PDA

View Full Version : laffer column


Dan H
05-21-2004, 05:05 PM
This column about attendance is an intelligent one. The media should have a look at if before it merely shows pictures of empty seats. The Sox finally had turned a real corner in the beginning of the '90's and then disaster struck.

It has been my contention that attendance problems have been long in the making and won't be solved overnight. Scapegoating fans has been and always will be counter-productive. Stopping the blame the fans game will be one step in the right direction.

voodoochile
05-21-2004, 05:37 PM
Thanks Dan. I'm just doing my little part to take shots at Reinsy when I can. I prefer to back those shots up with numbers when they are available.

It was interesting for me to see the obvious problems which have been enumerated on these boards by George and others backed up with actual fact. The slump at the end of the 80's after the PPV fiasco and the threat to move, the slump after the hawkish stance in 1994 and then the final straw the WFT in 1997 show just how much damage Reinsy has done to the fan base. It's damned frustrating to be blamed as part of the problem by that man.

The part about finding the historical attendance averages nearly mimicing the league placement was a complete bonus. I had no idea it was coming and it backs up what people have long said, Sox fans will back a winner. To contrast that with the Reinsy years where those numbers fall off was just further evidence of how little Sox fans trust JR.

Lip Man 1
05-21-2004, 10:24 PM
Voodoo:

Don't forget the 'collusion' policy in the mid 80's which froze teams into not trying to improve themselves. Fay Vincent in his book 'The Last Commissioner' specifically blames both Reinsdorf and Selig as the ones formulating this policy which cost MLB over 250 million in damages after the three cases were heard in court.

Lip

joecrede
05-23-2004, 04:34 PM
Here's an article (http://whitesox.mostvaluablenetwork.com/) that refutes many of Laffer's points.

voodoochile
05-23-2004, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
Here's an article (http://whitesox.mostvaluablenetwork.com/) that refutes many of Laffer's points.

*****!

I notice he ignores my point about the team placement compared to attendance. ALso his point that JR is the reason the Sox are in Chicago is laughable. He did try to move the team to Tampa, right?

That guy's a buffoon...

joecrede
05-23-2004, 04:41 PM
Some of the points he brings up are legit like Sox attendance being "soft" in the 50's and 60's.

TornLabrum
05-23-2004, 04:51 PM
The first thing I noticed is that the article was by the only person I have on this board that I have on my "ignore" list.

voodoochile
05-23-2004, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
Some of the points he brings up are legit like Sox attendance being "soft" in the 50's and 60's.

Read the second to last paragraph in my article. Then take the time to go back and look at the charts I created to show exactly how attendance has traditionally mirrored league placement, until the last decade when JR's moves have obviously had a massive negative impact on the fanbase.

CRector is a poster on these very forums and brags about trolling in other parts of that blog spot. He is talking to himself there because NO ONE takes him seriously.

I posted a reply because I feel he misrepresents my words.

joecrede
05-23-2004, 05:23 PM
Sox attendance has traditionally lagged their placement in the league, not mirrored.

voodoochile
05-23-2004, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
Sox attendance has traditionally lagged their placement in the league, not mirrored.

check the numbers. It isn't dramatically different.

joecrede
05-23-2004, 06:23 PM
From 1955-68 Sox attendance lagged league placement 9 times, was even with league placement 4 times and surpassed league placement 1 time.

Their attendance "problems" were evident long before Reinsdorf owned them.

duke of dorwood
05-23-2004, 06:34 PM
Attendance seems down in most places-not just on the South Side of Chicago. THis sport, which plays daily, has to realize that because of this economy, 2.00 plus gas, high food prices, etc. going to already pricey baseball games more than once a month is difficult.

voodoochile
05-23-2004, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
From 1955-68 Sox attendance lagged league placement 9 times, was even with league placement 4 times and surpassed league placement 1 time.

Their attendance "problems" were evident long before Reinsdorf owned them.

The averages are pretty even over a given period of time.

Now look at the numbers under Reinsdorf. You telling me he had no affect on fanbase with the strike and the WFT?

Heck, look at the numbers in the late 80's after all of the problems he caused that decade.

TornLabrum
05-23-2004, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
From 1955-68 Sox attendance lagged league placement 9 times, was even with league placement 4 times and surpassed league placement 1 time.

Their attendance "problems" were evident long before Reinsdorf owned them.

Gee, and imagine what it must have been like to the Cubs who failed to draw a million most of those years....

joecrede
05-23-2004, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Now look at the numbers under Reinsdorf. You telling me he had no affect on fanbase with the strike and the WFT?

Reinsdorf didn't inherit a great fan base.

voodoochile
05-23-2004, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
Reinsdorf didn't inherit a great fan base.

Even if I concede that point (and I dont), Reinsy did nothing to improve it and has had a directly negative affect on the fanbase he did inherit.

How can you look at those numbers and defend the man?

PaleHoseGeorge
05-23-2004, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
Reinsdorf didn't inherit a great fan base.

Hey Joe, who did? The Cubune inherited a team that didn't draw flies. Steinbrenner bought the New York Yankees for $10 million. The New York freaking Yankees for $10 million!

The Sox have NEVER been eclipsed for support in this town more than they are right now. You're going to blame it on 75+ years of lousy ownership *before* the current owner of 23 years?

This is really getting stupid...

TornLabrum
05-23-2004, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
Reinsdorf didn't inherit a great fan base.

