PDA

View Full Version : Dan Roan's Reply


Lip Man 1
05-10-2004, 08:58 PM
I received a nice e-mail tonight from Dan Rohn regarding his comments on the 'defeatists,' attitude that Sox fans or certain members of the organization have.

I have never gotten a reply from Dan before (Hangar have you been after him? LOL) so I wanted to post it here. He clarifies his position somewhat on the issue. I also included my part of the e-mail that I sent him. Thought this may help the discussion.

Dan:

Saw the Brooks Boyer feature on the Instant Replay show tonight off the satellite.

I'm puzzled by your cryptic comment at the end as you were on camera starting your transition to the commercial break. It was the comment along the lines of (and I'm paraphrasing here) Boyer's biggest challenge is changing the 'defeatist' attitude among the fans and in some cases management.

If you meant the owner, the guy who goes on WTTW's 'Chicago Tonight' and says that Chicago is a Cubs town, or goes on ESPN Radio 1000 in June 2002 and says , "Chicago has always been a Cubs town," (which is a blatant lie by the way,) then you should have called him out by name.

If any fans have a 'defeatist' attitude I'd say no World Series appearances since 1959, constant carping by management about the budget and the organization treating fans and the media as enemies have given them some dammed good reasons.

Finally you may be interested in reading this comment from one of your colleagues Bob Vanderberg. It's from his interview with White Sox Interactive:

ML: The Sox basically say they are a "small market" team even though genuine small markets like Seattle, Cleveland, and Colorado spend a lot more money. In the recent past Florida and San Diego have spent more. As long as the current ownership conducts themselves this way is there any hope of a real championship in the future?

BV: "As long as the current economic system is in place, no they don't... they have no hope for a title. By that I mean at least a pennant. For the Sox to win, they need to increase the payroll and stop being so stubborn about things. They also have to get rid of this feeling of inferiority. To me this approach, "we can't compete with the Cubs," sounds like defeatism. I think fans consider that a slap in the face. Sometimes I also think that the folks who work for the team don't even know their own history. Ed Farmer, who grew up on the South Side, seems to talk more about the teams on the West Coast then his own. He seems to know more about them. I also recall a time when Sox announcers Don Drysdale and Frank Messer were wondering on air, where the idea of the "curtain call" came from. They thought it was with Reggie Jackson in New York. It wasn't. It was the 1977 Sox. They also talked about who the first team was to put uniform names on the back of jerseys. They thought it was Charlie Finley with the A's of the early 60's. It wasn't. It was the 1960 White Sox. I mean are the Sox that much of an unknown nationally?"

Mark Liptak

Mark... when I said management, I didn't necessarily mean Reinsdorf.... there are some problems surrounding ownership, I wouldn't dispute that... but everybody always thinks throwing money at a team is going to make them a winner-- I mean, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't-- we've seen the Cubs drop some cash on some horrible free agents that never helped them a lick... but the Sox fans seem to be so bitter, I'm not certain they'll EVER come back...

The success they had in 2000 and the nice run they had last year sure hasn't helped 'em get anybody in the seats to date... but if Boyer and his crew have any chance of doing any good marketing the Sox, everybody in his department will have to embrace what he's trying to do... that would be the case with any marketing person, as it was with Gallas... maybe some of the staffers are feeling that resignation that Vanderberg talked about... so it'll be up to Boyer to get 'em all on the same page, working with enthusiasm toward trying to generate some interest in this team, because from the looks of it so far, there's not much there....

Dan

joecrede
05-10-2004, 09:49 PM
It's hard to argue with Roan's point in his response to you Lip that Sox fans seem bitter.

voodoochile
05-10-2004, 09:59 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
It's hard to argue with Roan's point in his response to you Lip that Sox fans seem bitter.

Which suggests that maybe we have somethings to be bitter about. Roan is just blaming the fans for all the problems. It isn't like this happened on a whim. It took 23 years of JR to put the team and the fanbase where it is.

Calling us bitter only tells half the story, IMO. The real story is "Why are Sox fans bitter?" and for the record, I am not bitter. I just have a healthy dose of skepticism for JR and his management team.

