WestEddy

I'll agree with you here. It's an everything issue. The article is unscientific. I would guess they culled quotes from past reporting and produced content out of that. The Sox have a bad reputation around the league. We all agree. A large part of it seems to be that the Sox have a low payroll. The org also fell to s%*# during KW/Hahn's tenure. I sure would love to see any reporting on whether the Sox have addressed the areas that some players mentioned. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the focus of the NYTimes.

You seem to be pretending a lot, here, so you can just toss this article on the pile.

Rain Delay Theater

I didn't mention the dugout. The article is somewhat interesting. The examples of reputation I gave will probably stay with these players for the duration of their careers and will take over a decade for the Sox to change those perspectives, if they're even trying. You seem to be telling me that you have specific knowledge that of the players being interviewed, none of them offered up any comment that could be construed as positive about the White Sox. We don't know what comments were left out of the article. I would guess the NYTimes didn't send a reporter out to 23 teams to randomly interview players. I figure they probably had reporters tack on a couple questions in their normal reporting, gathered those quotes, and banged out an article about them. The article is content. Non-scientific. A bigger article about the various perks teams offer players and their families, and how well each team executes probably wouldn't get the clicks, likes and posts.

True story. My mom sang on a popular, local Polka lady's radio program. My mom was 16 when a 14-year-old Lil Wally asked her out. Aside from the age yuk, she figured he was just trying to get on the radio show. She turned him down. We always told her we could have been a rich music business family. But that album, right there, that's a party!

As a Sox fan, I want the White Sox to be the top rated organization in everything. If they're not, I want to know why. I know the Sox lagged in every measure. Guys who were teammates with a dude who was on the Sox in '23 might still have a negative impression of the Sox, but this article can't get pertinent info from that guy. I spent close to 20 years in market research. Asking a subject to evaluate and analyze their own behavior is useless. Respondents tell the interviewer what they think they want to hear. A player with a wife and kids will make his responses about families, and not the real reasons he hates an organization that he's embarrassed to admit. Did they ask each player about every team? Did they ask about them in a randomized list? Do they just ask players which teams they see favorably or not, and just list those? There's going to be bias. (I understand the whole article is about bias. And if a guy was told by a close college friend the Sox treated his kids like s%*#, he'll believe that 'til he's out of the game. Those perceptions will take years to change.) I probably sound like I'm slagging the article, but I feel like it's pretending to say more than it is. I really want to know if the Sox dropped the ball with a player's special needs child. I don't want to imagine they did based on hearsay.

No, I'm putting the burden on a media outlet publishing an article to present something better than "here's what a bunch of guys said". And comparing my comment to blaming a rape victim is ludicrous. Of course you're getting random commenters who generally don't seem to have any bias one way or another accusing you of bad motives. You can't help yourself. This is an anecdotal article, not research. They spoke to players on 23 teams, only, so already, it's not a good, random sample. They're forcing a framing of "Good/Bad reputation", then only post negative comments about those teams who had more guys rate it as negative, and the same with positive comments. What I'm missing is anything that covers any issues in depth. I would love to read an article about how bad the White Sox treat their players and respective families. This isn't that.

In talking to 100 players, they probably didn't talk to more than 4 guys on the White Sox. The 96 guys not on the White Sox most probably don't have any info on what the team has been doing for the last 3 years under Getz. Neither do we, because the article doesn't really go beyond its surface framing. I can already feel the usual crew getting ready to criticize me for "having my head in the sand", or parroting corporate talking points, but we know this team had problems. With everything we've heard about the Trajekt machines and layers of data and delivery, I can't imagine they're still at the point of having one laptop in a closet. In every camera shot of a player in the dugout after a home run, they're looking at a tablet. Is that the one tablet the team owns? Do they have to take it back to the library every two weeks and renew it?

You're already starting out mocking your imaginary mob who won't agree with you, so I'm not sure what you expect the response to be. The article seems a bit skewed, in that teams fall into "viewed positively" and "viewed negatively". The article's really too short to do an in depth analysis of what's going on with teams. They don't post any positive remarks about the Pirates, Rockies, or White Sox. They also don't say if they had long conversations that delivered more insight into why players do or don't like about clubs. The quote where the player asks who's cheap and who's not says to me that players weren't especially eager to talk about this. Overall, the framing doesn't seem very nuanced. "Viewed negatively" wouldn't seem to be a factor if the Sox are the only team offering a major league deal, or whatnot. A single player probably isn't worried about how the team treats families. Big picture, it's an article, not market research. You might call it Kool Aid (sic), but I'm not really concerned whether a guy getting paid $10M has a free concierge to set up transportation and child care for his family. Or more accurately, I'm only concerned as far as the team doing enough to attract and keep talent. I would also expect the people who seem to care enough about this to complain about it to maybe seek out follow up and post that, also. Does this ever get covered in those annoying, in-game interviews about Sox Charities, or whatnot?

That's why we love Dromo!!

It's very selfless of Vargas to move to 1B so Colson could stay in the lineup and work his way out of his slump.

Ant-man setting up Dromo for the heroics. Whatta teammate.

Well, I guess 2+2 can equal 5. You're good to go, LuisAngel.

Acuña legging out that FC. In the future, we'll call June "Cune".

She could probably cut off and correct her husband, talking about any baseball sitch. "No, honey, Kikuchi started you off with 2 curveballs, and you swung over each one." Stone criticizing Doh!-munguez for allowing Bazanna to steal was fun. She needs a little of that crankiness.

Colson doesn't catch that pop-up.

I'd imagine she knows her s%*# across sports better than most of us. I'd like to hear some of it.

Seriously, WTF am I paying $20 a month to watch commercials for 2 hours instead of the game?!? Start another channel.

It would really be cool if they could talk about the game in front of them one of these innings.

Probably a Fanatics thing.

In my teens, my band did a few Dead Boys songs. Easy to make sound good. Just turn up the distortion. Young, Loud & Snotty is a great album.

...so they should pick a fight with their 3B and knock him out?

2nd greatest band from Cleveland, evah: