Soxtalk

[treebird]

white sox threw the world series

 

if any team should be cursed, it's them

 

if any team should have non-commital fans, it's them

 

this is easy

[JLucky]

There is a basis for the Cubs' place as THE Chicago baseball team from a historical perspective ... the Cubs were extremely successful during a period more or less bookended by the years 1876 and 1945, and had staked a claim to the city well in advance of the White Sox' assumption of the Cubs' discarded nickname in an effort to soak up some of the positives tied to it.

 

From 1901-1922, the White Sox drew more than the Cubs in 17 out of those 22 years. The Cubs then dominated until 1950 actually. From 1950-1967 the Sox outdrew pretty much every year.

 

That's all ancient history, but it illustrates the fact that the Cubs and Sox have for the most part occupied a 1-2 order on the pole. Periods of overriding Sox popularity are an aberration IMHO, not the result of some imagined pattern of on and off city dominance.

 

It is ancient history, but you still have to be factual. From 1901-1992 in total the Cubs outdrew the Sox 48 years to 45 years. In that time period, the Cubs attendance was a total of 89,160,584, the Sox 82,829,765. Hardly "dominated."

 

After 1992, the Cubs have outdrawn every year. However, this assumption people hear that the variance between the two in that time period is massive. If you take the total of all attendance to both parks in that time... the Cubs have 58% of them.

 

(And this is in SPITE of our terrible location, and decades of suicidal marketing decisions... which real Sox admit.)

 

End result, the Cubs have outdrawn the Sox 58 years to 45 years. Total attendance splits.... Cubs 53%, Sox 47%.

 

To assume these numbers prove an everlasting dominance, or prove that the tide will never turn back (even though it has, back and forth, in 15-20 year increments, for a century plus)... that's silly.

 

But all of this gets to my next point...

 

It's all somewhat irrelevant now though, given that the Cubs' diehard and far-flung following insulates them from hitting rock bottom from an interest perspective. The Sox have no such cushion, and it's demonstrated when their attendance and fan peripherals go off the cliff whenever they struggle on the field.

 

First of all, saying "off the cliff" to me means you've never looked at Sox attendance stats over the past 15 years.

 

Secondly, and we'll never agree on this I am sure... but there is also the point that Sox fans tend to show their feelings for the product ON THE FIELD that we're given through attendance. Put a continual second place team on the field, and I'm not giving you my hard earned money.

 

Is that wrong? I tend to think it forces our management to focus on building a winning team. Yeah, every team has its bandwagon fans that never really cared either way, and just like to see a team when its winning.

 

Bandwagon fans have no real reason for not going. The times I refuse to go see the Sox, I have a reason. Call me crazy.

 

 

For a wide variety of reasons, the Cubs are likeable when they should be despised and inspire passions that are completely and totally undeserved given the dismal performances of the last 60 years.

 

Many think this is a lot of the reason why your ownership knows that putting a winning team on the field is not top priority. Of course it’s *a* priority, but if the thing sells out with a .500 team.... what more can a businessman ask for?

 

 

It would be foolish to underestimate us.

 

It would be foolish to assume 20 years of drawing about 13% more fans means dominance.

[JLucky]

white sox threw the world series

 

if any team should be cursed, it's them

 

if any team should have non-commital fans, it's them

 

this is easy

 

 

The White Sox of 86 years ago, of course, being the only team that ever threw games? At a time when players were paid next to nothing, and gambling rings tried to get to all of them? And only the White Sox bit?

 

Get a history book.

 

Your argument is sort-of like saying "Palmero doesn't diserve to be in the Hall of Fame because he got caught cheating. Unlike Sammy Sosa, who of course got all his numbers perfectly clean."

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

white sox threw the world series

 

if any team should be cursed, it's them

 

if any team should have non-commital fans, it's them

 

this is easy

 

 

The White Sox of 86 years ago, of course, being the only team that ever threw games? At a time when players were paid next to nothing, and gambling rings tried to get to all of them? And only the White Sox bit?

 

Get a history book.

