Remember, the Sox were awful in 2007, yet still drew 2.6 million. They'd kill for that kind of number today. Why did they draw so well? Previous seasons' success raised fan interest and forced/inspired them to buy in advance! So the tickets were already sold before the team tanked. Great post

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 13, 2015 -> 12:40 PM) And if anyone ever wants to make the neighborhood argument, go to a game in Detroit, and get back to me. Go live in Detroit and tell me how many better things you have to do. Whatever the number is, it's far less than Chicago. We had a Brewfest scheduled last fall. All of a sudden a bunch of vendors pulled about a month away. Why? Jay-Z and Beyonce announced a free concert in Central Park and they could sell there instead. Context is everything.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 13, 2015 -> 12:33 PM) So basically this ownership group needs to go into debt on the hope that they can maybe convince fans to show up after years of winning playoff series. Yeah, good luck with that. If you are waiting for a once in a franchise history kind of run to show up, you might as well find another team to complain about... err, root for. The Tigers have been brought up a bunch in this thread. Go back and look at their history. From 1988 to 2010, they made the playoffs exactly once in a 23 season period. In 2010, the Tigers drew just over 30k a night to Comerica. 2010 was the year before their 4 straight playoff appearances, to see a team that won 81 games. That allowed the Tigers to invest in the minor league system and their major league system in a way that the White Sox, couldn't. For comparisons sake the White Sox were coming off of 3 playoff appearances in 10 years, including the 2005 WS, and drew about 27k a night. Going back to the bottom of Tigers history in 2002 and 2003 when they lost a combined 225 games in two years, they still saw almost 24k a night show up to see a 72 win team in 2004, or about 4k a night more than we had last year. So yes, it is done in other places without winning multiple years in a row. It is another excuse. No, they're making more and more money every year. They're not in debt. They're very much in the black and presumably happy about it. And that's despite ten years of more bad than good. I'm sure they want attendance to increase because it would make them even more in the black. But that's on them. They're a business. "Fan loyalty" at whatever level it's currently at is making them profitable. I don't believe anyone owes them more than that. If they want people to spend $40-200 in their ballpark about ten times a year, then it's on them to make that a worthwhile experience.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 13, 2015 -> 12:32 PM) What is interesting is there is a heck of a lot of turnover with all those businesses around Wrigley Field. I read where most lose money on non game days. Makes sense. Again, "ballpark experience." It's a holistic thing, and it's part magic, but that's the difference.

QUOTE (ptatc @ May 13, 2015 -> 12:27 PM) Hey now. Until you are in the middle of raising teenagers, you don't know what "needing a reason to drink" means. Haha, fair enough, but I assume those drinks will normally be coming from a bottle in your basement, no?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 13, 2015 -> 12:44 PM) You write about money, do you know studies have suggested on average White Sox fans make more money than Cubs fans? The Wrigley Field area has more crime during the day that around USCF at night. That makes sense if you assume that White Sox fans tend to be older and therefore less likely to want to go out and drink under any circumstances. Instead of "that's where the money is," what I should have said was, "that's where the money is spent."

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 13, 2015 -> 12:30 PM) I gave reasons why the fanbase would think that team was going to crap. Trading away a cy young winner is a pretty good one. Your response was "But they brought back Lyle Mouton please edit your post", so clearly you think that somehow bringing back Lyle Mouton in a trade should have sold tickets. Explain how? What am I forgetting about Lyle Mouton that would offset trading away a Cy Young Winner to the Yankees? Wait, are you implying Lyle Mouton wouldn't fill a stadium on his own? Need I remind you of these numbers? LOOK AT THESE NUMBERS: 280! (batting average) 22! (career homeruns) 97! (career wRC+) ONE POINT TWO! (career fWAR) Look at this smile! LOOK AT IT!