RKMeibalane
05-10-2004, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Which suggests that maybe we have somethings to be bitter about. Roan is just blaming the fans for all the problems. It isn't like this happened on a whim. It took 23 years of JR to put the team and the fanbase where it is.

Calling us bitter only tells half the story, IMO. The real story is "Why are Sox fans bitter?" and for the record, I am not bitter. I just have a healthy dose of skepticism for JR and his management team.

If you ask me, I think Reinsdorf is the one who's bitter, though I've never been able to understand why. No matter how dire the circumstances are, he has always managed to say or do something to alienate even more people, causing what's left of the Sox fan-base to shrink even more.

The man needs to sell the team, preferably by the end of the week.

joecrede
05-10-2004, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
It took 23 years of JR to put the team and the fanbase where it is.

Are you suggesting that the Sox fan base was bigger before Reinsdorf took over than it is today?

RKMeibalane
05-10-2004, 10:16 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
Are you suggesting that the Sox fan base was bigger before Reinsdorf took over than it is today?

It was. The Sox were Chicago's team back in the seventies. The Cubs only gained popularity after JR chased Harry Caray to the North Side.

joecrede
05-10-2004, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by RKMeibalane
It was. The Sox were Chicago's team back in the seventies. The Cubs only gained popularity after JR chased Harry Caray to the North Side.

There's evidence I think that supports the assertion that Reinsdorf has failed to grow the fan base sufficiently, but the Sox history is one of mediocre attendance.

Kilroy
05-10-2004, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by RKMeibalane
It was. The Sox were Chicago's team back in the seventies. The Cubs only gained popularity after JR chased Harry Caray to the North Side.

Uh, that's a little simplistic, don't you think? There's more to it than that. The most obvious thing is the teams that were fielded from 1984 to 1990. Aside from the 1985 crew which finished 3rd, 5 of those 6 years, the Sox finished 5th or worse! That's ****ing putrid. While at the same time, the Cubs put toghether division winning teams in 1984 and 1989. Also at the same time, the Wrigleyville neigborhood that we know today was starting to take shape.

voodoochile
05-10-2004, 10:46 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
Are you suggesting that the Sox fan base was bigger before Reinsdorf took over than it is today?

At least more willing to spend money. Come on, check the history. Heck, check the attendance from pre-1994.

Are you suggesting that JR has not had a bad effect on the fanbase?

voodoochile
05-10-2004, 10:48 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
There's evidence I think that supports the assertion that Reinsdorf has failed to grow the fan base sufficiently, but the Sox history is one of mediocre attendance.

Compared to league average? Remember, there was a time when 1M tickets sold was considered a good season for attendance and people RAVED about 2M tickets sold in a season.

That didn't change until sometime in the late 70's or early 80's.

TornLabrum
05-10-2004, 11:23 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
There's evidence I think that supports the assertion that Reinsdorf has failed to grow the fan base sufficiently, but the Sox history is one of mediocre attendance.

Here's a hint: before going off and making idiotic statements, check your facts.

vegyrex
05-11-2004, 12:10 AM
Originally posted by Kilroy
Uh, that's a little simplistic, don't you think? There's more to it than that. The most obvious thing is the teams that were fielded from 1984 to 1990. Aside from the 1985 crew which finished 3rd, 5 of those 6 years, the Sox finished 5th or worse! That's ****ing putrid. While at the same time, the Cubs put toghether division winning teams in 1984 and 1989. Also at the same time, the Wrigleyville neigborhood that we know today was starting to take shape.

I think you're giving the flubs too much credit. Sure they had division winning teams in '84 and '89 but in between those years they had loosing seasons including a last place finish in '87. In fact '84 and '89 were the flubs only winning seasons in the 80's.

Vernam
05-11-2004, 01:13 AM
I wouldn't say we're "bitter" so much as "paranoid." 8^)

When I lived out of state in the 90s, I came to respect Dan Roan's even-handedness on the Channel 9 news, which was our only source of Sox highlights. You want bias, try ESPN -- they are to the Yanks and Red Sox as the Trib is to the Flubs! But Dan never has taken cheap shots at the Sox, in contrast to WGN lackeys like Chuck Swirsky. What happened to that guy, who seemed the spiritual heir to Jack Brickhouse?

