Lip Man 1

As Ozzie once said, "winning is fun...fun is winning." Mark

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 28, 2015 -> 02:07 PM) It is unbelievable how many moves could have altered the course of history. On the flip side, an interesting series might be on what if the Sox didn't do X? It still amazes me though how poorly the Sox (under numerous regime's) have been from a business perspective. That said, I don't have much appreciation for other teams history in relation to the business side, but those TV situations were brutal. Of course, I don't know how key TV revenue's were at that time (I presume the dynamic then was bulk of the revenue was from ticket sales vs. nowadays where the bulk of the revenue is from tv contracts). The TV revenue was much less back then as opposed to today of course. But the real issue was "exposure". A whole generation grew up basically not being able to watch the Sox and the impact is being felt even today. Many of those kids turned out to be Cub fans because they could actually watch them play. Those kids are now parents and grand parents and their family members are probably Cub fans as well. It was just another missed opportunity to 'take back' their own city that they dominated during the Golden Age from 1951 through 1967. Sadly the Sox probably will never get that chance again. They had a shot after 2005 but were not able to get to the playoffs consistently which is absolutely what you need to sustain and build a fan base. Getting in once every seven or eight years simply won't do that. Mark

Want to thank Daniel for publishing my stories after I send them to him. Always appreciated. Mark

Part II of the series is now up at Chicago Now / Sox Net for those who are interested. We look at how close the Sox came to getting some of the biggest power hitters of the 1960's, who was offered and why they didn't succeed and then look at the White Sox TV decisions with moving to WFLD in 1968 and SportsVision. Hope you enjoy reading it. Mark

BMags: Also keep in mind Robertson threw a lot of innings the last few years with the Yankees and that's not counting the times he warmed up and wasn't used. It all adds up. The Sox have to seriously think about moving Danks to the pen if they in fact get back in the race. You simply can't have a guy getting beat up and blowing out the bull pen in three out of every four of his starts. But with what he's getting paid would the Sox do that? Mark

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Jul 27, 2015 -> 09:08 AM) I enjoy the game of baseball. I’ve watched other teams on TV, I’ve watched minor league games in person. I’ve watched a ton of (fast-pitch and slow-pitch) softball both on TV and in person as well. From t-ball all the way up to professional. The difference is that when I’m watching those games, I’m not emotionally involved in who wins or loses. When I watch the Sox, I want them to win. When they don’t, I get upset and don’t want to watch anymore. I’m not going to punish myself by watching something that’s just going to make me mad. So I’ll simply turn off the TV and find something else to do. That’s just me personally. I’m sure there are still people out there that can watch the Sox and have a good time whether they win or lose. I don’t think that makes me a fair-weather fan either. I still follow the team and hope they do well. I still wear my t-shirts and hats. I still defend them to my Cub fan friends. I just have a really hard time watching them lose. From my interview with Brooks Boyer a few years ago. He understands Sox fans and their passion and it falls in line with what Iwritecode is saying. For the record I'm the same way, when the Sox are losing I really don't pay close attention...why put myself through that. Winning is what matters to me. Anyway here is the comment, “I’ve found that Sox fans are extremely passionate about the team and I think there’s a lot of truth to the sense that they are really educated fans. They “get it.” I don’t pay a lot of attention to what the media says about us or the spin they try to put on things and by and large I don’t think our fans do either. They aren’t going to be influenced by what someone on TV or the radio says. They’ll look at the situation and decide based on the facts. There’s a reason our motto is, “pride, passion, tradition…” that’s a reflection of the fans and the organization. We still have something to prove both on and off the field. Our fans feel that way and they expect the same work ethic and passion from us. In fact our slogan for this season reflects that attitude, “share the passion, show the swagger.” “What I don’t like about Sox fans is that there aren’t enough of them! (laughing)” “About the only think that I wish I could change long-term is that sometimes the passion from our fans can be a weakness. What I mean is that a lot of Sox fans are so passionate, so into the team that if things aren’t going well, they get mad, they get fed up… they say, ‘I’m not going to watch these guys, I’m not going to listen to them and I’m not going to show up at the game.’” Mark

QUOTE (Tex @ Jul 26, 2015 -> 06:31 PM) Sorry, but that is entirely wrong. The casual fans are the ones that in the end determine the attendance. Those fair weather fans that attend a game or two every year buy hundreds of thousands of tickets. The hard core fan base of both Chicago teams is about the same. What the two teams fight for are the "fair weather fans" who decide which team to go see. It's unfair really to call the fair weather fans, they don't necessarily declare loyalty to any team. They just like getting to a baseball game now and then. The Sox lost them in the 1970s by trying pay per view while the Cubs were carried on WGN. They don't attend the games on the cheap. It's an event and they will buy the souvenirs, pay the going rate for parking, eat and drink. They will get their peanuts and crackerjacks. Without casual fans the team has the payroll of the Pirates. Just one correction, SportsVision was started in 1982. Outside of that I agree with your comment. Mark

