15 games over .500 and +3 on Spetember 19
7 games over .500 and -3 on Spetmeber 31, just TWELVE days later
A collapse of EPIC PROPORTION and HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE!
WELL DONE!
Great Fan Collapse:
1st place on September 24th and only 20,000 fans.
It's all true. Oh by the way, congrats on the north side sterling season. Wonder boy delivered.....100 losses.
Its not a fan collapse....simply a 100 percent accurate redflection of the size of their fan base. There are only SOOOOO many people in Bridgeport.
Quote from: pkd50 on October 02, 2012, 08:53:00 AM
It's all true. Oh by the way, congrats on the north side sterling season. Wonder boy delivered.....100 losses.
Pat,
That was the WHOLE IDEA...to tear it completely apart and hit rock bottom. Now I suppose we could have resigned Ramirez and Pena, kept , Marsahall, Dempster and Maholm....and maybe added another over the hill vet (like Youkilis?), but the end result would have been the same......NO PLAYOFFS. The same as it is for Bridgeport who went ALL IN!!!! 60 wins and 85 wins are the exact same thing if you don't make the playoffs. The difference is one franchise is pointing upwards and the other is going to start its slow and agonizing descent.
Oh, and btw, one more fact to ponder. In the AL East AND West, BOTH Detroit and Bridgeport would be in FOURTH PLACE! In other words, the ONLY reason Bridgeportites were deluded into believing they were a playoff club was because they play in the absolutely worst division in baseball. Pathetic, really.
Again all true and congrats on hitting rock bottom
Baseball's a funny game. Baseball fans are a strange breed. Cub fans are a breed unto themselves.
Maybe so...but in 40+ years of following the beloved Cubbies, I've never seen a Cub fan take a shower in center field, run onto the field and pummel a first base coach from behind, cause a riot which forces the cancellation of a game, or pay to see a midget and/or men in shorts play......among other things!
Quote from: The Jackal on October 02, 2012, 10:23:36 AM
Maybe so...but in 40+ years of following the beloved Cubbies, I've never seen a Cub fan take a shower in center field, run onto the field and pummel a first base coach from behind, cause a riot which forces the cancellation of a game, or pay to see a midget and/or men in shorts play......among other things!
+1
Quote from: The Jackal on October 02, 2012, 10:23:36 AM
Maybe so...but in 40+ years of following the beloved Cubbies, I've never seen a Cub fan take a shower in center field, run onto the field and pummel a first base coach from behind, cause a riot which forces the cancellation of a game, or pay to see a midget and/or men in shorts play......among other things!
Like witnessing a championship in the past century.
Quote from: watcher on October 02, 2012, 10:06:08 AM
Cub fans are a breed unto themselves.
Not really, watcher. It's normal to have teeth.
Quote from: Robert Pauly on October 02, 2012, 10:42:01 AM
Quote from: The Jackal on October 02, 2012, 10:23:36 AM
Maybe so...but in 40+ years of following the beloved Cubbies, I've never seen a Cub fan take a shower in center field, run onto the field and pummel a first base coach from behind, cause a riot which forces the cancellation of a game, or pay to see a midget and/or men in shorts play......among other things!
Like witnessing a championship in the past century.
whatchu talkin' 'bout Willis? I've seen lots of championships in the past century.
Quote from: Robert Pauly on October 02, 2012, 10:42:01 AM
Quote from: The Jackal on October 02, 2012, 10:23:36 AM
Maybe so...but in 40+ years of following the beloved Cubbies, I've never seen a Cub fan take a shower in center field, run onto the field and pummel a first base coach from behind, cause a riot which forces the cancellation of a game, or pay to see a midget and/or men in shorts play......among other things!
Like witnessing a championship in the past century.
So what was your excuse for being a Bridgeport fan pre 2005?
I would not have a need for that excuse. My AL team is working on their 28th of those pesky, little buggers.
Oh yes, I forgot...bandwagon jumper extraordinairre!!!
My Bronx allegiance is older than some of your hair plugs.
Even in the year the Sox were supposed to be shitty, they exceed expectations. I think after next year, the Cubs will stop paying Zambrano and Soriano, so their albatrosses will be lifted - unless they re-sign them. Next year tho, the Cubs might lose even more games.
So anyway, Sox collapse? No argument from this Sox fan. Though I will say the season was a great surprise. I never, for one second counted out the Tigers winding up in 1st. Too much talent over there on O and D (and by D, I mean the pitching - their fielding was definitely not the greatest, but Scherzer, Fister, and CY Verlander are all aces.) So, collapse? Yup! If we had a healthy Danks, this whole thread would not exist. And yes, I know, that's pointless to say. I'm glad, however, to root for a team where the brass makes decent business decisions. The Soriano and Zambarano signings have to be way up there in the worst signing in baseball history. The Cubs org should turn it around soon enough tho. You have to admit, however, the Cubs organization was spitting in the faces of the fans for years, and since the drunks were filling up the stands for the big "let's be seen" party, who could blame them?
Quote from: Robert Pauly on October 02, 2012, 01:50:43 PM
My Bronx allegiance is older than some of your hair plugs.
BAZINGA!!!
Quote from: Robert Pauly on October 02, 2012, 01:50:43 PM
My Bronx allegiance is older than some of your hair plugs.
BZZZZZZTTTTTTTT!!!!!!
Wrong guy.
If there's something I have quite a bit of, its hair my friend. Furthermore, you aren't old enough for the aforemnetioned to be true if in fact I DID sport plugs.
Quote from: seebee on October 02, 2012, 01:57:42 PM
Even in the year the Sox were supposed to be shitty, they exceed expectations. I think after next year, the Cubs will stop paying Zambrano and Soriano, so their albatrosses will be lifted - unless they re-sign them. Next year tho, the Cubs might lose even more games.
So anyway, Sox collapse? No argument from this Sox fan. Though I will say the season was a great surprise. I never, for one second counted out the Tigers winding up in 1st. Too much talent over there on O and D (and by D, I mean the pitching - their fielding was definitely not the greatest, but Scherzer, Fister, and CY Verlander are all aces.) So, collapse? Yup! If we had a healthy Danks, this whole thread would not exist. And yes, I know, that's pointless to say. I'm glad, however, to root for a team where the brass makes decent business decisions. The Soriano and Zambarano signings have to be way up there in the worst signing in baseball history. The Cubs org should turn it around soon enough tho. You have to admit, however, the Cubs organization was spitting in the faces of the fans for years, and since the drunks were filling up the stands for the big "let's be seen" party, who could blame them?
A helthy Danks would have meant squat. He was mediocre last year and would have been the same this year. If you had Danks, chances are you wouldn't have seen Quintana.
You also conveniently disregard the fact you got a career (ahem, steriod enhanced?) Year from your catcher and completely unexpected years from Dunn, Rios and Peavy (health wise).
Fact is, the Tigers are flat out a better team. And even in a horse crap division, Bridgeport couldn't secure a wild card spot...despite the luxury of feasting on patsies like cleveland, kc and minnesota 18 times a year.
As for the cubs, zambranos contract was spot on at the time it was signed. Soriano was a mistake, at least the length of the contract was...as he had an MVP type year in 2012....but a mistake spurred on by the Tribs desire to boost the clubs sale price, not the result of a purley baseball decision. You want to see bad baseball decisions, just take a look at Bridgeport trading away a home grown 20 game winner (Gio Gonzalez) not once but TWICE. Brilliant....absolutely brilliant!!!