I look for changes in the broadcast team next season. The chemistry on both tv and radio is just non-existent. I don't think that puts fans in the seats, but the Sox broadcasts scream "minor league" and could pretty easily be upgraded.

VC

mdep524
05-11-2004, 02:28 AM
This whole issue is needlessly complex. People who go or don't go to baseball games because of a team's owner value politics more than baseball. Notice I did not say they weren't baseball fans, but they are expressing that their valuation of politics (not supporting JR, etc.) is higher than their valuation of seeing a baseball game.

If the Sox put a good team on the field, baseball fans will come.

TDog
05-11-2004, 03:21 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Compared to league average? Remember, there was a time when 1M tickets sold was considered a good season for attendance and people RAVED about 2M tickets sold in a season.

That didn't change until sometime in the late 70's or early 80's.

No Chicago baseball team drew 2 million until the Sox did so in 1983 and again in 1984, the first year the Cubs did so. However, a Milwaukee team drew more than 3 million in the 1950s.

Bill Veeck, whose payroll was more meager than Reinsdorf's used to say he thought drawing 2 million fans in Chicago would be impossible.

jortafan
05-11-2004, 05:00 AM
Originally posted by TDog
No Chicago baseball team drew 2 million until the Sox did so in 1983 and again in 1984, the first year the Cubs did so. However, a Milwaukee team drew more than 3 million in the 1950s.

Bill Veeck, whose payroll was more meager than Reinsdorf's used to say he thought drawing 2 million fans in Chicago would be impossible.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that it's just a typo that the Milwaukee Braves drew 3 million people back in the 1950s. They were the darlings of baseball because they drew in excess of 2 million per year back in those days.

But you are absolutely right when you mention Veeck's comments. The thing that amazes me when talking about Chicago baseball attendance, along with attendance in general, is the raised expectations. Veeck would have wet his pants with glee if he could ever have consistently drawn 1.6-1.7 million people per year, with crowds nearing 2 million in years when the team contends. That is what the White Sox have done in recent years.

Let's also not forget the early 1990s when the Sox were keeping pace attendance-wise with the top teams of the league. The problem with too many people who talk attendance issues is that they have no clue what the history is.

rahulsekhar
05-11-2004, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by RKMeibalane
If you ask me, I think Reinsdorf is the one who's bitter, though I've never been able to understand why. No matter how dire the circumstances are, he has always managed to say or do something to alienate even more people, causing what's left of the Sox fan-base to shrink even more.

The man needs to sell the team, preferably by the end of the week.

This is what's called banging your head against a wall and hoping that eventually it falls down and you can see through to the other side.

Get this straight: JR IS NOT GOING TO SELL THE TEAM!!! For better or for worse, he is the owner and that's not going to change, especially not given the current stadium deal.

So, fans have a couple of options:

1) Go to games, enjoy them, and with the increased attendance, provide resources to improve the team as well as eliminating one excuse for not increasing payroll. Not insignificantly, this also will help to turn around the media perception/portrayal of the team.

2) Stay home, whine about JR and hope he sells. Deprive yourself of some pretty entertaining baseball and ensure that the team continues to be mediocre and media portrayal of the Sox and their fans continues. It's a self-perpetuating cycle. JR doesn't sell, fans get POd and don't go, attendance is mediocre, media focuses on the empty seats and "negativism", they cry poor and spend like a mid-level team, fans get POd and don't go....and around we go.

But don't fool yourself into thinking you're somehow helping things by "refusing to give JR any of my money and thereby forcing him to sell". Ain't gonna happen. Everyone has the right to make their own decisions on attendance, but IMO too many think they're helping the situation when they're merely perpetuating it.

jackbrohamer
05-11-2004, 09:58 AM
I don't have any respect for sportswriters who carp about attendance. I have never been anywhere where reporters cover a sporting event's attendance more thoroughly than the actual sporting event. Except here, and except for the White Sox

Reproters who bellyache about Sox attendance are, in my opinion, lazy and just parroting the well-covered attendance angle. They deserve to be ignored.