 

Your argument is sort-of like saying "Palmero doesn't diserve to be in the Hall of Fame because he got caught cheating. Unlike Sammy Sosa, who of course got all his numbers perfectly clean."

 

The White Sox were caught, so I hold it against them.

 

And yes, I'll say Palmeiro doesn't belong in the HOF. We know he cheats because he got caught. Right now, Sosa, McGwire, and Bonds are in because we don't know if they cheated. Did they? Maybe, probably...but without proof you have to give them benefit of the doubt. That doubt no longer exists for Palmeiro....

 

just like it doesn't exist for the 1919 White Sox. They will be known as the team that threw a World Series. Just because they made little money is not an excuse and it's why Joe Jackson isn't and never in a million years will be a HOFer.

[J.R.]

From 1901-1922, the White Sox drew more than the Cubs in 17 out of those 22 years. The Cubs then dominated until 1950 actually. From 1950-1967 the Sox outdrew pretty much every year.

 

From 1901-1992 in total the Cubs outdrew the Sox 48 years to 45 years. In that time period, the Cubs attendance was a total of 89,160,584, the Sox 82,829,765. Hardly "dominated."

 

It would be silly to ignore the circumstances that led to the construction of the "Base Ball Palace of the World," in the early part of the century, or the infamous closing of Wrigley's upper deck in the early 1960s. Sure, the Sox had some great years, and the Cubs in turn had some cobwebby turnstiles. My argument about the "ancient past" wasn't based so much on the yearly numbers, but on the fact that the NL franchise had a built-in pedigree that the AL guys envied. Why else would they have taken the Cubs' old name? The Sox have had an inferiority complex from day one.

 

You were saying that the Cubs and Yankees' respective relationships with the Sox and Mets couldn't be compared, and I'm saying that the Cubs do share a similar blueblood pedigree from their earliest days.

 

After 1992, the Cubs have outdrawn every year. However, this assumption people hear that the variance between the two in that time period is massive. If you take the total of all attendance to both parks in that time... the Cubs have 58% of them.

 

(And this is in SPITE of our terrible location, and decades of suicidal marketing decisions... which real Sox admit.)

 

First of all, saying "off the cliff" to me means you've never looked at Sox attendance stats over the past 15 years.

 

The Sox haven't drawn 2 million fans since 1993, in spite of hosting both a division champion and an All-Star Game in that timeframe. The Sox' numbers have been ridiculously bad for a big market team, especially in the late 1990s.

 

End result, the Cubs have outdrawn the Sox 58 years to 45 years. Total attendance splits.... Cubs 53%, Sox 47%.

 

To assume these numbers prove an everlasting dominance, or prove that the tide will never turn back (even though it has, back and forth, in 15-20 year increments, for a century plus)... that's silly.

 

It would be foolish to assume 20 years of drawing about 13% more fans means dominance.

 

If it were possible to a worldwide body count - and let's limit it to diehards - of Cubs and Sox fans, you'd see my point about dominance.

 

I suppose the point of all my ranting and raving is that the dynamics of this "rivalry" have completely changed since the Tribune and Reinsdorf took charge of their respective franchises in the early 1980s. The Sox are still fighting for fans in Chicago like they've always done while the Cubs are claiming allegiance from all over the country, and have fans in places across the globe. The Sox' fanbase just isn't in the same league with the Cubs'.

[JLucky]

white sox threw the world series

 

if any team should be cursed, it's them

 

if any team should have non-commital fans, it's them

 

this is easy

 

 

The White Sox of 86 years ago, of course, being the only team that ever threw games? At a time when players were paid next to nothing, and gambling rings tried to get to all of them? And only the White Sox bit?

 

Get a history book.

 

Your argument is sort-of like saying "Palmero doesn't diserve to be in the Hall of Fame because he got caught cheating. Unlike Sammy Sosa, who of course got all his numbers perfectly clean."

 

The White Sox were caught, so I hold it against them.

 

And yes, I'll say Palmeiro doesn't belong in the HOF. We know he cheats because he got caught. Right now, Sosa, McGwire, and Bonds are in because we don't know if they cheated. Did they? Maybe, probably...but without proof you have to give them benefit of the doubt. That doubt no longer exists for Palmeiro....

