Irreconcilable Differences

[southsider2k5]

Absolute throw away comments.

 

I am glad you admitted you have said nothing of substance then, because it was a rephrasing of your post.

[Jordan4life_2007]

[Thad Bosley]

I am glad you admitted you have said nothing of substance then, because it was a rephrasing of your post.

LOL - there are more posters agreeing with me than you, if you haven't noticed.

 

As for substance, I've provided fact after fact after fact that, of course, there is a correlation between winning and attendance, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. You, on the other hand, have provided absolutely nothing to this discussion, except unnecessary sarcasm and a poorly formed opinion of the fan base based on, what? Conjecture? Certainly nothing verifiable, whatever it is.

 

[Dick Allen]

LOL - there are more posters agreeing with me than you, if you haven't noticed.

 

As for substance, I've provided fact after fact after fact that, of course, there is a correlation between winning and attendance, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. You, on the other hand, have provided absolutely nothing to this discussion, except unnecessary sarcasm and a poorly formed opinion of the fan base based on, what? Conjecture? Certainly nothing verifiable, whatever it is.

Not any more. Explain 2008 and 2012.

[Andy the Clown]

What I have said repeatedly, in relation to why the organization continually has attendance problems, is that we don't win enough. What I've also said repeatedly is that winning is defined as making it to the postseason more often than we do, and then when we get there playing exciting and competitive baseball. I have never once said anything as absurd as we need to win the "trophy" every year, or that we should be in the playoffs every single year. That's ridiculous. But outside of 2005 which, of course, was off-the-charts amazing, in Reinsdorf's 34 other years as owner, there are but four measly playoff appearances and a combined four wins amongst them. So you tell me with that record over three and a half decades now, or even in particular the decade since '05, why anyone should be surprised that attendance is what it is. These attendance issues are a cumulative effect of the lack of achievement by this franchise.

 

As I've said a million times now, we have a dormant fan base that will respond enthusiastically to a team that engages in exciting postseason play. They got a taste of what's that's like in '05, and you couldn't ask for better attendance the following season. But outside of '05, they have not been given that experience at all during our lifetimes. Most of the other franchises have delivered more exciting results to their fans, and the facts support that. For that, I think Mr. Reinsdorf and his management team deserve legitimate criticism. I also think, and this is just my opinion, but I also think the fortunes of this franchise will not change for the better until there is a new owner. It's been 35 years now.

 

Your posts in this thread have been wonderfully insightful, and have helped me to crystallize my own thoughts on this topic.

 

I'd just like to add another item about the Reinsdorf-owned Sox: Not only has the franchise not won enough, it doesn't believe in the value of building a minor league system. That is an organizational philosophy straight from the top; JR doesn't believe in making premium investments in prospects who haven't "proven" anything yet. So, we take the cheapest route possible in building our system. It isn't a coincidence that the only sustained period of success during the Reinsdorf era came from the efforts of the Himes regime. Instead, we rely on dumpster diving -- looking for bargain free agents and hoping they pan out. Usually, they don't; with 2005 being the glaring exception.

 

Part of the way fans develop a passion for their teams is by following their minor league prospects as they develop. It gives the fans a greater sense of identification with the players as they roll through the system, and the bond with them is strong once they reach the majors. Of course, we have had relatively few prospects worth following the past decade. Many of those who have developed have been traded away.

 

In sum, we don't believe in building from within, and we won't pay top prices for premier free agents. What is left is the steaming pile of mediocrity that is the JR Sox. Like I said in an earlier post, I can no longer support this franchise with this owner. It's difficult to say this, as I've loved the Sox with all my heart since 76. But the bottom line is that this is entertainment. This is not life and death; it's baseball. And if following this team makes me miserable because I fundamentally disagree with several key principles upon which it is run, the onus is on me to change my behavior. I certainly do not expect JR to change.

 

I live in Dallas, and my son loves the Rangers. For years I've tried to steer him towards the Sox, but he finds their games "horrifyingly boring". He always has. Even though the Rangers suck, he'd rather watch them lose 10-7 than watch the Sox win. I'm learning to embrace his thought process, and enjoy the game of baseball with his team rather than worry about the perpetual incompetence of my own.

[southsider2k5]

LOL - there are more posters agreeing with me than you, if you haven't noticed.

 

As for substance, I've provided fact after fact after fact that, of course, there is a correlation between winning and attendance, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. You, on the other hand, have provided absolutely nothing to this discussion, except unnecessary sarcasm and a poorly formed opinion of the fan base based on, what? Conjecture? Certainly nothing verifiable, whatever it is.