Lip Man 1
05-11-2004, 10:53 AM
Chuck Swirsky is the play by play broadcaster for the University of Michigan where he went to school. (Jack Brickhouse by the way was a huge Sox fan and even tried to warn Ed Short in 1968 that the Sox were making an incredibly bad decision to take their games off WGN in favor of WFLD.)

As far as Joe's comment about the Sox never drawing that well apparently he hasn't seen attendence figures during the 1950's and early 1960's.

And since we are stolling down memory lane remember that doofus Bob Hillman? or how about the most incompetent broadcaster I have ever seen in any market, let alone Chicago, "Sickening" Sid Garcia.


Lip

Hangar18
05-11-2004, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by joecrede
Are you suggesting that the Sox fan base was bigger before Reinsdorf took over than it is today?

YESSSSSS it was. thats why this whole cubbie-phoric media atmosphere is amazing to me ....... JR for 23 years, thru his actions/inactions and the Medias 90 degree turn (suggesting they went from fair 50/50 coverage to 100/0 ) in covering the SOX has led to this situation.

Hangar18
05-11-2004, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar


Get this straight: JR IS NOT GOING TO SELL THE TEAM!!! For better or for worse



Your forgetting 1 thing ..........Reinsdorf CANT LIVE FOREVER.
Hes getting up there in years, and hopefully soon enough, when he passes on to the Golden SkyBox in the Sky (assuming thats where hes going) Things will change dramatically.

joecrede
05-11-2004, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by jortafan
The problem with too many people who talk attendance issues is that they have no clue what the history is.

One of the best comments I've seen on this topic.

Check this out:

Here are the Sox attendances relative to to the rest of the league along with their placing in the standings from 1950-69. (Don't have the time to look up the rest.)

50: 5th out of 8 in atendance, 4th place finish in league
51: 4,4
52: 3,3
53: 2,3
54: 3,3
55: 6,3
56: 5,3
57: 4,2
58: 6,2
59: 3,1

60: 1st out of 8 in attendance, 3rd place in league
61: 4th out of 10 in attendance, 4th place in league
62: 5,5
63: 3,2
64: 2,2
65: 3,2
66: 6,4
67: 7,4
68: 9,9
69: 12th out of 12 in attendance, 5th in A.L. West

Source: Baseball Reference (www.baseball-reference.com)

joecrede
05-11-2004, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
As far as Joe's comment about the Sox never drawing that well apparently he hasn't seen attendence figures during the 1950's and early 1960's.

I have seen 'em Lip and they are mediocre. Check the previous post for details.

rahulsekhar
05-11-2004, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by Hangar18
Your forgetting 1 thing ..........Reinsdorf CANT LIVE FOREVER.
Hes getting up there in years, and hopefully soon enough, when he passes on to the Golden SkyBox in the Sky (assuming thats where hes going) Things will change dramatically.

Well, that's going to happen when it happens, and no amount of fans going to or staying home from the games is going to impact that (unless you believe the stress of an empty park will get to him, IMO it's more likely that the shock of a WS title would do that!).

beckett21
05-11-2004, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar
Well, that's going to happen when it happens, and no amount of fans going to or staying home from the games is going to impact that (unless you believe the stress of an empty park will get to him, IMO it's more likely that the shock of a WS title would do that!).

So...what you're saying is.....

He's gonna live FOREVER! :o:

Medford Bobby
05-11-2004, 11:56 AM
Boy I forgot about Bob Hillman...also I remember Sid Garcia did a report about the first day Old Comiskey was being torn down was also the first day the new park was being shown to the press and I remember Sid saying that after a tour of the new park, the old one has got to go.........fortunately after the old park was torn down, so was Sid who I now see as general assignment reporter for KABC...... For me as a Sox fan back in 1981 when the Sunshine Boys took over...they said they were going to "upscale" the Sox image from working class fans...to pay per view tv, offices for the Sox in the John Hancock, and getting rid of Harry and Jimmy. Also I can never forget the held hostage feeling of dangling the Sox over Florida to get the current cement monument to management that never really tried to embrace it's core base when they took over the club and ever since has been a series of arrogant mistakes (like signing Albert Belle)....accepting the first design for the new park...etc.....Still a hardcore fan, but building a consistent winner is what always brings the fans and that's one thing that's either the wrong GM, manager, pitchers, coaches...whatever!!!!!!