And the year after Reinsdorf inherited that fan base, Lee Elia, who was managing the Cubs, went on a rant about the 3000 unemployed people (inherited by the Tribune Co.) who showed up at Wrigley every day. Now, who do you think did more with the fan base they inherited?

joecrede
05-23-2004, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
And the year after Reinsdorf inherited that fan base, Lee Elia, who was managing the Cubs, went on a rant about the 3000 unemployed people (inherited by the Tribune Co.) who showed up at Wrigley every day. Now, who do you think did more with the fan base they inherited?

Never said Reinsdorf hasn't grown the fan base, just that he didn't destroy it as has been suggested here many times.

PaleHoseGeorge
05-23-2004, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
Never said Reinsdorf hasn't grown the fan base, just that he didn't destroy it as has been suggested here many times.

If you're not moving forward, you're falling behind. I'm not sure how giving up on a first place team in 1994 isn't destroying your fan base, and I'm not sure how ditching a ballclub 2.5 games out in late-July in 1997 isn't destroying your fan base. You go right ahead and explain how they aren't.

I know this much. Both are unprecedented. Not even Connie Mack tossed in the towel under such circumstances.

Keep digging your hole.

joecrede
05-23-2004, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
If you're not moving forward, you're falling behind. I'm not sure how giving up on a first place team in 1994 isn't destroying your fan base, and I'm not sure how ditching a ballclub 2.5 games out in late-July in 1997 isn't destroying your fan base. You go right ahead and explain how they aren't.

I know this much. Both are unprecedented. Not even Connie Mack tossed in the towel under such circumstances.

Keep digging your hole.

You forgot ON TV back in 1982.

PaleHoseGeorge
05-23-2004, 08:37 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
You forgot ON TV back in 1982.

I stand corrected. :smile:

I can still picture the little box with the giant "ON" knob sitting on top of my parent's Zenith console television.

Railsplitter
05-23-2004, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Hey Joe, who did? The Cubune inherited a team that didn't draw flies. Steinbrenner bought the New York Yankees for $10 million. The New York freaking Yankees for $10 million!



That's 10 million 1973 dollars.

The Dodgers were the first team to ever draw 2 million people, and I that was in the late 70's

PaleHoseGeorge
05-23-2004, 08:53 PM
Originally posted by Railsplitter
That's 10 million 1973 dollars.

The Dodgers were the first team to ever draw 2 million people, and I that was in the late 70's

Now really... Do you know what the Yankees are worth today? Something north of $700 million. Go ahead and do 30 years worth of CPI adjusted dollars, and this still approaches one of the best 70's investments anyone made this side of Intel, Apple, and Microsoft.

As for the Dodgers beating the Yankees to 2 million paid, this only underscores my point about Steinbrenner building from a relatively small base. Nobody would ever confuse our chairman with George Steinbrenner.

voodoochile
05-23-2004, 09:13 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Now really... Do you know what the Yankees are worth today? Something north of $700 million. Go ahead and do 30 years worth of CPI adjusted dollars, and this still approaches one of the best 70's investments anyone made this side of Intel, Apple, and Microsoft.

As for the Dodgers beating the Yankees to 2 million paid, this only underscores my point about Steinbrenner building from a relatively small base. Nobody would ever confuse our chairman with George Steinbrenner.

No, they wouldn't Steinbrenner would have never allowed the WFT to happen.

Steinbrenner would have never chased off Harry Caray.

Steinbrenner would never threaten to move the Yankees out of NYC.

Steinbrenner has been the biggest advocate of a free enterprise system - paying the players what the market will bear.

On the other hand, can you ever picture JR going and landing ARod no matter the cost, even if it practically guaranteed the Sox of a playoff spot?

TornLabrum
05-23-2004, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
No, they wouldn't Steinbrenner would have never allowed the WFT to happen.

Steinbrenner would have never chased off Harry Caray.

Steinbrenner would never threaten to move the Yankees out of NYC.

Steinbrenner has been the biggest advocate of a free enterprise system - paying the players what the market will bear.

On the other hand, can you ever picture JR going and landing ARod no matter the cost, even if it practically guaranteed the Sox of a playoff spot?

Only if it involved circumventing his agent.

Lip Man 1
05-23-2004, 09:34 PM
Hal:

Now THAT's funny!

Lip

joecrede
05-24-2004, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I stand corrected. :smile:

I can still picture the little box with the giant "ON" knob sitting on top of my parent's Zenith console television.

Actually, ONTV was '83 not '82, right? Gallas missed commemorating the 20th anniversary of this?

Every fan in attendance could have gotten one of those boxes and the game could have been broadcast scrambled.

Lip Man 1
05-24-2004, 11:26 AM
SportsVision began broadcasting (if you wish to use that term) in May 1982.

Lip

Dan H
05-24-2004, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
From 1955-68 Sox attendance lagged league placement 9 times, was even with league placement 4 times and surpassed league placement 1 time.

Their attendance "problems" were evident long before Reinsdorf owned them.

It is true that the White Sox have had attendance problems for a long time, but that doesn't excuse Jerry Reinsdorf from anything. He had numerous chances to turn things around and hasn't.

Regarding the threat of a move if Reinsdorf sells: this the typical scare tactic used many times. I don't know where the Sox would, but if they did, Reinsdorf would have not helped the cause by some of the things he has done which includes the strike.

TornLabrum
05-24-2004, 10:21 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
SportsVision began broadcasting (if you wish to use that term) in May 1982.

Lip

That's correct, and it was on another channel than later...Channel 60, iirc. It didn't make it on its own and became part of OnTV in '83.