 

I have provided the obvious answers that you feel hurt feelings to acknowledge. I have 115 years of attendance and White Sox history to back me up, but you know, what is that really worth. Fans abandon the White Sox during all but the very best times. I don't see why that is such a painful thing for people to admit. All of the reasons you keep giving at why fans don't go to games do nothing but back that fact up. That is the very definition of a bandwagon fan base. If that isn't a bandwagon fanbase, I would love to hear what your definition of that actually is, and why the Sox fan base doesn't fit that criteria, because nothing you have said in all of your posts has said anything that doesn't reinforce every single thing I have been saying all along.

[Andy the Clown]

I have 115 years of attendance and White Sox history to back me up, but you know, what is that really worth. Fans abandon the White Sox during all but the very best times.

 

If the attendance data you are referencing support your statement, then the Sox should move. Perhaps Chicago simply cannot support two teams?

[Balta1701]

If the attendance data you are referencing support your statement, then the Sox should move. Perhaps Chicago simply cannot support two teams?

That sounds like the logical follow up to every point he's made in this thread but when I've pointed that out that's the one detail he hasn't responded to.

[caulfield12]

Once again, nobody has countered all of the teams listed over and over again in this thread that have been brought up.

 

All we hear are comparisons to the Red Sox, Tigers, Cubs, Cardinals, etc., and how their fanbases are more "loyal" or not bandwagon when the majority act/behave just like we do in terms of supporting winning teams and/or superior ballparks or gameday experiences.

 

The only example that might be relevant to us is the Milwaukee Brewers, who once again have their market all alone and a much nicer facility for their fans.

 

I've also provided a link to a website that showed that "local/Illinois/regional" fans were almost exactly the same for the Cubs and White Sox as recently as 2010. (In other words, the only reason for the bigger attendance a full 4 years after the World Series was tourism/Wrigleyville/out of state/regional states fan groups who were drawn in by the historic nature of the park, day baseball, the 100+ year losing streak, etc.)

 

 

2008 is very simple to explain. Attendance is a function of the previous season, to a large degree.

 

The same reason attendance was better in 2006 than 2005 is the reason you saw a falloff in 2008...largely due to fact that the 2nd half collapse in 2006 lopped off some fans, and the 2007 disaster wiped out yet another 25% of the season ticket base.

 

If you want to say that 2008 and 2012 were disappointments, show the proof that the walk-up numbers were lower in those years than 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, etc. Call or e-mail Brooks Boyer.

 

2012's "disappointing" attendance was likewise directly related to the disastrous 2011 "all in" season...because surely another 15-20% of the group remaining from the excitement of 2008 and 2010 and the World Series was wiped out.

 

If you want to say Chicago White Sox fans didn't support those 2008 and 2012 teams with excitement/enthusiasm/passion, then the better numbers to look at aren't the offseason ticket packages that make up 80% of attendance but the walk-up/week of game attendance numbers for 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015.

 

I'm sure you will see a significant increase in walk-up in 2008, 2010 and 2012.

 

 

 

Likewise, I'm so tired of White Sox fans being criticized as if they're the singularity event of that phenomenon when it permeates nearly every non-winning franchise in baseball in a similar fashion.

 

We could go to Oakland, TB, Minnesota, Cincy, Minnesota, Colorado, NY Mets, Atlanta, Seattle Mariners, Houston Astros (remember, they had the worst televisoin ratings in history in recent years with an "exciting/rebuilding" team), Baltimore, Toronto, Pittsburgh and Cleveland websites and read the exact same comments, if not worse.

 

By most of the the definitions here, the Minnesota Twins fans SUCK and are bandwagon fans. But they won 6 of 9 division championships!!! They got a brand new outdoor stadium, too....so why is attendance there way down this season over 2011, 12, 13 and 14? Because they've been losing (terribly) for four consecutive years, and their season ticket packages eroded coming into 2015. Walk-up alone won't offset that.

Edited May 25, 2015 by caulfield12

[Thad Bosley]

Your posts in this thread have been wonderfully insightful, and have helped me to crystallize my own thoughts on this topic.

 

I'd just like to add another item about the Reinsdorf-owned Sox: Not only has the franchise not won enough, it doesn't believe in the value of building a minor league system. That is an organizational philosophy straight from the top; JR doesn't believe in making premium investments in prospects who haven't "proven" anything yet. So, we take the cheapest route possible in building our system. It isn't a coincidence that the only sustained period of success during the Reinsdorf era came from the efforts of the Himes regime. Instead, we rely on dumpster diving -- looking for bargain free agents and hoping they pan out. Usually, they don't; with 2005 being the glaring exception.