OK, I'll shutup and have a :gulp:

JDP
05-11-2004, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Remember, there was a time when 1M tickets sold was considered a good season for attendance...

The Cubs drew 1M people for the first time in 1927. Do I remember this time? No...

hold2dibber
05-11-2004, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar
This is what's called banging your head against a wall and hoping that eventually it falls down and you can see through to the other side.

Get this straight: JR IS NOT GOING TO SELL THE TEAM!!! For better or for worse, he is the owner and that's not going to change, especially not given the current stadium deal.

So, fans have a couple of options:

1) Go to games, enjoy them, and with the increased attendance, provide resources to improve the team as well as eliminating one excuse for not increasing payroll. Not insignificantly, this also will help to turn around the media perception/portrayal of the team.

2) Stay home, whine about JR and hope he sells. Deprive yourself of some pretty entertaining baseball and ensure that the team continues to be mediocre and media portrayal of the Sox and their fans continues. It's a self-perpetuating cycle. JR doesn't sell, fans get POd and don't go, attendance is mediocre, media focuses on the empty seats and "negativism", they cry poor and spend like a mid-level team, fans get POd and don't go....and around we go.

But don't fool yourself into thinking you're somehow helping things by "refusing to give JR any of my money and thereby forcing him to sell". Ain't gonna happen. Everyone has the right to make their own decisions on attendance, but IMO too many think they're helping the situation when they're merely perpetuating it.

I think a lot of people have a misconception about how JR affects Sox attendance. I don't think there are many people who have made a conscious decision not to go to Sox games because of JR - instead, I think that many people who once counted themselves as Sox fans simply don't care any more and therefore don't go to games. It's not like they're conscientious objectors who desparately want the Sox to win but who refuse on principal to go because of JR - instead, because of the repeated, continuous PR mis-steps under JR's watch over the last 20-some years, they've lost their passion and desire for the Sox (and have failed to pass that passion and desire onto the next generation).

jackbrohamer
05-11-2004, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by Medford Bobby
...... For me as a Sox fan back in 1981 when the Sunshine Boys took over...they said they were going to "upscale" the Sox image from working class fans...to pay per view tv, offices for the Sox in the John Hancock, and getting rid of Harry and Jimmy.

They also spent a few bucks on paint and other things in the early 1980s, then at Sox games they kept announcing how people should keep the place neat.

Sounded like my grandmothers.

Dan H
05-11-2004, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
I think a lot of people have a misconception about how JR affects Sox attendance. I don't think there are many people who have made a conscious decision not to go to Sox games because of JR - instead, I think that many people who once counted themselves as Sox fans simply don't care any more and therefore don't go to games. It's not like they're conscientious objectors who desparately want the Sox to win but who refuse on principal to go because of JR - instead, because of the repeated, continuous PR mis-steps under JR's watch over the last 20-some years, they've lost their passion and desire for the Sox (and have failed to pass that passion and desire onto the next generation).

I agree with this. Attendance has been a historical problem not starting with Jerry Reinsdorf, just made worse by him. We can debate all we want about to change the problem. But yelling and screaming at people to go to the ballpark hasn't worked, will never work. Hold2diibber is right. For many the passion is gone. That is part of the real problem, and the Sox are too arrogant to admit or recognize it.

rahulsekhar
05-11-2004, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
I think a lot of people have a misconception about how JR affects Sox attendance. I don't think there are many people who have made a conscious decision not to go to Sox games because of JR - instead, I think that many people who once counted themselves as Sox fans simply don't care any more and therefore don't go to games. It's not like they're conscientious objectors who desparately want the Sox to win but who refuse on principal to go because of JR - instead, because of the repeated, continuous PR mis-steps under JR's watch over the last 20-some years, they've lost their passion and desire for the Sox (and have failed to pass that passion and desire onto the next generation).