 

just like it doesn't exist for the 1919 White Sox. They will be known as the team that threw a World Series. Just because they made little money is not an excuse and it's why Joe Jackson isn't and never in a million years will be a HOFer.

 

In your universe OJ is not a murderer, Michael Jackson doesn't fondle kids.

 

(Side note: Bonds was caught.)

[JLucky]

The Sox are still fighting for fans in Chicago like they've always done

 

Ignore the numbers all you want, but they don't lie. 45 out of 103 seasons the Sox outdrew the Cubs. If that is "always done" to you, fine.

 

I'm just saying there is nothing that should make you assume its not just an aberration, as has always occured.

 

At least we've, according to your logic, absolutely dominated the Cubs on the field... you know: 25-23.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

white sox threw the world series

 

if any team should be cursed, it's them

 

if any team should have non-commital fans, it's them

 

this is easy

 

 

The White Sox of 86 years ago, of course, being the only team that ever threw games? At a time when players were paid next to nothing, and gambling rings tried to get to all of them? And only the White Sox bit?

 

Get a history book.

 

Your argument is sort-of like saying "Palmero doesn't diserve to be in the Hall of Fame because he got caught cheating. Unlike Sammy Sosa, who of course got all his numbers perfectly clean."

 

The White Sox were caught, so I hold it against them.

 

And yes, I'll say Palmeiro doesn't belong in the HOF. We know he cheats because he got caught. Right now, Sosa, McGwire, and Bonds are in because we don't know if they cheated. Did they? Maybe, probably...but without proof you have to give them benefit of the doubt. That doubt no longer exists for Palmeiro....

 

just like it doesn't exist for the 1919 White Sox. They will be known as the team that threw a World Series. Just because they made little money is not an excuse and it's why Joe Jackson isn't and never in a million years will be a HOFer.

 

In your universe OJ is not a murderer, Michael Jackson doesn't fondle kids.

 

(Side note: Bonds was caught.)

 

So, what evidence do you have that Sosa used? (I'm not saying there aren't reasons to suspect him, there are plenty...but no proof.) Palmeiro is proof that you can't look at someone to tell if they're a user or not.

 

If we're going to not elect HOFers based on suspicions then I guess no one in the last fifteen years should make the HOF.

 

And there's no way I could be a fan of a team that's most notable accomplishment was throwing a World Series. That's the worst.

[JLucky]

white sox threw the world series

 

if any team should be cursed, it's them

 

if any team should have non-commital fans, it's them

 

this is easy

 

 

The White Sox of 86 years ago, of course, being the only team that ever threw games? At a time when players were paid next to nothing, and gambling rings tried to get to all of them? And only the White Sox bit?

 

Get a history book.

 

Your argument is sort-of like saying "Palmero doesn't diserve to be in the Hall of Fame because he got caught cheating. Unlike Sammy Sosa, who of course got all his numbers perfectly clean."

 

The White Sox were caught, so I hold it against them.

 

And yes, I'll say Palmeiro doesn't belong in the HOF. We know he cheats because he got caught. Right now, Sosa, McGwire, and Bonds are in because we don't know if they cheated. Did they? Maybe, probably...but without proof you have to give them benefit of the doubt. That doubt no longer exists for Palmeiro....

 

just like it doesn't exist for the 1919 White Sox. They will be known as the team that threw a World Series. Just because they made little money is not an excuse and it's why Joe Jackson isn't and never in a million years will be a HOFer.

 

In your universe OJ is not a murderer, Michael Jackson doesn't fondle kids.

 

(Side note: Bonds was caught.)

 

So, what evidence do you have that Sosa used? (I'm not saying there aren't reasons to suspect him, there are plenty...but no proof.) Palmeiro is proof that you can't look at someone to tell if they're a user or not.

 

If we're going to not elect HOFers based on suspicions then I guess no one in the last fifteen years should make the HOF.

 

And there's no way I could be a fan of a team that's most notable accomplishment was throwing a World Series. That's the worst.