Quote from: Jenster on October 02, 2012, 11:00:00 AM
Quote from: watcher on October 02, 2012, 10:06:08 AM
Cub fans are a breed unto themselves.
Not really, watcher. It's normal to have teeth.
Too bad the team plays like gummers.
Quote from: The Jackal on October 02, 2012, 02:29:47 PM
Quote from: Robert Pauly on October 02, 2012, 01:50:43 PM
My Bronx allegiance is older than some of your hair plugs.
BZZZZZZTTTTTTTT!!!!!!
Wrong guy.
If there's something I have quite a bit of, its hair my friend. Furthermore, you aren't old enough for the aforemnetioned to be true if in fact I DID sport plugs.
Can remember when Bob Will made the bigs.
If you think the Zambrano contract was spot on, you're just simply nuts. His signing was worse than Zito. At least Zito won a Cy. Z wasn't even close to sniffing a Cy. Soriano got way too much money for way too long. Sure, he would have gotten similar money somewhere else, but then most other teams would also understand that signing him for that long would be detrimental, and to just LET someone else give him that much. Are the Cubs paying z 19 + million NEXT year?
Rios's year is not totally unexpected, but since you think Zambrano 's signing was spot on, it can't be explained to you. Gio a mistake? Perhaps, but I'd trade young pitching away in a heartbeat if the return is what I want. As a matter of fact, I'd trade Sale today in a heartbeat if I could get what I wanted for him. Young pitchers are a pain in the ass, and young "stud" pitchers are a dime a dozen. Most never pan out. I'm pretty sure we'd have seen Quintana in the bigs alongside Danks if Danks was healthy. My guess would be that his shoulder was an issue last year as well to account for some of his struggles. He just wasn't right last year. I said a "healthy" Danks, not last year's Danks.
As fer AJ - you're just jealous that the guy who deals the best roids in town in a Sox fan.
But really, he's just simply another example of a contract year jerk. Though I think he's done plenty in the past to warrant consideration for a new contract, he's been dogging it for a few year without a doubt. I wouldn't blame the brass for not matching what another team will offer him. I'd assume AJ wants to go back west for his twilight anyway. Hey, if the cubs didn't clean house, they'd have probably given him a new shiny 10 year 150 million dollar contract, right?
And is Detroit a better team on paper? Hell Yes. Never once did I think they weren't. I assumed they'd win the div before the season started. And just like everyone who follows baseball knows - The Cubs threw in the towel before this season started, and they've already thrown in the towel for next year as well. Keep packing the stands for that. Line the pockets of the execs while they continually spit in your face. If the Cubs were not here, the Sox would probably start rivaling the Yankees in terms of having the funding to sign ppl at will. The northsiders who needed to throw money away to drink would come down to the Cell, and understand how superior the field is, and start packing the stadium and buying up booze. I think it would be a decent mix of ppl who need to be seen and drunk, and ppl who care about the game and the product on the field. And nobody would have to worry about concrete falling on their head since the execs don't even give a shit about the fans safety. They can just pay off any injuries out of pocket since the tards keep pouring in the ticket gate to see Darwin Barney or someone on the field while they hail down the old style guy.
P.s. Kosuke Fukudome. (that's Japanese for "Screw The Cubs.")
In all seriousness, I tihnk after next year, and they stop paying Soriano and Zambrano, Theo might do some good. Although, I haven't researched all of his handywork out east. I know Boston had some teams recently. I wonder if he ditched town while he could before the team fell apart. Oh look. The team fell apart. Crawford got how much? How old is he? How much is that Asian pitcher they paid just to TALK TO gettin out there? He still even pitching?
Quote from: seebee on October 02, 2012, 05:00:55 PMIf the Cubs were not here, the Sox would probably start rivaling the Yankees in terms of having the funding to sign ppl at will. The northsiders who needed to throw money away to drink would come down to the Cell, and understand how superior the field is, and start packing the stadium and buying up booze. I think it would be a decent mix of ppl who need to be seen and drunk, and ppl who care about the game and the product on the field.
Really?? Northsiders know all about that so-called superior field; they paid for it! The only reason the stadium even exists is because Reinsdorf conned the taxpayers into funding a new stadium with threats to leave the city. Therefore, only plausible one-team dream scenario is a city without its second team in town. And if superior means your front row upper deck seats are farther from the field than your previous LAST row's upper deck seats, you can have it.
Quote from: seebee on October 02, 2012, 05:00:55 PM
If you think the Zambrano contract was spot on,
In all seriousness, I tihnk after next year, and they stop paying Soriano and Zambrano, Theo might do some good. Although, I haven't researched all of his handywork out east. I know Boston had some teams recently. I wonder if he ditched town while he could before the team fell apart. Oh look. The team fell apart. Crawford got how much? How old is he? How much is that Asian pitcher they paid just to TALK TO gettin out there? He still even pitching?
Not much to disagree with in your little rant. I too saw the Tigers as the cream of the division. Sox chances would have been better if they'd managed to hang on to Buerhle and his 200 innings, but not 4 years @ $58 million. I'm a big AJ fan. He's always had home-run power. This year his role was different and he adjusted. I think that was partly due to Ventura's arrival and the Dunn question mark. AJ handles pitchers extremely well, calls a great game, really knows the game/opposing players and basically enjoys playing. I'd love to see him stick around, but I'm not hopeful of that happening. Adding Youk was a huge boost at just the right time, but the rotation stumbled. (understatement) and the wheels came off. At the same time, Detroit got its shit together and started doing what they were built to do.
I'm a Sox fan. I don't care which color. Theo's run in Beantown was fun until he started believing his own hype.
The Dice-K experiment really disrupted what was a well-groomed and positioned pitching staff. Tito got hosed last season and Bobby V doesn't belong in a MLB dugout. I guess a couple of World Championships can do that to an organization (unless you're the MFYs and just go buy another superstar or 4)
Overall it's been another great baseball season. PLAYOFFS!!
Quote from: watcher on October 02, 2012, 07:00:56 PMAt the same time, Detroit got its shit together and started doing what they were built to do.
Detroit didn't do what it was built to do. As Jackal said in another thread a couple weeks ago, they couldn't win that division if it was handed to them on a silver platter; it took a complete collapse of the sox.
Quote from: Jenster on October 02, 2012, 06:08:11 PM
...if superior means your front row upper deck seats are farther from the field than your previous LAST row's upper deck seats, you can have it.
I was actually thinking more along the lines of a soundsystem from this century instead of an old organ, music, fireworks, a scoreboard not maintained the same way a t-ball league is maintaned, a big screen with interesting things, perhaps some between innings entertainment, edible food, maybe a few "non obstructed view" seats (bwahahahahahahahaha-buy em up!!) and something interesting to show the kids besides girls barfing in the aisles, or counting the passed out guys in the row in front of you. But hey, if your idea of a nice stadium is funeral music, drunks, and falling concrete, enjoy. And oh yeah, you should pay 50 bucks a pop for those seats in full sun behind some pole too. My 50 will get me on the field at 3rd base next to the dugout. Cubs tickets are that much simply because people will pay for it. A lot of ppl say the same thing Wrigley has charm, but it simply stinks. I usually go to the party once a year with free tickets, and free parking. My father was a Cub fan, he used to take us, and it's a fun day. The Cell absolutely rocks tho. So, I guess, I should say thank you to the northsiders because they paid for it all? Maybe more accurately would be, thank you, for staying drunk at that old hell hole while we rock out down south and enjoy decent food, and a team with a winning record.