Well, I don't think that a change in ownership is suddenly going to stir up passions among those without it. My comments were directed at the many times I've seen people post that the key to attendance is new ownership and that there are many who just don't forgive JR for the strike or whatever and refuse to go because of that.

FWIW, I agree with you that the passionate fans are declining in number. However, that being the case, it makes it more understandable that there would be concern among ownership that spending on payroll might not translate into $$$. Especially if despite spending, they don't win (which can easily happen based on injury, opponents hot streak, team slump, etc.).

Medford Bobby
05-11-2004, 02:38 PM
By all accounts the Sox should have moved out of Chicago in the 1960's when changing demo's in the city, construction of the Dan Ryan, low income housing with the near by projects made the park a ghost town by 1970 (along with crappy teams after the death of the Go Go Sox era)...the Sox would have been moved to Milwaukee( remember "Home" games in Milwaukee?) and Drink A Bud would have probably owned that team for the last 30 odd years.......(Seattle sued the AL for a replacement for the Pilots and they had their sites on the Sox in 1975.....yep, thank Veeck for saving the franchise)


Yes I remember the blue seat era, but kinda get nostalgic for the red seat era...any theories as to why they went to red?...because of the uniform change too??????? :?:

BigFrankFan
05-11-2004, 03:45 PM
I disagree. There are several ways to track this but I think it was both the strike season & the breakup of the Bulls that created a backlash on JR that will not change short of a world championship by one or the other. You don't see as much of an effect in attendance with the Bulls because the salary cap there makes it harder to see JR as a bad guy.
With the Bulls it was Krause who by & large was seen responsible for the breakup & he now works for the Yanks. Not even employed in the sport.

If Comcast announced ownership of the team going into 2005 I'm certain ticket sales would go up. If they had an energetic FA off-season they might make it over the 2 million mark in 2005.

TheBull19
05-11-2004, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
I have seen 'em Lip and they are mediocre. Check the previous post for details.

They're mediocre compared to todays standards but if you compare them to other attendance figures at the time the numbers ranged from solid to very good, outdrawing the yankees a few times and outdrawing the cubs just about every year from 1950-1967.

TheBull19
05-11-2004, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
I think a lot of people have a misconception about how JR affects Sox attendance. I don't think there are many people who have made a conscious decision not to go to Sox games because of JR - instead, I think that many people who once counted themselves as Sox fans simply don't care any more and therefore don't go to games. It's not like they're conscientious objectors who desparately want the Sox to win but who refuse on principal to go because of JR - instead, because of the repeated, continuous PR mis-steps under JR's watch over the last 20-some years, they've lost their passion and desire for the Sox (and have failed to pass that passion and desire onto the next generation).

I don't know about that. My dad for one has not gone to a single game at comiskey but still follows the Sox and will drive up to Detroit or even cleveland occassionally to see them play. Before '94 I'd say he'd average about 18 games a year, typically buying 2-4 tickets per game. I'll say an average of 3 per game. Thats 54 tickets per year for ten years -540 tickets that one man in NE Indiana did not buy over the last 10 years. I have not since attended a game at comiskey either, though I've gone to see them elsewhere and watch all the games I can on TV.
I'm sure there are many people who have just lost interest but if there's just a few thousand people like me and my dad that could add up to a couple hundred thousand tickets a year.

voodoochile
05-11-2004, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
One of the best comments I've seen on this topic.

Check this out:

Here are the Sox attendances relative to to the rest of the league along with their placing in the standings from 1950-69. (Don't have the time to look up the rest.)