QUOTE (BigEdWalsh @ Jul 25, 2015 -> 08:17 PM) Sounds like awesome stuff. I'm particularly interested in the Ray Herbert stuff. He was one of my favorites when I was a kid. Later this week (I forget what day exactly...) he talks about pitching (and winning) the 1962 All Star Game at Wrigley Field. Mark

Gillaspie now 2-2 in his Angels debut. Mark

Just wanted to let everyone know that this week, in an effort to make reading This Date In Sox History more enjoyable, we are going to be making some additions. As some of you know I’ve had the pleasure of interviewing around 60 members of the White Sox family over the years. Some of the people I’ve talked with have actually been a part of some of the historical events that are written about daily over at Chicago Now / Sox Net. So where appropriate, I’m going to start including excerpts from those interviews. Later this coming week for example, you can read comments from Joe Horlen, Ray Herbert and Eric Soderholm about their remembrances of some of the historic events in White Sox history. I hope you’ll enjoy this addition. Also with help from Daniel Shapiro, on the 31st of July and continuing in the future there will be times when you can actually listen to the historic moments…that’s right… I said listen to those moments as called by Sox announcers like Bob Elson, Don Wells, Milo Hamilton, Jack Drees, Harry Caray, Jimmy Piersall, Joe McConnell, John Rooney, Don Drysdale and “Hawk” Harrrelson. Again it’s something that I hope will peak your interest. That’s “This Date In Sox History” located at Chicago Now / Sox Net. Many thanks, Mark

I know there was a thread started and much discussion over the possibility of the Sox trying to get Puig from the Dodgers. Just FYI, according to Heyman at CBS Sports.com in a story this morning, the Dodgers have told him he will not be traded. Mark

Just saw a story by Heyman at CBSSports.com where the Dodgers have told Puig they are not trading him for what it's worth. Mark

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 24, 2015 -> 06:46 PM) I'm just not sure this is true in this era any more. Even average, cost-controlled position players are starting to look like all-stars. Guys I barely wanted 5-6 years ago are now legit AS starters, while guys who today are top 10 Cy Young award people have stuff that seems like it would blow peak Johan Santana out of the water. I think there is some truth to what you say. There are more guys for example dealing 100 MPH then ever before but how many teams can say they have five 'decent' starters and the bullpen to back them? Still pretty rare. The Sox could be in that position if Rodon, Fullmer, Eric Johnson develop in the next two years (since they'll be losing Shark and Danks). I can understand if they feel they can't gamble and deplete that potential rotation even further. (And like with anything else, there's no guarantees someone doesn't get hurt, or simply lose it.) Mark

QUOTE (oldsox @ Jul 24, 2015 -> 08:12 PM) Phillies much are worse. Maybe Boston, too. Two big differences between those franchises and the White Sox in my opinion. 1. Both have won World Series more recently than the White Sox. Their fan base hasn't reached the point that by and large the Sox fan base has. 2. Both are the "only game in town." No other team in their market baseball-wise taking away the casual fans and their dollars or generating positive publicity. Phillies and Red Sox still draw pretty well, much better than the White Sox who last I looked were 27th or 28th in MLB. (That may have changed recently as they drew well for the Royals series because of the 2005 reunion and the Cardinals who brought a ton of fans with them...) Mark

QUOTE (oldsox @ Jul 24, 2015 -> 08:12 PM) Phillies much are worse. Maybe Boston, too. And the Sox had some really bad teams in 60's and 70's, much worse than today's club. That's true but they were never that irrelevant in their own market. John Allyn made the drastic changes that were needed in September 1970 after the disasters of 68 and 69 to change the direction of the franchise and by 1972 they were a contender. And Bill Veeck despite his issues (and he had many) at least was always cooking up crazy things to keep the fans / media interested in the team even with four losing seasons in the five years he owned them. If you look at the totality of the situation (save for the financial side - all MLB teams are rolling in money) the Sox are in a bad state right now. I talked about some of the issues in my column "Loyalty without Accountability..." Attendance has dropped eight straight years, TV ratings are rock bottom, the media by and large could care less. Now throw in the Cubs who look like they have an actual future. The Sox keep stumbling around, getting in their own way, talking about "three year windows," and can't seem to right the ship. That's a dangerous state to be in, in my opinion. Mark

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Jul 24, 2015 -> 07:23 PM) If people don't want to watch the Sox, then just don't watch them. We're better off without fair-weather fans. Just don't come back when we start winning. Jose: Like them or not, you've got to have them to spin the turnstiles and fork over their money. That's the difference between having a major budget for a major market team and not having the chance to sign a lot of guys that you need. Mark