Quote from: Jenster on October 02, 2012, 07:29:34 PM
Quote from: watcher on October 02, 2012, 07:00:56 PMAt the same time, Detroit got its shit together and started doing what they were built to do.
Detroit didn't do what it was built to do. As Jackal said in another thread a couple weeks ago, they couldn't win that division if it was handed to them on a silver platter; it took a complete collapse of the sox.
I know a couple of hard core Kitty fans who will say that DET doesn't deserve this division, but they really do have the talent to get somewhere. At this point, hot streaks can play a major factor. They are playing now how everyone expected them to play all year. If the Sox snuck this division, it would take almost a miracle for them to get anywhere (but it could happen.) When the kitties get in, if they play like they should, then they have a legit shot at making some noise. Verlander has the build to pitch every flippin day. That guy is still throwing 100mph darts in the ninth, and he WANTS to stay in the whole game. Fister is smart, and Scherzer looks like he is starting to realize his potential - he can be a monster on the bump as well. Miggy and Prince are damn near most of the O you need. My guess is that in the offseason, they are gonna grab a couple of cheap vets who can get on base at a decent clip, and make a serious push.
Quote from: The Jackal on October 02, 2012, 10:23:36 AM
Maybe so...but in 40+ years of following the beloved Cubbies, I've never seen a Cub fan take a shower in center field, run onto the field and pummel a first base coach from behind, cause a riot which forces the cancellation of a game, or pay to see a midget and/or men in shorts play......among other things!
http://youtu.be/D9BwOAY1iXU (http://youtu.be/D9BwOAY1iXU)
Enough said on that.
I realized a long, long time ago that Cubs fans are not worth arguing with. Very delusional, which is I guess an obvious reason they are Cubs fans to begin with.
I wish that I can meet Bartman and just say to him- "now you know what it's like to deal with Cubs fans" .
It now has been 7 years since they won the WS, lets not forget it took them 87 years to do that. I was a Andy Frain usher at the old park and I have to tell you that in no way could Wrigley compare to the drunks we used to drag out of there in the alley behind the stadium. On any given friday or saturday nite we were dragging them out before the first pitch was thrown.
I have been a Cub all my life. Over the years I have come to realize that I do not dislike the team, or the stadium, or Reinsdorf. It is the sox fan that is a pain in the ass. They are some of the bigest crybabies I have ever seen. Most of them would rather buy a Cubs suck jersey rather than a Sox jersey, I could never understand that.
My favorite question to them all year has been if they were disappointed that the sox gave up Dick Allens number. Not to my suprise, their nextquestion was"who has his number". Or they did not say anything at all because they did not know. That says it all to me about what kind of fan most of them are. I was upset they gave away his number, and I am not even a sox fan. One of the most amazing players they ever had, who had some of his best years on the south side.
They had a decent little team this year. I enjoyed watching them, even going to a few games thanks to a local bank who game me tickets. I took my daughter and we both had a hell of a time.
As bad as their support is, the fact is that the last couple of years they have been breaking attendance records......which is really sad. They should be thanking us for giving them the few sell out crowds they had when the cubs came in.
Quote from: tony la on October 02, 2012, 11:12:52 PM
It now has been 7 years since they won the WS, lets not forget it took them 87 years to do that. I was a Andy Frain usher at the old park and I have to tell you that in no way could Wrigley compare to the drunks we used to drag out of there in the alley behind the stadium. On any given friday or saturday nite we were dragging them out before the first pitch was thrown.
I have been a Cub all my life. Over the years I have come to realize that I do not dislike the team, or the stadium, or Reinsdorf. It is the sox fan that is a pain in the ass. They are some of the bigest crybabies I have ever seen. Most of them would rather buy a Cubs suck jersey rather than a Sox jersey, I could never understand that.
My favorite question to them all year has been if they were disappointed that the sox gave up Dick Allens number. Not to my suprise, their nextquestion was"who has his number". Or they did not say anything at all because they did not know. That says it all to me about what kind of fan most of them are. I was upset they gave away his number, and I am not even a sox fan. One of the most amazing players they ever had, who had some of his best years on the south side.
They had a decent little team this year. I enjoyed watching them, even going to a few games thanks to a local bank who game me tickets. I took my daughter and we both had a hell of a time.
As bad as their support is, the fact is that the last couple of years they have been breaking attendance records......which is really sad. They should be thanking us for giving them the few sell out crowds they had when the cubs came in.
Did you usher at Wrigley? There's a big difference between daytime drunks and nighttime drunks.
Dick Allen had ONE of his best seasons at Comiskey. He followed that season with an "injury" plagued year that strangely aligned with his hatred of the DH and astroturf. Then the fade of `74 in which he walked away with 20 games left. Lock, stock and two smoking barrels. It was the 70s. Allen was entering his 30s. He had zero conditioning program. He was 100% natural talent who had no use for trainers. 10 years in Philly and the reserve clause made Richie Allen the person he was. Three years in Chicago with Chuck Tanner helped Dick Allen far more than it helped the White Sox. I put it in the "what coulda been" era of WSox lore. John Allyn was out of his league baseball team wise. But he knew the commodities market.
The south side 70s were driven by business decisions and sociology. Veeck/No Veeck the game changed. 81 home games, beer and baseball competing with WGN and the Cubs marketing departments in a deeply segregated city.
It's 2012 and the societal problems linger. U.S. Cellular Field and it's "neighborhood" symbolize Chicago's inability to embrace diversity. We're still driven by fear and perceptions.
Quote from: watcher on October 03, 2012, 07:49:29 AM
Quote from: tony la on October 02, 2012, 11:12:52 PM
It now has been 7 years since they won the WS, lets not forget it took them 87 years to do that. I was a Andy Frain usher at the old park and I have to tell you that in no way could Wrigley compare to the drunks we used to drag out of there in the alley behind the stadium. On any given friday or saturday nite we were dragging them out before the first pitch was thrown.
I have been a Cub all my life. Over the years I have come to realize that I do not dislike the team, or the stadium, or Reinsdorf. It is the sox fan that is a pain in the ass. They are some of the bigest crybabies I have ever seen. Most of them would rather buy a Cubs suck jersey rather than a Sox jersey, I could never understand that.
My favorite question to them all year has been if they were disappointed that the sox gave up Dick Allens number. Not to my suprise, their nextquestion was"who has his number". Or they did not say anything at all because they did not know. That says it all to me about what kind of fan most of them are. I was upset they gave away his number, and I am not even a sox fan. One of the most amazing players they ever had, who had some of his best years on the south side.
They had a decent little team this year. I enjoyed watching them, even going to a few games thanks to a local bank who game me tickets. I took my daughter and we both had a hell of a time.
As bad as their support is, the fact is that the last couple of years they have been breaking attendance records......which is really sad. They should be thanking us for giving them the few sell out crowds they had when the cubs came in.