 

Ok, then we'll go with your logic.

 

All of the 1919 Chicago White Sox were acquitted in court of any gambling charges. Their only "being caught" was the decision of a single commissioner.

 

I'm not going to pretend that they didn't play some part, of didn't do it.... but there is actually as much evidence that they gambled as there is that Sosa used steroids. What logic do you want to use?

 

Don't forget, of course, one of the few people actually charged with gambling over the years... Chicago Cub Heinie Zimmerman.

 

(Oh, yeah, he goes into a category with Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, Pete Rose and George Steinbrenner... some others who have been suspended by baseball and/or charged by law enforcement for gambling).

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

So what evidence do you have that Sosa used?

[JLucky]

So what evidence do you have that Sosa used?

 

Eye test: failed

Numbers test: failed

Witnesses test: failed (Canseco)

Urine test: unknown

 

Are you honestly defending Sammy Sosa? Do you honestly think he did not use steroids merely because no urine tests have come out yet?

 

Oh boy.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

So what evidence do you have that Sosa used?

 

Eye test: failed

Numbers test: failed

Witnesses test: failed (Canseco)

Urine test: unknown

 

Are you honestly defending Sammy Sosa? Do you honestly think he did not use steroids merely because no urine tests have come out yet?

 

Oh boy.

 

First of all, there is no eye test for steroids. Palmeiro is proof of that. There are ways to bulk up without them and not all steroids (Winstrol for example) would give you excess bulk.

 

Cansecon never said he witnessed Sosa. He said Sosa had the characteristics of a steroid user. That's not even second-hand testimony.

 

So, really we have nothing but speculation, which we could do for a lot of players.

 

Why should I have to defend Sosa? There's no definitive reason to believe he took anything. All you have is speculation. I will say, that I would not be surprised if definitive proof ever revealed he was a user, but right now, outside of more evidence, we have nothing other than someone without medical training saying he looks like a user.

 

Can I suspect Frank Thomas of using? He reminds me a lot of Palmeiro. I think he used too, so no HOF for him either.

[Wild_Cubs04]

So what evidence do you have that Sosa used?

 

Eye test: failed

Numbers test: failed

Witnesses test: failed (Canseco)

Urine test: unknown

 

Are you honestly defending Sammy Sosa? Do you honestly think he did not use steroids merely because no urine tests have come out yet?

 

Oh boy.

 

When he's tested positive and suspended...then I will believe it. Innocent until proven Guilty isn't it? Do I think he used? Yes, more than likely. Has it been proven? Not to my knowledge. Are you honestly saying he is Guilty w/out real evidence?

[J.R.]

The Sox are still fighting for fans in Chicago like they've always done

 

Ignore the numbers all you want, but they don't lie. 45 out of 103 seasons the Sox outdrew the Cubs. If that is "always done" to you, fine.

 

What are you saying? Are the Sox now competing with the Cubs on a national stage? Remember, we're talking about a club that can't even claim anything resembling regional appeal.

[1908]

Get a history book.

 

Your argument is sort-of like saying "Palmero doesn't diserve to be in the Hall of Fame because he got caught cheating. Unlike Sammy Sosa, who of course got all his numbers perfectly clean."

At least we've, according to your logic, absolutely dominated the Cubs on the field... you know: 25-23.

I'm not a jerk, so I don't bother ... provoking fights ...

[SouthSideRyan]

Many think this is a lot of the reason why your ownership knows that putting a winning team on the field is not top priority. Of course it’s *a* priority, but if the thing sells out with a .500 team.... what more can a businessman ask for?

So which is it? Have the Cubs only truly been drawing more over the past few years because of the winning product or have they done it for years? I know you mentioned '92 as the breaking point, but there were A MILLION+ more fans last year than there was in '92.

 

Not to mention it really seems odd to say that our ownership doesn't care about putting a winner on the field when they spend some 30 Million+ more than your strike inducing, white flag trading, running Jordan out of town, screwing over the best player in White Sox history, owner.

[wolf stansson]

running Jordan out of town

There it is right there. Die Reinsdorf.