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 13, 2015 -> 12:27 PM) I have been to both parks. The ballpark experience isn't very different. And I didn't go up there, but I would bet their upper deck is just as far away from the field. If not farther. Wrigley is a dump and is just as boring as the Cell. However, the neighborhood is completely different and we all know it. All the money is on the northside. All the 20-somethings are on the northside. They all have trust funds. Wrigleyville is bro-heaven. Everyone loves it. It's in the midst of where everyone wants to be. Bridgeport is nice ONLY compared to everything else on the southside. The southside is famous for murder. The stadium is surrounded by parking lots and ugly freeways. There are a couple bars. Wrigleyville is actually considered a tourist attraction. These thing affect ballpark experience. Maybe you or I don't like Wrigleyville, but we must acknowledge that the vast majority of people do. The upper deck view is definitely worse, but like I said, the ballpark (for the masses) is NOT the best place to follow the action anyway. People go to Wrigley simply to BE at Wrigley. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 13, 2015 -> 12:30 PM) Except for the White Sox, who need multiple playoffs births in a row to get people to show up. Again, you're assuming that attendance = fan interest. It's a proxy, but it is not equal. Whether or not it's worthwhile to go to the ballpark DOES NOT EQUAL how much winning it requires for fans to follow the baseball team.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 13, 2015 -> 12:05 PM) And the Twins were coming off 99,96, and 96 loss seasons with just the "new stadium". Which is consistent with my argument, which is that ballpark attendance has more to do with the ballpark experience than it has to do with interest in the team, and that divide has grown (and will cotninue to grow) as time goes on and technology continues to evolve.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 13, 2015 -> 10:53 AM) What? Fans with the biggest fan bases directly correlates to how many people are also watching at home, which directly results in bigger TV contracts. Size of fanbase is much more affected by market size and market affluence than it is by stadium attendance, is my point. I'm sure that attendance correlates with TV-market exposure to a certain degree, but an advertiser isn't necessarily getting less value if attendance goes down. At the very least, ratings and attendance are different numbers. Also, one set of eyeballs isn't equal all around the country. Demographic and purchasing habits regionally change that value a lot.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 13, 2015 -> 10:41 AM) I used to spend a lot of money, but not anymore. I have a weekend package for under $300, and I got on the 11 games for $29 deal. So that's 38 games for about $325. Plus I get free party at ChiSox Bar and Grill, another season ticketholder party, another free game with patio party, and I can basically sit wherever I want because of how few go to games. I spend very little on concessions, especially if I am with my wife. When I had club level seats, the server in our section said she was bad for business. But White Sox fans have used price as an excuse, they have used no lower deck access, although they usually don't check anymore, they used blue seats. All that has been changed, yet one thing remains consistant, people still won't go, and it will be something else. On WSI last year, and they whine about everything, from the parking lot guys and ushers not smiling at them to wondering why minimum wage employees who will be lucky to clear $20 a game after taxes, not being superstar servers, they complained that the $20 seats to watch Sale pitch weren't good enough seats. So basically what they were saying was the lower deck access thing so they could look at the statues and stuff was just a lie, they need a team that will win every year and a $15 seat within a couple rows of the dugout. Believe me when I say I am TOTALLY sympathetic with being tired of the "excuses" people give for not showing up -- I deal with it every day. What I've found (in NYC anyway) is that price is really hardly ever truly an issue. Like ss2k5 said about "guilt," people seem to want to cry price and parking when asked why they don't care because it feels like a "justifiable excuse," when the reality is that has no correlation with their buying habits. Despite the fact that the number one complaint by far is "you're supposed to be family-friendly entertainment, I can't afford to bring my family," when we offer discount deals, still no one buys. But, when we offer special packages ABOVE face ticket value that include shrits and hats and statues and stuff, those SAME four-person families will show up and ALL buy the package. Similarly, no one cares at ALL about dollar-dog Tuesday, but if we run a bobblehead giveaway on a weekend, when tickets are MOST expensive, we'll sell out. The conclusion I come to is that it's my responsibility to make people want to come. They react to special, limited time experiences and items and they react to day of the week. I've got to make those things more prominent if I want their dollars. It's frustrating to get false feedback directly from people's mouths, but the data doesn't lie, and every team has plenty of data. What I DON'T agree with is the implication that if the stadium isn't full, the city has bad fans. If all the revenue streams dry up, then we can have that discussion. But the stadium is a specific product that is separate from "fan interest" and is merely one component of "fan support." The Sox need to do a better job of selling or improving that product if they want fans to consume in that particular way.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 13, 2015 -> 10:50 AM) Without the extra $25 million that all teams started getting from the TV contract, the White Sox would have saw a decline in revenue last year. That is what quite literally paid for most of the team upgrades this year. But that's what I'm talking about -- people are changing how they consume the game and teams are finding new revenue streams to take advantage of it.