JLucky

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.

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).

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.

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.)

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."

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. 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... 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. 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 assume 20 years of drawing about 13% more fans means dominance.

I'm glad you were able to admit that. Rather big of you dude. That's cute, how you used the whole QUOTE= thing to change my quote. That's what I call humor. In all honesty, I am a Sox fan... I know Hawk is biased. Did you think I was arguing that he's not (considering the quote you changed of mind DID say he was)? I just happen to have no problem with it, as well I think you'll find that a lot of people around the country like him.

I didn't mean to. I meant a lot of it is based on mass-media marketing and having a media conglomerate own your team, and need a profit from your team. EDIT: Caveat... Heck, i don't even think a lot of Cubs fans realize what a double-edged sword that is in terms of having a winning team on the field.

YOU may think so, but I see Hawk catching on alot more than the two Cubs vanilla network-like announcers. I know a Cubs fan would never enjoy him, I'd never enjoy Santo. But like it or loathe it, many of Hawk's sayings are becoming popular. At the very least, its foolish to say its *negative*. Someone argued with me in another thread that Hawk was turning off people who may watch Sox games on WGN to see their teams play (i.e. a lot of Sox opponents don't have 162-game coverage from their local TV). Which is it? He's a homer. He has a schtick. Excepting for Twins, Indians, Cubs fans... I think a lot of people like it. But the Cubs are not inherently the Yankees by any stretch. There is a very distinct, historical reason why the Yankees own New York (and all of America.) That will NEVER go away, even with another winning team in their own backyard. (Also, note that the Mets had only one season where they were national stars.) Right now the Cubs draw even when they're bad. That wasn't true 15-20 years ago, and I can't see any logical reason why that's bound to continue. Maybe it will, but the reasons for their marketing success right now go back such a short time, that logically its foolish to think it is guarunteed to stick around for that much longer. The Cubs have a large fanbase because of good marketing, and because a national newspaper owns them. You can't ask for anything more than that. Great job. Its all good. I wish the Sox did/would do that. Etc. Etc. Etc. But to assume its going to have longevity is foolish.

Another caveat: Lets say (and I know most of you don't think this will happen, but... just conceptually here :wink: ) that the White Sox take the World Series this year. And then again the next. And maybe the next. Or, at least make it to the World Series 2-3 straight years. And the Cubs don't make the playoffs at all. Maybe have .500 seasons. Do you honestly think the Cubs would still outdraw the Sox after that? I'd put any money on The Sox owning this city after that. And I'd put money on that changing in X number of years back to the Cubs for one reason or another.

I guess you're not understanding my point, or I didn't make it well enough. Yes, the Cubs have a lot of national fans right now. There is one reason for that, and that is the Superstation in the '80s-'90s, before many teams (i.e. the Sox) were also on cable/Superstations. With the way mass media is today, I don't see one Chicago (or even midwest) team benefiting from that any more than another in the next 10-20 years. So in the *future* count that out, and I was really talking about the past and future. I don't see any reason why the Cubs (barring a World Series win, etc... which are all things that can happen to the Sox as well) will inherently continue this for 10-20 years. History shows this will not happen. (The Yankees and Red Sox don't count in this argument. Their national fame is a completely different animal).

BTW... your nickname here will fly just fine there as well :lol:

Yep: http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/index.php You can only sell in the "Parking Lot" section, and ONLY at face value. http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/ No idea on their policy, I don't visit there much (Sox fan)

I didn't. I said die-hards. Real fans. Whatever you want to call them. If the Cubs played in US Cellular, and had the pathetic marketing the Sox have had (admittedly), they'd be in the same situation as the Sox are. If you consider fans that are only fans because of the bar-like atmosphere, or because of national marketing for decades... do you honestly consider them real fans? I am not saying you should dislike them, but at least realize there is a distinction. You really think yuppies are the entirety of the difference between the two fanbases? I don't know if "yuppies" encapsulates what I am saying, but yes.... bandwagon fans are how I would describe the difference. If this were false, then you wouldn't see the shifts in the popularity of the teams over the past 20-30 years. And the shift will continue to go back and forth... Sox will be more popular someday, then the Cubs again, then back... This isn't like the LA Lakers and the LA Clippers, where one will always be much bigger.

I didn't. I said die-hards. Real fans. Whatever you want to call them. If the Cubs played in US Cellular, and had the pathetic marketing the Sox have had (admittedly), they'd be in the same situation as the Sox are. If you consider fans that are only fans because of the bar-like atmosphere, or because of national marketing for decades... do you honestly consider them real fans? I am not saying you should dislike them, but at least realize there is a distinction.

Sox fan poster here... Two things... not trying to fight... just some points: 1. AJ has done nothing at all this season, in any way, to be considered a tool. Who knows what happened in SF. That's where all the rumors come from. 2. I wouldn't expect Cubs fans to love Hawk... but what the heck is wrong with a "homer" (and isn't Santo just as big of a "homer"?) Hawk is supposed to be one of us. We love that. Santo is supposed to be one with you guys, I assume a lot of you love that. I don't like the Cubs, so I prefer not to hear Santo cheer them on... but he's doing the right thing! I wouldn't knock him for that. (His constant advertising for a Hall of Fame spot? Well... that's for another thread...)

Thank you. Get over the attendance thing, Cubs fans. Bandwagoneers suck. Its fun, as a Sox fan, to know US Cellular is filled up now. But it sucks that its both hard to get good tickets, and when you do you're jam packed with people that know nothing of the team or the game. I assume that most people on this board are real fans, by virtue of the fact that you're posting here. But if you honestly think that the Cubs have more die-hard, real fans than the Sox, you're silly. Its even all around, and probably is along with most teams. If Wrigleyville turned into a ghetto again, and the Cubs were losing year after year, you'd draw just like us (the White Sox). Its happened before. I personally wouldn't care either way... I don't judge things on attendance.

To each their own. I have no problem with the scoreboard, and would not if someone here posted something similar about the Sox. However, I do see a lot of signatures regarding all Sox fans as trash, drunks, etc. That sort of thing is just silly to me.

Well... either way. I see as much anti-Sox stuff here as I see anti-Cub on WSI. And as long as its not over the top, I don't have a problem with any of it. I think a certain extent of cheering agains the other team makes you a good fan... as long as it is not an obsession. Anyhoo... I don't speak for WSI... don't really even like that board too much. The mods are a bit nutty.

On balance, now. Put it this way. There is as much dislike for the Cubs there as there is for the Sox here. Neither has an "obsession". Obviously there are plenty of barbs towards some of our... lets say... more tatooed fans. SoxTalk does have an obsession, if you can wade through the posts of people who just like to see swear words on their screen for the sake of seeing swear words on their screen.

Hello. First time I've posted here. I am a White Sox fan, though I lurk around because I enjoy spirited discussions, and seeing what's going on with other teams, etc. I'm not a jerk, so I don't bother posting much, provoking fights, etc. I just want to make one point that is important to note. SoxTalk is one of two primary Sox boards. The other is WhiteSoxInteractive. SoxTalk is filled with a bunch of real immature fans, with the whole "Cubs Obsession" thing going on. WSI doesn't allow that, which makes for a much more intelligent board. If you want to judge real Sox fans, SoxTalk is not the place to find them. That board is embarassing to me, as well.