Did you usher at Wrigley? There's a big difference between daytime drunks and nighttime drunks.
Dick Allen had ONE of his best seasons at Comiskey. He followed that season with an "injury" plagued year that strangely aligned with his hatred of the DH and astroturf. Then the fade of `74 in which he walked away with 20 games left. Lock, stock and two smoking barrels. It was the 70s. Allen was entering his 30s. He had zero conditioning program. He was 100% natural talent who had no use for trainers. 10 years in Philly and the reserve clause made Richie Allen the person he was. Three years in Chicago with Chuck Tanner helped Dick Allen far more than it helped the White Sox. I put it in the "what coulda been" era of WSox lore. John Allyn was out of his league baseball team wise. But he knew the commodities market.
The south side 70s were driven by business decisions and sociology. Veeck/No Veeck the game changed. 81 home games, beer and baseball competing with WGN and the Cubs marketing departments in a deeply segregated city.
It's 2012 and the societal problems linger. U.S. Cellular Field and it's "neighborhood" symbolize Chicago's inability to embrace diversity. We're still driven by fear and perceptions.
Your post makes my point exactly. You my friend are the typical Sox fan with the typical belly aching. Glad to know you are so knowledgabe on drunks. I did work both day and night games at Comiskey. We put them in the same alley where they actually laid there until they woke up. I did work both ball parks. I am not going to say Wrigley did not have drunks, but it was no comparison to the amount of drunks we had at Comiskey.
I must say though you do not see those kind of drunks at the Cell. My opinion is that your drunk of the 70's can't afford a ticket like they used to. In fact the cost of a ticket is keeping the real fan away from both parks. I would love to see how many people at the game got a free ticket from corporate America.
Everything you say about Dick Allen may be true. But he was a hell of an exciting player when he came to bat. His short love affair with sox fans should not be forgotten. I am not even a sox fan and I remember the excitement in and out of the park when he came to bat.
The excuses for non support are amazing. 1. They hate Reinsdorf because of the strike. 2. Traffic is too bad around the park. 3. They are not a good team.....I am not going to support them until ownership spends more money on free agents. 4. The seats are to steep. 5. The stadium looks like a spaceship, not a ball park. 6. I don't like the color of the seats. 7. The neighborhood is not safe.....all of these issues Reinsdorf addressed for the crybabies. Reinsdorf is a phenominal owner. Until now I wished he was owner or the Cubs. The complaints go on and on of why they do not support their team. I think the real issue is the price of a ticket. You will never hear them say thickets are too high....I will say it for both teams. The family man has not been able to bring his family to a game for a long time.
Quote from: tony la on October 03, 2012, 09:18:50 AM
Your post makes my point exactly. You my friend are the typical Sox fan with the typical belly aching. Glad to know you are so knowledgabe on drunks. I did work both day and night games at Comiskey. We put them in the same alley where they actually laid there until they woke up. I did work both ball parks. I am not going to say Wrigley did not have drunks, but it was no comparison to the amount of drunks we had at Comiskey.
I must say though you do not see those kind of drunks at the Cell. My opinion is that your drunk of the 70's can't afford a ticket like they used to. In fact the cost of a ticket is keeping the real fan away from both parks. I would love to see how many people at the game got a free ticket from corporate America.
Everything you say about Dick Allen may be true. But he was a hell of an exciting player when he came to bat. His short love affair with sox fans should not be forgotten. I am not even a sox fan and I remember the excitement in and out of the park when he came to bat.
The excuses for non support are amazing. 1. They hate Reinsdorf because of the strike. 2. Traffic is too bad around the park. 3. They are not a good team.....I am not going to support them until ownership spends more money on free agents. 4. The seats are to steep. 5. The stadium looks like a spaceship, not a ball park. 6. I don't like the color of the seats. 7. The neighborhood is not safe.....all of these issues Reinsdorf addressed for the crybabies. Reinsdorf is a phenominal owner. Until now I wished he was owner or the Cubs. The complaints go on and on of why they do not support their team. I think the real issue is the price of a ticket. You will never hear them say thickets are too high....I will say it for both teams. The family man has not been able to bring his family to a game for a long time.
You make no point. At least not a coherent one and certainly not one that doesn't apply almost universally in professional sports. You speak of fan loyalty and somehow equate that with attendance. Not surprising for someone who makes a living off the percentages. Everybody attends or doesn't for different reasons. In case you didn't notice, there is a big difference in disposable incomes in our present economy. Affordability is relative.
Competition for the family man's dollar, allegiance and attention is a 24/7/365 all-encompassing effort. You do yourself no favors by insulting them and belittling their reasoning. They don't owe you an explanation. You wouldn't like or accept it anyway.
The 2013 season has already started for 2/3rds of MLB. The Sox will sell out Soxfest in January.
Until then, Da Bears take over.
Well enough of the attendance nonsense. The Sox don't sell out simply because they have a much smaller fan base than the Cubs. SIMPLE.
Now, as far as the collapse is concerned, ponder the following:
On Septmeber 19th Bridgeport was +3 with just a little over two weeks left in the saeson.
By then end of the month, TWELVE DAYS later, they found themselves -3....having gone a mind boggling 2-10 in the interim. If THAT isn't the greatest down the stretch collapse in Chicago baseball history, I don't know what is. To put this in proper perspective, if the Black Sox would have simply played .500 ball in that stretch, they would still be in first place, with one game left to play!!!
Some further food for thought:
The Black Sox would be in FOURTH PLACE in both of the other AL divisions with their present record.
They would be in THIRD PLACE in all three NL divisions with their present record.
Bridgeport has the EIGHTH best record in the AL.....in other words, they're in the BOTTOM HALF of the 14 team AL.
They also are only one of two teams with the good fortune to play 54 games (a THIRD of their schedule), against the likes of KC, Minnesota and Cleveland....the other being Detroit, LOL!!!! And they still couldn't muster more than 84-85 wins.
Quote from: whitesoxfan on October 02, 2012, 08:44:41 PM
Quote from: The Jackal on October 02, 2012, 10:23:36 AM
Maybe so...but in 40+ years of following the beloved Cubbies, I've never seen a Cub fan take a shower in center field, run onto the field and pummel a first base coach from behind, cause a riot which forces the cancellation of a game, or pay to see a midget and/or men in shorts play......among other things!
http://youtu.be/D9BwOAY1iXU (http://youtu.be/D9BwOAY1iXU)
Enough said on that.
No, not enough said on that. Context is important. The jackass was celebrating after a win. People running on fields is NOTHING new all around sports.
Attacking umpires, coaches, showering, are not.
Quote from: whitesoxfan on October 02, 2012, 08:44:41 PM
I realized a long, long time ago that Cubs fans are not worth arguing with. Very delusional, which is I guess an obvious reason they are Cubs fans to begin with.
I wish that I can meet Bartman and just say to him- "now you know what it's like to deal with Cubs fans" .
Do you have sox fans or cubs fans working at your place?
Quote from: Jenster on October 03, 2012, 07:27:59 PM
No, not enough said on that. Context is important. The jackass was celebrating after a win. People running on fields is NOTHING new all around sports.
Attacking umpires, coaches, showering, are not.
Actually, I believe that fan was running after Bobby Howry, the pitcher for the team he is supposed to be rooting for.