 

Part of the way fans develop a passion for their teams is by following their minor league prospects as they develop. It gives the fans a greater sense of identification with the players as they roll through the system, and the bond with them is strong once they reach the majors. Of course, we have had relatively few prospects worth following the past decade. Many of those who have developed have been traded away.

 

In sum, we don't believe in building from within, and we won't pay top prices for premier free agents. What is left is the steaming pile of mediocrity that is the JR Sox. Like I said in an earlier post, I can no longer support this franchise with this owner. It's difficult to say this, as I've loved the Sox with all my heart since 76. But the bottom line is that this is entertainment. This is not life and death; it's baseball. And if following this team makes me miserable because I fundamentally disagree with several key principles upon which it is run, the onus is on me to change my behavior. I certainly do not expect JR to change.

 

I live in Dallas, and my son loves the Rangers. For years I've tried to steer him towards the Sox, but he finds their games "horrifyingly boring". He always has. Even though the Rangers suck, he'd rather watch them lose 10-7 than watch the Sox win. I'm learning to embrace his thought process, and enjoy the game of baseball with his team rather than worry about the perpetual incompetence of my own.

Excellent points, Andy. I would say this to you: I cheered on and supported our White Sox before Reinsdorf and his 1981 self-proclaimed "first class organization" came to town. I have stayed with the team through the 35 years of his stewardship, despite my disappointment in both the on-the-field and off-the-field results during the great majority of this time. I will continue to do so for the remainder of his ownership and hope for the best, but not too terribly optimistic if history is to be my guide with this management team. And most importantly, I will cheer this team on in the post-Reinsdorf era, and I very much look forward to that point in time.

[Thad Bosley]

I have provided the obvious answers that you feel hurt feelings to acknowledge. I have 115 years of attendance and White Sox history to back me up, but you know, what is that really worth. Fans abandon the White Sox during all but the very best times. I don't see why that is such a painful thing for people to admit. All of the reasons you keep giving at why fans don't go to games do nothing but back that fact up. That is the very definition of a bandwagon fan base. If that isn't a bandwagon fanbase, I would love to hear what your definition of that actually is, and why the Sox fan base doesn't fit that criteria, because nothing you have said in all of your posts has said anything that doesn't reinforce every single thing I have been saying all along.

The "very best of times" of which you speak have been very few and far between throughout those 115 years, which is the point I keep trying to make. When you cannot point to one instance during those 115 years where the team even once went to the post season in consecutive years, what does that tell you? It means achievement has been less than desirable, to say the least. You want attendance? Well you have to get it the 'ol fashioned way: you have to earn it.

[Dick Allen]

Once again, nobody has countered all of the teams listed over and over again in this thread that have been brought up.

 

All we hear are comparisons to the Red Sox, Tigers, Cubs, Cardinals, etc., and how their fanbases are more "loyal" or not bandwagon when the majority act/behave just like we do in terms of supporting winning teams and/or superior ballparks or gameday experiences.

 

The only example that might be relevant to us is the Milwaukee Brewers, who once again have their market all alone and a much nicer facility for their fans.

 

I've also provided a link to a website that showed that "local/Illinois/regional" fans were almost exactly the same for the Cubs and White Sox as recently as 2010. (In other words, the only reason for the bigger attendance a full 4 years after the World Series was tourism/Wrigleyville/out of state/regional states fan groups who were drawn in by the historic nature of the park, day baseball, the 100+ year losing streak, etc.)

 

 

2008 is very simple to explain. Attendance is a function of the previous season, to a large degree.

 

The same reason attendance was better in 2006 than 2005 is the reason you saw a falloff in 2008...largely due to fact that the 2nd half collapse in 2006 lopped off some fans, and the 2007 disaster wiped out yet another 25% of the season ticket base.

 

If you want to say that 2008 and 2012 were disappointments, show the proof that the walk-up numbers were lower in those years than 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, etc. Call or e-mail Brooks Boyer.

 

2012's "disappointing" attendance was likewise directly related to the disastrous 2011 "all in" season...because surely another 15-20% of the group remaining from the excitement of 2008 and 2010 and the World Series was wiped out.

 

If you want to say Chicago White Sox fans didn't support those 2008 and 2012 teams with excitement/enthusiasm/passion, then the better numbers to look at aren't the offseason ticket packages that make up 80% of attendance but the walk-up/week of game attendance numbers for 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015.