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 24, 2015 -> 05:37 PM) I really am not surprised that our position players rank that poorly. It is also why I have struggled to see how Sox management can't make moves to enhance the lineup and focus on getting new young talent (and not be worried about contending for the rest of the season). I also think being this bad (even though in some cases, I expect more reversion to the mean by the end of the year) is why we need to move some assets on the pitching side to try and change the position dynamic and that means dealing from our strength's (one of Q / Sale). When it comes to ratings, I'm about as big of a fan as I can get and to be frank, I can't stand to watch this team. I often find myself get so frustrated by their poor fundamentals that I just turn the game off. Chisox: I have no inside knowledge but I think the Sox would very much like to make some moves. The thing is though, you need two to make a deal and frankly they just may not have a lot that anybody else wants (Assuming of course based on an article I read last week I think in the Sun-Times that Sale and Jose were basically "untouchable..." Pitching to me is the single most important (and rare) aspect to the game today so I can see why the Sox would be reluctant to do that. However as you point out, they are between a rock and a hard place, the only way to get good positional talent may force them to have to move pitching. (Which could create more holes...) A decade (or more) of neglecting the farm system and being unwilling to spend money on it is now coming home to roost. Mark

Don't know if anybody has seen these two articles that came out today. I've included the links to them. After reading them the conclusion I come to is that this franchise is in deep, deep trouble. In trouble from a competitive standpoint, in trouble from an attendance standpoint, in trouble from a rating / viewer standpoint and in trouble from a perception / relevance standpoint. (Notice however I didn't say from a financial standpoint...) Overall it appears to me this franchise hasn't been this bad off since the late 80's when they were threatening to move to Florida. Just look where the Sox rank TV-wise in the two graphs: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/new-numbers...n-not-imminent/ "This isn’t just a bad group of position players, it is arguably one of the worst collections of position players ever assembled." http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-impress...te-sox-offense/ Mark

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 24, 2015 -> 02:38 PM) Reinsdorf was in love with Royals (Kauffman) Stadium for some reason and wanted the same stadium. That's what he got minus fountains. A pretty bland Cell. The Sox were mostly concerned with improving the clubhouses and offices and that's what they got. Except for die hard Sox fans most agree the Cell is a lousy looking ballpark. Great food and drink and all that but lousy ballpark. It was when it first opened but I don't think you can say that now. It's one of the nicer ones around in my mind. Jerry didn't want Kauffman so much as he wanted that additional level for 'sky boxes' (which he was never able to sell) which pushed the upper deck higher. The last row of the original Comiskey Park bleachers was actually closer to home plate than the first row of the upper deck at the new park when it opened. Mark

Just contributing to this discussion, FYI, in the book "Ballpark: The Building of Camden Yards," a rep from the HOK architectural firm was quoted as saying that JR was given the option to build Camden Yards in essence instead of what took place with the new Comiskey Park and turned it down. He was shown the plans but said no. And the rep specifically named him not another member of the organization when talking about that decision. The HOK firm designed the plans for both stadiums. Mark

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 24, 2015 -> 09:26 AM) I think shortstop might be in the mix as well as outfielder and starting pitching. Bottom line, this org is never shy about acquiring pitching so if they get the right pitching prospect, I am sure they'd be more then willing to take it. I still think to really get back to 2016, one of Q / Sale needs to go (counter-intuitive, sure, but bottom line, we need some stellar young position talent and those are the guys that can get you multiple impact pieces). You then have more risk on the rotation, however, we have a few more chips their and a much better track record of success. For what it's worth in the Sun-Times today they had a little blurb where it was said the Sox probably won't be picking up Ramirez' 10 million option for next season so shortstop could be in the mix regarding any trades in the next week. Mark

By the numbers: 7th time this year the Sox have lost a game when leading in the 7th inning or later. 52nd time this season they've scored three runs or less in a game. 14th time this year Sox lose a game when allowing three runs or less. Good teams find ways to win, bad teams find ways to lose. Hit by Pitcher and catcher interference both loom big and both cross the plate. Mark

QUOTE (harkness @ Jul 21, 2015 -> 10:07 PM) There is likely some dysfunction at the top and not everything its Ventura's fault but this team just plays such dumb/uninspired baseball. Makes you wonder just exactly what they do in spring training. The last 10 days of it were brutal capped off by Charlotte pounding them. They were flat on opening day in Kansas City...they were flatter for the home opener for Minnesota. In my opinion that does fall directly on Ventura and his coaching staff. Mark

QUOTE (The Ginger Kid @ Jul 21, 2015 -> 03:57 PM) I got the impression that the article was suggesting a wholesale sea-change as an organization, not a hatchet job on Kenny. The facts illustrated don't lie: drop in attendance, inability to produce a consistent winner and a lack of accountability due to a misguided sense of loyalty. Sure, Kenny sits near the top. But the guy who's really responsible is Jerry Reinsdorf. And if he's anything like the old people in my family, the older they are the more difficult change becomes. Great read, Lip Thanks for the kind words. That is what I was trying to get across...that there needs to be strong consideration given by JR to an organizational change and a change in philosophy. Mark