Quote from: Jenster on October 03, 2012, 07:29:19 PM
Do you have sox fans or cubs fans working at your place?
I have both.
Quote from: The Jackal on October 03, 2012, 11:14:54 AM
Well enough of the attendance nonsense. The Sox don't sell out simply because they have a much smaller fan base than the Cubs. SIMPLE.
(/quote)
Correct, it is nonsense.
Quote from: The Jackal on October 03, 2012, 11:14:54 AM
Now, as far as the collapse is concerned, ponder the following:
On Septmeber 19th Bridgeport was +3 with just a little over two weeks left in the saeson.
By then end of the month, TWELVE DAYS later, they found themselves -3....having gone a mind boggling 2-10 in the interim. If THAT isn't the greatest down the stretch collapse in Chicago baseball history, I don't know what is. To put this in proper perspective, if the Black Sox would have simply played .500 ball in that stretch, they would still be in first place, with one game left to play!!!
Very true. Huge collapse.
My personal perspective is that we over achieved in the first half. Konerko in the cleanup spot with only 73 rbi and 65 runs is not going to get the job done. He was huge at the beginning of the year but faded to a .299 avg.
I am still happy. They put a team on the field once again that competed, which is what they have done since 1990 for the most part. They are 190+ games over 500 in that span with only 6 of those seasons with a record under 500 ( Cubs minus 130+ games under 500 in that span, 15 seasons under 500.) Do I want them to win the world Series every year? Of course but we all know that isn't going to happen so I am more then happy that they put a team that competes for the division almost every year.
Quote from: The Jackal on October 03, 2012, 11:14:54 AM
Some further food for thought:
The Black Sox would be in FOURTH PLACE in both of the other AL divisions with their present record.
They would be in THIRD PLACE in all three NL divisions with their present record.
Bridgeport has the EIGHTH best record in the AL.....in other words, they're in the BOTTOM HALF of the 14 team AL.
They also are only one of two teams with the good fortune to play 54 games (a THIRD of their schedule), against the likes of KC, Minnesota and Cleveland....the other being Detroit, LOL!!!! And they still couldn't muster more than 84-85 wins.
Those are all bullshit stats and you know it. The Cards won the World Series twice with the worst divisional record.
By the way, is the worst division in baseball decided by the best team in the divisions record or the worst team in the divisions record. If it is the latter, we all know what the worst division in baseball is.
Too bad we couldn't have played the Cubs 18 times like we have to play our other division teams, they had a worse record then anyone in our division and we would have gone 12-6, but we didn't.
Every team is built to compete in their own division. Unless you just don't plan on competing, ahem
Are you serious now or do you suffer from dementia? You take the EXCEPTION (Cardinals) and try to pass it off as the rule? Over a 162 game season, chances are great that the best team is one with the best overall record. Does that team always win the WS? No. Nonetheless, I highly doubt you're going to find many teams with the 15th best overall record in baseball winning the world series.
What's BS about the stats? Don't the Black sox play KC, Minny and Cleveland for a THIRD of their games?
The strength of your division is determined from top to bottom, not looking SOLELY at the top OR bottom. The AL Central is the only division with only two teams above .500. Furthermore, there is no other division with three teams as bad as KC, Cleveland and Minnesota....or one where 60 percent of the division is utter crap.
Seriously, THINK before you post.
And NO, you don't necessarily build your team according to your division, especially if your goal is the WS. Your division can change from year to year and if you're stuck with long term commitments to certain players, then the character of your team will not be able to change/adapt accordingly.
You try to build a team that can get the most wins possible over a 162 game schedule.
Within that same team you also try to build a side that can win one five and two seven game playoff series. THAT is the blueprint to winning a WS.
The point is that the Black Sox benefit greatly from playing, for the most part, in a two team division year after year. And that in no part has to do with the unbalanced nature of the schedule.
The fact of the matter is teams like Tampa and LA play a MUCH more difficult 162 game schedule than Bridgeport. BOTH finished THIRD and further back in their respective divisions than the Black Sox. BOTH are flat out better teams than the Black Sox. Yet if you look at division standings, the Sox came closer to getting into the playoffs than either the Rays or Angels, due SOLELY to the divisional format in baseball.
Need more proof?
In the aforementioned tragic dirty dozen (game) stretch, Bridgeport played the Angels and Rays SEVEN times.....and went 1-6....when the chips were down and all the money on the line!
The Reds won over 50% of their games (49 wins) playing their own division. If you have a division with THE TWO worst teams in baseball, the rest of the teams in the division are going to benefit greatly (all of them). If every team could in our division could play Morton high school and Morton College 36 times, we wouldn't be so bad. The National league central has 6 teams, 3 of which were under 500. So you are comparing apples to oranges. There is no way that we can know if we would have a fourth team under 500 or a third team over 500.
I never said the 15th best team would win the World Series.
We were 7-8 against Tampa and LA this year, they are hardly flat out better.
Look no further then your great savior Theo. He built the Red Sox of course to beat the Yankees. Every move he made was to Win that division. Aquiring players so the Yankees couldn't get them and also signing players that the Yankees had trouble against.
If the best team in your division is stacked with left handed batters, your going to try and get some lefties that can get them out. I really don't have the time to go over basic stuff here.
Of course you want to win 1 five game series and 2 seven game series but your goal is to get there 1st.
Quote from: whitesoxfan on October 03, 2012, 11:51:12 PM
The Reds won over 50% of their games (49 wins) playing their own division. If you have a division with THE TWO worst teams in baseball, the rest of the teams in the division are going to benefit greatly (all of them). If every team could in our division could play Morton high school and Morton College 36 times, we wouldn't be so bad. The National league central has 6 teams, 3 of which were under 500. So you are comparing apples to oranges. There is no way that we can know if we would have a fourth team under 500 or a third team over 500.
I never said the 15th best team would win the World Series.
We were 7-8 against Tampa and LA this year, they are hardly flat out better.
Look no further then your great savior Theo. He built the Red Sox of course to beat the Yankees. Every move he made was to Win that division. Aquiring players so the Yankees couldn't get them and also signing players that the Yankees had trouble against.
If the best team in your division is stacked with left handed batters, your going to try and get some lefties that can get them out. I really don't have the time to go over basic stuff here.
Of course you want to win 1 five game series and 2 seven game series but your goal is to get there 1st.
I'm not so sure why this is so hard to comprehend, even for Bridgeportites. The Black Sox played ONE THIRD of their schedule against teams that were 18, 26 and 30 games under .500 respectively. There is NO OTHER team in baseball, outside of Detroit, that had such good fortune. And that is so ONLY becuase they play in the AL Central.
The NL Central, on the other hand, has only TWO such poor teams, meaning the Reds, Cards, Brewers and Pirates each played 36 games against those two. BIG difference between 36 and 54. You can't simply state the NL Central had three teams undeer .500 as well because that stat is highly misleading. The Pirates were over .500 (and in contention) for most of the year and fell to 4 games under only at the tail end when they tanked it.
Morton High and Morton JC you say? Hey, look no further than Minnesota and Cleveland....LOL!!!!! You can throw in St. Leaonards (KC) as well as an added bonus.