50: 5th out of 8 in atendance, 4th place finish in league
51: 4,4
52: 3,3
53: 2,3
54: 3,3
55: 6,3
56: 5,3
57: 4,2
58: 6,2
59: 3,1

60: 1st out of 8 in attendance, 3rd place in league
61: 4th out of 10 in attendance, 4th place in league
62: 5,5
63: 3,2
64: 2,2
65: 3,2
66: 6,4
67: 7,4
68: 9,9
69: 12th out of 12 in attendance, 5th in A.L. West

Source: Baseball Reference (www.baseball-reference.com)

Oh thank you. I have been looking for stats like that for a long time. I really really appreciate this...

joecrede
05-11-2004, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Oh thank you. I have been looking for stats like that for a long time. I really really appreciate this...

No problem chile.

Medford Bobby
05-11-2004, 05:28 PM
You've got to blame JR for pulling the plug on the MJ era. Why would ya want to stop the Jordan cash cow.....unless there was a point that paying Jordan and profits related to Jordan (i.e.jersey's etc) would make it mute...it was just dumb,dumb, dumb........As for the Sox.............. :whiner:

Lip Man 1
05-11-2004, 05:31 PM
Bull :

Thanks. I was going to say the same thing. It's no shame losing out attendence wise to the Yankees or Cleveland both of whom had MAMMOTH stadiums at the time that held over 60 thousand!

The real point is that the Sox kicked the Cubs ass attendance wise for most of those seasons.

So much for "Chicago has always been a Cubs town..."

johnny_mostil
05-11-2004, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by TheBull19
They're mediocre compared to todays standards but if you compare them to other attendance figures at the time the numbers ranged from solid to very good, outdrawing the yankees a few times and outdrawing the cubs just about every year from 1950-1967.

The 1967 attendance was pathetic, considering that it was one of the greatest pennant races of all time and the Sox finished 4th three games out. They drew 985,634.

On September 17, 1967, the White Sox beat the Twins 4-0 while the Tigers lost, pulling within 1/2 game of first place, in front of 26,171 fans. They left on a long road trip. The night they returned, they were 1 1/2 out with 3 games to go, in fourth place. If they'd swept the Senators in three, as it turned out, they would have finished 92-70, which would have forced a playoff with the Impossible Dream Red Sox.

Your Sox attendance on September 29th, 1967, the last truly important game played on the South Side for 16 years?

12,665. Woo hoo. You'd think the game would have been sold up to 30,000 before the shocking doubleheader loss to the A's two days before.

No wonder they lost.

johnny_mostil
05-11-2004, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Bull :

Thanks. I was going to say the same thing. It's no shame losing out attendence wise to the Yankees or Cleveland both of whom had MAMMOTH stadiums at the time that held over 60 thousand!

The real point is that the Sox kicked the Cubs ass attendance wise for most of those seasons.

So much for "Chicago has always been a Cubs town..."

What matters is today. Sox attendance is poor, and the excuses you hear are malarkey. The upper deck is no steeper than the third deck at Petco (I've been there). The neighborhood is way less scary than any of the other parks I've been too except for what is now called Ameriquest Field (which is littered with support posts blocking thousands of seats). Sox fans may be bitter, angry, whatever... and there's really little *real* reason for it. Texas Rangers fans are going berzerk now and their team just finished paying the Yankees to take away A-Rod, a move which could end up costing them the division. If Rangers fans were Sox fans, they'd refuse to go to the games for fifteen years and the team would collapse.

nitetrain8601
05-11-2004, 08:23 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar
This is what's called banging your head against a wall and hoping that eventually it falls down and you can see through to the other side.

Get this straight: JR IS NOT GOING TO SELL THE TEAM!!! For better or for worse, he is the owner and that's not going to change, especially not given the current stadium deal.

So, fans have a couple of options:

1) Go to games, enjoy them, and with the increased attendance, provide resources to improve the team as well as eliminating one excuse for not increasing payroll. Not insignificantly, this also will help to turn around the media perception/portrayal of the team.

2) Stay home, whine about JR and hope he sells. Deprive yourself of some pretty entertaining baseball and ensure that the team continues to be mediocre and media portrayal of the Sox and their fans continues. It's a self-perpetuating cycle. JR doesn't sell, fans get POd and don't go, attendance is mediocre, media focuses on the empty seats and "negativism", they cry poor and spend like a mid-level team, fans get POd and don't go....and around we go.