 

I'm sure you will see a significant increase in walk-up in 2008, 2010 and 2012.

 

 

 

Likewise, I'm so tired of White Sox fans being criticized as if they're the singularity event of that phenomenon when it permeates nearly every non-winning franchise in baseball in a similar fashion.

 

We could go to Oakland, TB, Minnesota, Cincy, Minnesota, Colorado, NY Mets, Atlanta, Seattle Mariners, Houston Astros (remember, they had the worst televisoin ratings in history in recent years with an "exciting/rebuilding" team), Baltimore, Toronto, Pittsburgh and Cleveland websites and read the exact same comments, if not worse.

 

By most of the the definitions here, the Minnesota Twins fans SUCK and are bandwagon fans. But they won 6 of 9 division championships!!! They got a brand new outdoor stadium, too....so why is attendance there way down this season over 2011, 12, 13 and 14? Because they've been losing (terribly) for four consecutive years, and their season ticket packages eroded coming into 2015. Walk-up alone won't offset that.

 

 

Then explain 2009 and 2013

[caulfield12]

Then explain 2009 and 2013

 

 

In the end, the team has to win.

 

Even without Quentin.

 

 

Besides 2005 and the Blackout Game (which everyone acknowledges would have been a loss in Minnesota if not for Hahn's kid lucking out on the coin flip), there's just not enough.

 

Would White Sox fans have honestly been EXCITED heading into those two off-seasons? Not the way the previous seasons ended. Everyone felt 2012 was a fluke, and 2013 and 2014 proved that it was more of an anomaly than a return to even "mediocrity."

[fathom]

I will never change my allegiance, but any fans that might have returned due to this offseason are going to jump off again and will likely only respond to winning and not transactions.

Edited May 26, 2015 by fathom

[Thad Bosley]

Then explain 2009 and 2013

Oh, c'mon, Dick. You are one of the smartest posters on this site. This isn't that hard to understand. This team has been so unsuccessful for so long, they are going to need to not only get into the playoffs for a few seasons or so in a row, but also get deep into them and play some good and exciting baseball while there to get people excited about this team. That's where the team's record of futility has left this franchise. The 2008 team went out meekly and quickly against the Rays in '08, and didn't even make it to the playoffs in '12. Again, look at how the base reacted to the '05 team. Look at how the exciting playoff action that year translated into outstanding attendance the following year. We need a run of playoff action similar to that to build up our fan base. It can be done, as proven by the Tigers, Twins and Indians since the advent of the AL Central Division, and it's now looking like the Royals are getting in on the action. The White Sox, meanwhile, don't. That is the problem.

[Dick Allen]

In the end, the team has to win.

 

Even without Quentin.

 

 

Besides 2005 and the Blackout Game (which everyone acknowledges would have been a loss in Minnesota if not for Hahn's kid lucking out on the coin flip), there's just not enough.

 

Would White Sox fans have honestly been EXCITED heading into those two off-seasons? Not the way the previous seasons ended. Everyone felt 2012 was a fluke, and 2013 and 2014 proved that it was more of an anomaly than a return to even "mediocrity."

So the winning that particular season doesn't matter you have to wait until the next season, but that doesn't matter either. Got it. The Sox attendance was lower in 2008 than in 2007 when for most of the season, they either had or were really close to the worst record in baseball. Winning didn't matter. Now,as the poster posted, the onky wasy fir a season to be successful or exciting is a team that wins a WS. So you don't even know if a season is exciting until it is over.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Dick Allen

[mmmmmbeeer]

Great posts throughout this thread, Thad.

 

The older I get the more work experience I have. The more work experience I have, the more I recognize organizational failure. The more I recognize organization failure, the more I find myself becoming indifferent to the Sox. I love the franchise....always have and always will. But am I going to dedicate time and money to watch the same damn thing happen over, and over, and over, and over, and over again while the organizational leadership does nothing to adjust? Hell no...I've got better things to do on a Saturday afternoon than spend 3-4 hours parked in front of the TV...nor am I going to ask my family to make the trek from ATL to CHI to catch a game when the game has a 70% chance of being boring as hell and resulting in a Sox loss.

 

I truly liked what Hahn did this offseason but, unfortunately, we aren't getting the results we should be. Instead of rocking the boat, ownership/management is going to do what they always seem to do...throw up their hands and say "maybe next year". It's infuriating and truly makes me not give a damn when they're struggling. I still check the scores, catch a few innings here and there, read Soxtalk, but I refuse to invest valuable time into something that is so predictably flawed and disappointing until they do something about it.