I'm really not sure where you get this "I build my team to win a division" nonsense comes from, especially when you can get into the playoffs via a wild card and since a long term move/commitment with solely your division rival in mind can handcuff you for years to come. The Red Sox made moves to counter the Yanks primarily because that's the nature of their rivalry. I lived in NY, I think I should know. The Red Sox built their team (and most gms follow suit) primarily to conform to their park, where they play 81 games, and not necessarily to combat the Yanks, who they only play 18 times. I'm not going to waste any more time explaining elementary math to you.
Oh, and btw, when it mattered most.....whne the games actually meant something down the stretch, Bridgeport went 1-6 against Tampa and LA, BOTH of whom finished with better records. That's ALL you need to know about the THIRD PLACE teams in the AL East and West and how Bridgeport stacks up accordingly. The fact is, Bridgeport had the EIGTH best record in the 14 team AL. How a team in the lower half of their own league has serious playoff/WS aspirations is beyond me.
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the prediction for the White Sox dire this year? They weren't even supposed to compete, right?
Oh and second place is still better than last place and losing 100 games. In my opinion, the team that wins the WS is the only real winner.
Quote from: The Jackal on October 04, 2012, 08:13:20 AM
Oh, and btw, when it mattered most.....whne the games actually meant something down the stretch, Bridgeport went 1-6 against Tampa and LA, BOTH of whom finished with better records. That's ALL you need to know about the THIRD PLACE teams in the AL East and West and how Bridgeport stacks up accordingly. The fact is, Bridgeport had the EIGTH best record in the 14 team AL. How a team in the lower half of their own league has serious playoff/WS aspirations is beyond me.
This is why I stated that I stopped arguing with Cubs fans long ago and somehow I find myself back in the mix. Every time I think I'm out, they pull me back in. Let's get down to the basics here. I remember AGREEING that the Sox choked down the stretch. I also remember you using Sept. 19th as a starting point. Well, as of that date we were 5th best in the AL record wise and 1st in division. As of that date, pretty late in the season I might add, the Sox make the playoffs in any scenario, even if you take the division crown away. SO you are saying that we were crazy to have playoff aspirations? Also at that point, we would of had a good enough record to make the NL playoffs.
You were the one that used that date as a starting point. We both agreed that they choked after that. They hit their first real slump of the year. They were tired. Once again we have a fan of the original Chicago White Stockings zoning in about what the White Sox did instead of worrying about the White Stockings losing 101 games.
You should be worried about the mess on the North side and the possibility of losing 100 games again. Perhaps you can find another cheater to cork his bat, take steroids and drive player market value up even higher then your golden boy Sosa did in his day. Next year, the worst team in baseball comes to the American League and your division will only have the second worst team in baseball to beat up on.
I will not discount the Pirates slide - most of it was within the division, and Cincy did feast on them in September. Still, the difference in wins between the bottom three in each Central division is only four games, and the white sox play a greater percentage of their games against those bottom three since they make up 3/5ths of their division.
The whole point is, every division in baseball (except for the four team AL West) has two very weak teams. By very weak, I don't mean sides like the Pirates who are at or around .500. I mean teams like the Royals, Cubs, Indians, Astros, and Twins. Every division (exclude AL West) has TWO of those....except for the AL Central, which has THREE. With the unbalanced schedule, that means the Tigers and Sox got a chance to clobber a very weak team EIGHTEEN more times during the regular season than anybody else in baseball. That's a HUGE difference. Especially when ONE THIRD of your TOTAL schedule is played against the Little Sisters of the Poor.
As for Sosa, well we DID get him from Bridgeport, didn't we? LOL!!! Once he gets done corking his bats he might be able to help Albert Belle conceal them in one of the Cell clubhouses. You remember "Joey" Belle, don't you? LOL!
FWIW, I seriously hope we lose 100 again next year. That's the whole idea. You know it and I know it. But, at this point, its the only thing you have to hang your hat on. Good luck with all that.
The difference between the two bottom 3 is 11 games. I don't think my point is being made here. IF you take the absolute worst 2 teams in baseball, aka Morton High school and Morton JC, and put them in any division, the rest of the division has a much better advantage then the divisions that don't have them in the division and don't get to play them as much.
I am not saying that the White Sox don't have a poor division, I am saying that even though we have teams that are poorer then us, we don't have the luxury of facing the absolute worst in the league 16-18 times per year.
The Cubs let the rest of the NL central go 50-31 against them and the Astros let the NL Central go 50 and 29 against them. They were baaaaaaaaaaaaad. Hense the better records in the rest of the division.
Its simple math my friend. There are 12 "very weak" teams in baseball. My starting point for "very weak" is, in this case, the 10 games below .500 Padres. Of those twelve teams, three are in the AL Central. Its irrelevant as to HOW BAD each of these teams is. As a "contender", you don't get to play any of these very weak teams any more or less times based on HOW BAD they are. For example, the Sox don't play don't play Minnesota more times than KC because the Twins are worse than the Royals. A BAD TEAM is a BAD TEAM, one that a good team should beat, irrespective of actually HOW bad they are. As such, the Black Sox had 54 games against BAD teams. Only the Tigers had that many. The next highest total is 36....an 18 game difference. Taking the cumulative loss total of the teams in the NL Central is misleading and deceptive because it doesn't change the AMOUNT of times the top teams in the NL Central played them. In other words, irrespective of HOW BAD the Cubs and Astros were, the fact remains that the Reds played only 36 games, max, against such weak competition. I'm sure you can figure this out.
Quote from: SimplyBerwyn on October 04, 2012, 08:44:54 AM
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the prediction for the White Sox dire this year? They weren't even supposed to compete, right?
Oh and second place is still better than last place and losing 100 games. In my opinion, the team that wins the WS is the only real winner.
Exactly. Precisely. They WEREN'T supposed to compete......and wouldn't have in ANY other division except for the pathetic AL Central. THAT was the whole point. Thanks for illustrating it.
So if the ONLY real winner is the WS champ, you would agree that BOTH the beloved and the Black Sox are losers this year, no?
Quote from: SimplyBerwyn on October 04, 2012, 08:44:54 AM
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the prediction for the White Sox dire this year? They weren't even supposed to compete, right?
The pre-season prediction was that the White sox would lose 95 games.
I predicted 84 wins for the Sox and 60 wins for the Cubs. What I didn't/couldn't predict was how decidedly mediocre Detroit would be for most of the year.
Quote from: whitesoxfan on October 04, 2012, 10:32:17 AM
The difference between the two bottom 3 is 11 games. I don't think my point is being made here.
You're making your point, it's just not a good one.
I was talking wins, performance.
The bottom 3 in the ALC have a grand total of FOUR more wins than their NLC counterparts. Hence, beating on "the two worst teams in baseball" was, well, weak, at best, since you play EVERYONE in the division.
Sure, the two worst teams in the AL: CLE and MIN, have better records than CHI and HOU in the NL, but Pittsburgh was significantly better than KC. Flush them all out and the difference is negligible. Furthermore, the bottom three make up 3/5ths of the ALC as opposed to only 1/2 of the NLC, so the Sox get to play the fluff that much more than the Reds, who you alluded to. That's a 63 to 50 game advantage, Sox! LOL
Quote from: Ted on October 04, 2012, 11:58:20 AM
Quote from: SimplyBerwyn on October 04, 2012, 08:44:54 AM
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the prediction for the White Sox dire this year? They weren't even supposed to compete, right?