But don't fool yourself into thinking you're somehow helping things by "refusing to give JR any of my money and thereby forcing him to sell". Ain't gonna happen. Everyone has the right to make their own decisions on attendance, but IMO too many think they're helping the situation when they're merely perpetuating it.

Great post. I'm sick of people complaining about our attendance/payroll when the same people won't go to games and give the team money to spend. Right now the Scrubs have the baking of a newspaper and fans while we have the backing of empty blue seats because people want to hold grudges against JR. The attendance was high at the New Comiskey until the strike. Then everyone stopped as soon as everyone found out JR was one of the owners who caused the strike. People stop living in the past. Go to the games, watch a fun team, have a good time and chug a couple of beers as the money piles up and we gain enough money to contend with the Scrubs.

Lip Man 1
05-11-2004, 10:25 PM
Nite says: "as the money piles up and we gain enough money to contend with the Scrubs."

Let's see the Sox averaged almost 30,000 per game from mid June on (when the weather got better and the team decided to finally start playing) and drew basically 2 million per season.

Boy they sure spent that money this off season didn't they?

Like it or not Nite, many fans DO NOT trust good ole Uncle Jerry to spend one thin dime of that money.

He has a major credibility problem with fans.

22 years of some of his stunts have convinced a number of people he is not to be trusted, his word means nothing so they choose to wait and see time more ever forward on the life cycle of good ole Uncle Jerry. 68 years...and counting.

Lip

MJL_Sox_Fan
05-11-2004, 10:48 PM
The facts are the Sox draw better now than they ever have, but in comparison to the Cubs it looks bad. Also, compared to the rest of the league it looks bad. I think the big difference is that in the past 20 years more people than every go to baseball games, just not to Sox games. Does this mean the Sox fans are bitter, does it mean that the fan base has shrunk? I don't know. As I posted elsewhere. Clearly, the comparison to the cubs has nothing to do with winning baseball games.

1901-1993
W Attend Ave Wins Ave Attend
Sox 7228 85,410,856 78.6 928,379
Cubs 7308 91,814,347 79.4 997,982
Difference -80 (6,403,491) -0.9 (69,603)

1996 to 2003
W Attend Ave Wins Ave Attend
Sox 665 13,601,588 83.1 1,700,199
Cubs 609 21,071,168 76.1 2,633,896
Difference 56 (7,469,580) 7.0 (933,698)

Brian26
05-11-2004, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
... his word means nothing so they choose to wait and see time more ever forward on the life cycle of good ole Uncle Jerry. 68 years...and counting.
Lip

Dude, for a guy who was on here a couple days ago asking for prayers for his son, that's a pretty damn rude and ignorant statement. Baseball is a passion for many of us, but I really can't understand wishing death upon a man. "68 years and counting"? :angry:

TDog
05-12-2004, 04:09 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
... (Jack Brickhouse by the way was a huge Sox fan and even tried to warn Ed Short in 1968 that the Sox were making an incredibly bad decision to take their games off WGN in favor of WFLD.)...

One of the Sox chief complaints about WGN was that the station wouldn't show home night games. They didn't show road games at all. Strangely enough, after the Sox left WGN, the station was soon showing nearly all of the Cubs' night road games.

gosox41
05-12-2004, 07:01 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Nite says: "as the money piles up and we gain enough money to contend with the Scrubs."

Let's see the Sox averaged almost 30,000 per game from mid June on (when the weather got better and the team decided to finally start playing) and drew basically 2 million per season.

Boy they sure spent that money this off season didn't they?

Like it or not Nite, many fans DO NOT trust good ole Uncle Jerry to spend one thin dime of that money.

He has a major credibility problem with fans.

22 years of some of his stunts have convinced a number of people he is not to be trusted, his word means nothing so they choose to wait and see time more ever forward on the life cycle of good ole Uncle Jerry. 68 years...and counting.

Lip


Nice to see so many people wishing death on someone who is running a business that isn't harming anyone.

Bob