[caulfield12]

So the winning that particular season doesn't matter you have to wait until the next season, but that doesn't matter either. Got it. The Sox attendance was lower in 2008 than in 2007 when for most of the season, they either had or were really close to the worst record in baseball. Winning didn't matterr. Now,as the poster posted, the onky wasy fir a season to be successful or exciting is a team that wins a WS. So you don't even know if a season is exciting until it is over.

 

 

And, for the 10,000 time, 80% of 2007 attendance was in the books before the season even started.

 

Fans still had faith in the team, despite the way 2006 ended.

 

2007 wiped that out.

 

If you gave the 2007 season ticket holders the right to cancel halfway through August that year, the rate would have been 75%. Those fans were NOT SUPPORTING LOSING BASEBALL, they were locked into their ticket packages but not showing up at games. They were disguised as empty seats but still counted attendance-wise.

 

And, for the 10,000 time, it's not about WINNING the World Series, it's about a team having a legitimate chance to do so. That 2008 team, without Quentin, was dead in the water coming down the stretch and only made it because the Twins choked worse and then there were those final 3-4 games that were incredibly exciting. Nobody in the entire world predicted they would get past the Rays, though. Not even any of the Chicago/Sox beat writers.

 

Other than that, the 2003 and 2006 teams were the last ones capable of making deep playoff runs. White Sox fans are definitely not stupid.

 

 

[caulfield12]

21,748 per game (2012)

21,614 per game (2013)

24,154 per game (2014, finish with over .500 record and not in last for first time since 2003)

31,815 per game (2015, leading the Cubs in attendance at #8 despite LOSING the World Series)

 

32% attendance increase in that major market, Kansas City. Field a team that wins, you get rewarded. Or even makes it to the World Series and loses.

 

 

The White Sox had a 50% increase in 2006 over 2004. 26% increase 2006 over 2005.

Edited May 26, 2015 by caulfield12

[Andy the Clown]

Great posts throughout this thread, Thad.

 

The older I get the more work experience I have. The more work experience I have, the more I recognize organizational failure. The more I recognize organization failure, the more I find myself becoming indifferent to the Sox. I love the franchise....always have and always will. But am I going to dedicate time and money to watch the same damn thing happen over, and over, and over, and over, and over again while the organizational leadership does nothing to adjust? Hell no...I've got better things to do on a Saturday afternoon than spend 3-4 hours parked in front of the TV...nor am I going to ask my family to make the trek from ATL to CHI to catch a game when the game has a 70% chance of being boring as hell and resulting in a Sox loss.

 

I truly liked what Hahn did this offseason but, unfortunately, we aren't getting the results we should be. Instead of rocking the boat, ownership/management is going to do what they always seem to do...throw up their hands and say "maybe next year". It's infuriating and truly makes me not give a damn when they're struggling. I still check the scores, catch a few innings here and there, read Soxtalk, but I refuse to invest valuable time into something that is so predictably flawed and disappointing until they do something about it.

 

Kudos to you, sir. 100% truth above.

 

I relate to everything you said here, right down to the difficulty in asking your family to invest in a product that is poorly designed and that nobody likes (except maybe you).

[southsider2k5]

The "very best of times" of which you speak have been very few and far between throughout those 115 years, which is the point I keep trying to make. When you cannot point to one instance during those 115 years where the team even once went to the post season in consecutive years, what does that tell you? It means achievement has been less than desirable, to say the least. You want attendance? Well you have to get it the 'ol fashioned way: you have to earn it.

 

It tells me the bandwagon empties very quickly, just like we saw after 2005.

[southsider2k5]

That sounds like the logical follow up to every point he's made in this thread but when I've pointed that out that's the one detail he hasn't responded to.

 

They could, but they choose not to do so. They'd rather stomp and pout like a petulant child about what they should have like a jealous child.

[Andy the Clown]

They could, but they choose not to do so. They'd rather stomp and pout like a petulant child about what they should have like a jealous child.

 

?

 

That makes absolutely no sense.

[Thad Bosley]

?

 

That makes absolutely no sense.

Lol - get used to that in "ss2k5" reasoning on this subject.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Thad Bosley

[Thad Bosley]

It tells me the bandwagon empties very quickly, just like we saw after 2005.

So why not let it replenish as quickly as possible? Let's let the bandwagon open far and wide! That's good for both you and me. That means the team we love and support is actually doing something of interest, which the 2015 brand, much like four of its most previous brands, has not. It also means we can pack our already-diminished ballpark to its diminished capacity. Why would you have a problem with that?