The pre-season prediction was that the White sox would lose 95 games.
Show me where you predicted 95 games.
Quote from: Jenster on October 04, 2012, 12:44:52 PM
Show me where you predicted 95 games.
I didn't. Sports Illustrated did:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/baseball/mlb/03/28/si.mlb.2012.preview/index.html (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/baseball/mlb/03/28/si.mlb.2012.preview/index.html)
CENTRAL Division Preview
Detroit Tigers 93-69
Kansas City Royals 82-80
Cleveland Indians 80-82
Minnesota Twins 72-90
Chicago White Sox 67-95
Quote from: The Jackal on October 04, 2012, 11:06:11 AM
Quote from: SimplyBerwyn on October 04, 2012, 08:44:54 AM
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the prediction for the White Sox dire this year? They weren't even supposed to compete, right?
Oh and second place is still better than last place and losing 100 games. In my opinion, the team that wins the WS is the only real winner.
Exactly. Precisely. They WEREN'T supposed to compete......and wouldn't have in ANY other division except for the pathetic AL Central. THAT was the whole point. Thanks for illustrating it.
So if the ONLY real winner is the WS champ, you would agree that BOTH the beloved and the Black Sox are losers this year, no?
Only 3 AL teams weren't over .500 in interleague play. 10 of the 16 NL teams were under .500 against AL.
Over 10 years, the AL has played almost .600 ball against the NL. Factored to a 162 game season, that'd be 92 wins a year. The Reds and Giants were 7-8 this year, but won their respective divisions.
The 3 AL teams below .500 were each 8-10. Still, the Royals managed to sweep the Brewers and their former Ace Zach Grienke.
As a Sox fan, I HATE playing KC and the Twinkies who seem to trot out Cy Freakin' Young to face us every time, with a batting order of .500 hitters!
"Baseball is ninety percent mental. The other half is physical."
Quote from: Ted on October 04, 2012, 02:07:32 PM
Quote from: Jenster on October 04, 2012, 12:44:52 PM
Show me where you predicted 95 games.
I didn't. Sports Illustrated did:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/baseball/mlb/03/28/si.mlb.2012.preview/index.html (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/baseball/mlb/03/28/si.mlb.2012.preview/index.html)
CENTRAL Division Preview
Detroit Tigers 93-69
Kansas City Royals 82-80
Cleveland Indians 80-82
Minnesota Twins 72-90
Chicago White Sox 67-95
LOL. Oh boy. They also predicted the Cubs to win the Series a couple times.
Watcher,
I have no idea what interleague play has to do with what I posted. The Sox are competing for a division and/or playoff spot with other AL teams, not the Brewers, Cubs, Astros or anybody else in the NL. As such, they were one of only TWO teams in the 14 team AL that had the good fortune of playing the terrible trio 54 times a year. THAT was the whole point.
Put another way, I'd be mighty pissed if I were the Rangers or Orioles. The O's get the Rays, Jays, and Red Sox 54 times a year and the Rangers get the A's, Angels and Mariners 54 times a year. Hardly an even swap. And yet these teams are all competing for the same wildcard spot(s).
The great thing about this game is no matter who you have. What record you got. You still have to play the game and nothing is guarnteed. Except Albert Bell had a corked bat too.
My point exactly. I would be pissed off if I were the Dodgers and St.Louis
got to play the Cubs and Astros 32 times a year.
I know....not when he was with the sox
Quote from: whitesoxfan on October 04, 2012, 03:20:27 PM
My point exactly. I would be pissed off if I were the Dodgers and St.Louis
got to play the Cubs and Astros 32 times a year.
As if San Diego and Colorado are worth a shit.
Quote from: whitesoxfan on October 04, 2012, 03:20:27 PM
My point exactly. I would be pissed off if I were the Dodgers and St.Louis
got to play the Cubs and Astros 32 times a year.
See Bonsters post. You make NO point. We all agree that in every division in baseball outside of the al west, the top teams get to play 36 "easy" games against crap teams. No question about about that. The issue though is that Detroit and Bridgeport get to play EIGHTEEN more games against crap teams by virtue of that third garbage team in the AL Central. Not sure why that's so hard to comprehend.
Quote from: The Jackal on October 04, 2012, 03:45:08 PM
Quote from: whitesoxfan on October 04, 2012, 03:20:27 PM
My point exactly. I would be pissed off if I were the Dodgers and St.Louis
got to play the Cubs and Astros 32 times a year.
See Bonsters post. You make NO point. We all agree that in every division in baseball outside of the al west, the top teams get to play 36 "easy" games against crap teams. No question about about that. The issue though is that Detroit and Bridgeport get to play EIGHTEEN more games against crap teams by virtue of that third garbage team in the AL Central. Not sure why that's so hard to comprehend.
19, and the sox get six more against the Cubs. They should be the perennial division winners by wsf's logic!
Huge difference. San Diego needed 6 more wins to be 500 Cubs needed 20.
I'm not sure if I've got my point across. I 100% understand your arguement, I get it.
It DOESN'T change the fact that everyone in your
division gets to play against minor league Talant more then anyone else in baseball
No you don't...for the rest of the NL Central, there are only 36 SOFT interdivision games. In the AL Central, there are 54. Its an 18 game difference. Not sure why that's such a difficult concept for you. Its a matter of quantity.
Yes but you also don't have to play as many games against the tougher divisions because you get to play each other so much. Are you really, really serious that you would rather play the Indians, Royals and Twins 54 times or play the Astros, Cubs and Pirates (who have a combined 11 less wins) 48 times?
Yes, I'm very serious, because taking the CUMULATIVE won loss record of the bottom three NL Central teams is grossly misleading because the astros and cubs were so bad and accumulated so many losses themselves. The Pirates were a pretty decent and competitive team virtually all year. Neither the Royals, Indians or Twins were. The Pirates were not an "easy" game for anyone. The Royals, Indians, Twins, Cubs and Astros were. As such, it makes 54 "easy" games in the AL Central as opposed to 36 "easy" games in the NL Central. BIG difference.
For the sox it's 60 games!
18 CLE
18 KC
18 MIN
6 Cubs
60
(not sure where I got 63 before)
Quote from: whitesoxfan on October 04, 2012, 04:51:40 PM
Are you really, really serious that you would rather play the Indians, Royals and Twins 54 times or play the Astros, Cubs and Pirates (who have a combined 11 less wins) 48 times?
If you're the Sox, DEFINITELY. Their stellar 1-2 record against the worst team in baseball is testament to that. They even blew a series to the Cubs, LOL.
Man, that's the division right there!
I'm through. you will never get it. In all honesty, it doesn't matter. I will go on rooting for a team that tries to compete every year and actually has won something in my lifetime. You can go around a be the lovable losers the rest of your life. keep blaming goats, black cats and actual fans for your losing ways.
For every loss that the Cubs contribute to the winner of their division and the NL wildcard next year, I will just sit there and think how lucky those teams are to get to play the Cubs so many times per year.
Quote from: whitesoxfan on October 04, 2012, 06:54:57 PM
I'm through. you will never get it.
No, YOU don't get it. Not sure what you fail to understand about the number 60. Hell, make it 63, which would includes SIX more games against the Astros and Cubs than the Tigers had. YET, the Tigers won 43 of 72 games within the division while the sox lost series on their LUCKY schedule to the Cubs AND the Astros.
SO, so bitter.
Tries to compete? Compete for what? How is being in the BOTTOM HALF of your own league TRYING TO COMPETE? If that's your definition of trying then I suggest you try, try again!!!
Our strength of schedule was 14 out of 30 teams, Detroit's was 13 out of 30. that means we had the 13th and 14th hardest schedules in mlb. The Brewers (30), Reds (29), Cards(28) and Pittsburgh (27) had the 4 easiest schedules in baseball.
It doesn't matter whatever stats you come up with, they had the easiest paths to a winning record. With a wayyyyy easier division.
There is nothing bitter about it. Those are the numbers.
We competed the whole season. We were in 1st place almost the whole year. Sorry if that bothers you
What in Gods name does strength of schedule and the Brewers, Cards, Reds and Pirates have to do with anything?
#1 Strength of schedule needs to be evalutaed based on the formula being used to rank teams. My guess is that the forumla being used utilized CUMULATIVE wins and losses of opponents, which once again is misleading because it doesn't take into account the amount of games played against weak opponents. Of course the Brewers, Cards, Reds and Pirates are in the bottom four of strength of schedule because they played the two worst teams in baseball with over 200 losses between them 36 times. Even of the Cubs and Astros had 200 + losses between them, the other terams in their division played them 36 times. The Sox played the terrible trio 54 times. But, since you put inappropriate weight in CUMULATIVE losses, the abysmal record of the Cubs and Astros skews the actual strength/weakness of your division.
#2. The Sox don't compete against the Reds, Cards, Brewers and Pirates. You evaluate the sox comparing their schedule to other AL, not NL, teams.
Maybe I'm missing something here. Your point was the Sox and Tigers were the ONLY teams in BASEBALL that had the luxury of playing 3 of the weakest teams a total of 54 times. Was it not?
I never said that the Sox and Tigers didn't have an easier path then the rest of the AL. I said that IN ALL OF BASEBALL, though it may appear that the SOX and Tigers had the easiest path, the NL Central teams had a way easier path. I still say that and it is true.
Quote from: whitesoxfan on October 04, 2012, 10:03:33 PM
Maybe I'm missing something here. Your point was the Sox and Tigers were the ONLY teams in BASEBALL that had the luxury of playing 3 of the weakest teams a total of 54 times. Was it not?
I never said that the Sox and Tigers didn't have an easier path then the rest of the AL. I said that IN ALL OF BASEBALL, though it may appear that the SOX and Tigers had the easiest path, the NL Central teams had a way easier path. I still say that and it is true.
111 days until Soxfest 2013
there's always next year....
For the life of me, I don't understand why everybody is still arguing about the Cubs and the White Sox. The season is over-Sox had a better record than the Cubs, yet they are both at home watching the playoffs.
The White Sox seem to compete more often than not for the Division title, which is more than anyone can say about the Cubs. Easier schedule doesn't really matter, you either have the talent (provided by the front office, farm system etc) or you don't.
Just because the Cubs draw more saps to Wrigley Field than the White Sox do to Comiskey doesn't mean a hill of beans.
It's all in fun (I hope). My father was a huuuuuuuuuuge Cubs fan. He was at Wrigley to see them for their last 2 World Series appearances in 1938 and 1945. My parents tried to raise me as a Cubs
fan but in 1977, the South Side Hit Men stole the show for me and I've been a Sox fan ever since. Now that I have 2 boys, I'm so afraid that Karma is going to hit me hard and they will both be Cubs fans. I remember in 1984 when the Cubs lost to the Padres and the look on my Mom and Dad's faces when they lost and us Sox fans were just rubbing it in, they were crushed. What they couldn't remember was that just a year earlier they did they same thing to me. Anyways, I swore that I would never "rub it in" again. When I purchased the bar from my mother in 1994 I saw a whole new world. I mean, I knew Cubs and Sox fans argued but being at the bar every day I now seen it ALL THE TIME, much more intense, everyday. I still say that I would never rub it in after a dramatic loss. Now that the Sox have won a World Series, I truly do want the Cubs to win one. I have too many friends, family and customers that deserve that awesome feeling, it would be wonderful for them. But as long as they are losing, I will try not to argue, but it's hard.
Quote from: whitesoxfan on October 05, 2012, 02:21:40 PM
It's all in fun (I hope).
It is. At least with me it is.
Come on, this shit's fun! :D
I will say this: for as much as we've argued (in this thread) I think Mike is truly one of the fairest people around and has never made anyone feel uncomfortable at his place; a testament to the quality of Chicago sports fans from ANY side. I've always enjoyed tipping one back at his place for games of all sports, all teams. Thanks for that, Mike. You are one of the good guys.
Quote from: whitesoxfan on May 10, 2007, 05:32:28 PM
Fyi - fellow White Sox and Cub Fans - There is a White Sox neon on one end of the bar and a Cubs neon on the other. you can always tell if your team has won their last game by simply looking to see if the light is on. If it is off, that means they lost. Now, normally we keep both lights on through out the off season but we had to keep the Cubs light off from Oct. 2005 - April 2006 while the World Series Champions light remained on.
Thank you for that. It truly is fun, it's part of living in the Chicago area. For the record, the Cubs neon that was on one side of the bar mysteriously disappeared. Now, I know what your thinking but I honestly, truly had nothing to do with it. I have been trying to get a new one but to no avail. It doesn't help that my bartenders are probably a 3 to 1 ratio Cubs fans to Sox fans so they ain't saying anything about where it might be.
Quote from: The Jackal on October 02, 2012, 09:01:46 AM
That was the WHOLE IDEA...to tear it completely apart and hit rock bottom. Now I suppose we could have resigned Ramirez and Pena, kept , Marsahall, Dempster and Maholm....and maybe added another over the hill vet (like Youkilis?), but the end result would have been the same......NO PLAYOFFS. ..
How'd that work out for the Bulls in 1999? ::)
The run to the bottom was an awful strategy. The only reason the Bulls recovered from that was due to a lucky draw in the draft that brought them Derek Rose.
Well, it isn't necvessary in the NBA. YOu're comparing apples to oranges. NBA teams don't have a farm system they need to restock. Furthermore, one or two players in the NBA can turn you completely around. Not so in MLB. Lastly, simpy because Krause didn't succeed in HIS rebuilding effort doesn't mean Epstein and Co will not. In any event, the Bulls simply weren't "lucky" to draft Rose....they got into draft position to do so b/c they had such a bad record, no?
Quote from: The Jackal on October 06, 2012, 08:23:41 AM
they got into draft position to do so b/c they had such a bad record, no?
Yeah, but they had high draft choices in 1999 and the early 2000's as well and that didn't bring much.
True, but 1) that's their own fault, not the draft process' fault, and 2) the nba draft has only two rounds, the mlb draft has what, 30 or 40 some rounds?
Ok, scroo baseball for this year. Let's no longer talk about how shitty the Cubs are, or how awesome the Sox are. We no longer need debate how the Cubs organization is completely inept, and how the Sox org is just simply superior in all ways. I think we should focus on...
Da Bears!!
Plenty of season left, and Jax is a bunch of pansies, I know, but, seriously, what a difference a real NFL receiver makes, and the defense has enough to stifle other teams. If GB can't get their shizz together, watch out.