Middle Buffalo

My 2cents: 1. I am not sure how I feel about Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Clemens, etc as HOF players. I don't mind them being on the ballot and waiting while the case is argued. 2. Baseball writers are as guilty as anyone for the "epidemic" of steroids. There's no way PEDs were as prevalent as some players have suggested, and everyday beat writers weren't aware of it. They chose to ignore it. There's always a player or two who leaks info to the media, and it happened in this case also. Writers could have written the story, but they weren't brave enough to do it. It could have been done without naming names, also. They could have just used statistical evidence and let the public decide. Instead, they were busy writing stories about shrinking ballparks, tighter winding of the baseball, etc. 3. Whenever we compare guys like Raines and Lofton, someone will say "different eras." Wouldn't it actually be harder to have success if you were playing clean in the PED era? 4. Mark McGwire - skinny kid. Mark McGwire, skinny kid hit 49 HRs as a rookie. I still believe he 'roided. I also believe he intentionally left andro (legal supplement at the time) in his locker so he could use that as and excuse for size/power increase. 5. I always hated the argument that steroids don't make you able to hit the ball. That's usually the jock rebuttal. PEDs helped them hit the ball farther. Warning track flyouts became 5th row homeruns. Goes hand in hand with the stories of how hard guys like Clemens and Bonds worked out. Isn't recovery one of the benefits of PEDs - making longer/harder workouts possible? Bonds, by the way, is listed as 6'1"/185 lbs in baseball reference. 6. Whenever someone says that they don't know if they would have voted for Sammy or Palmeiro (and I've heard that this week) even if there wasn't a cloud of suspicion, I think that writer should have their vote taken away. Sammy and Palmeiro's lifetime numbers are pretty good historically. One guy hit 600+ HRs, and the other had 550+ and more than 3000 hits. If Palmeiro put up his numbers in NY, we'd never stop hearing about him. http://www.baseball-reference.com/friv/sco...almera01:Rafael Palmeiro&st=career&compage=&age= Hell, he was so good that he won a Gold Glove as a DH. 7. The argument is always made that Clemens and Bonds were HOF before they started taking PEDs. Depends when they started. If you believe the reports, Bonds started after the 1998 season. How do we know he didn't start in 1993 (or sooner) when he moved to SF? Isn't that the home of BALCO? Who knows for sure? But, if you go by the 1998 start date, sure he was a HOF player. He still cheated for about a third of his career. Clemens is a little more tricky. http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/clemero02.shtml He was falling apart physically when he left Boston. By most accounts, he started using around the time he went to Toronto. Look at his stats. As soon as he arrived in Toronto, he got healthy and became a great pitcher again. He left Boston at 33 with a 192-111 record, and he was fading fast. Those are not HOF numbers. How many wins would he have ended up with? 240? Is 240-150 a HOF record? It wouldn't have been based on the 300 W/500 HR markers that were guarantees before the steroid era. From age 34 on (when he reported to Toronto), Clemens went 162-73. 8. Eye test - Piazza juiced. He had improbable power to all fields, and if you work backwards you could easily put him on the list of guys who cheated. If he or any other player wasn't a cheater but stayed silent, too bad for them. Their silence contributed to the inability to statistically compare players numbers through the history of MLB. 9. Ultimately, PED abuse led to higher salaries because agents negotiated tainted statistics vs. the historic numbers. So, if a player is negotiating a contract and he has numbers that compare with guys in the HOF, they were awarded higher salaries. Higher salaries = higher ticket prices = Avg. Joe fan being priced out of the game. I don't feel sorry that they won't be able to sign HOF on a autograph that they sell in the future. These guys got rich while they were pricing me out of the game. 10. I used to think Pete Rose should be in the HOF because he bet after he played. Now I don't think so. He knew he was breaking the rules, and he thought he was above the law. If he serves as a cautionary tale, all the better. 11. This year is kind of the perfect storm of PED abusers being eligible at the same time. Next year Maddux, Glavine, and Thomas are eligible. Randy Johnson, Smoltz, and Pedro are the season after. Griffey the following season. Those guys and players like Raines, etc who are close will make for some decent classes. It will get interesting again in 2017 when Pudge Rodriguez, Manny, and Vlad Guerrero are 1st time eligibles. 12. Finally, I don't know what it says about me that I love both MLB and NFL, and I'm sure that PED use in football is equal to, and probably greater than, what it is in baseball, and I don't really care that football players cheat. To me, it's all about loving the numbers of baseball historically and being able to say that Ken Griffey, Jr. is doing something that hasn't been done since Willie Mays, or Randy Johnson compares favorably to Bob Feller. It put players in context for me historically. I guess, in a way, Barry Bonds cheating to surpass Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron's power numbers just goes to show haow great they were, but it bothers me to see his name next to, actually above, their names.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 07:21 AM) On certain issues, I lean to the conservative side, and on certain issues I lean to the liberal side, to a varying degree on both accounts. It would be a much better country if more people thought and acted in this way instead of treating politics with blind loyalty like they're rooting for their favorite team.

No love for Mr. Food? The ABC 4:00 news wasn't complete without Joel Daly introducing him with a hearty, "Misterrrrrr Foooood!" http://tv.yahoo.com/news/tv-chef-art-ginsb...-155816058.html RIP Mr. Food. "Oooh, it's so good!"

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Oct 30, 2012 -> 04:16 PM) Probably was a make-good from being injured, shows a lot of character on Peavy's part. Whether this works out or not, I have total respect for Peavy for this reason. He was treated well by the Sox and showed his appreciation by re-signing.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 18, 2012 -> 05:46 AM) Hit this one already. When a thread hits 18 pages, "hit this one already" is almost surely the case.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 17, 2012 -> 04:50 PM) Me too. Kind of ironic that you use the cost a valid reason for not going to Soxfest, but you don't seem to accept it as a reason for Sox attendance woes.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 16, 2012 -> 10:20 AM) That has been pretty well blown out of the water too. Outside of a couple of series, there were pretty much always cheap tickets available somewhere. Buying cheap tickets on stubhub or any other site doesn't help the Sox attendance figures, does it? Aren't all of those tickets resales? As for the Sox having a weak walk-up, they averaged a walk-up of around 14,000 per game. I base that on the season ticket base that is around 10,000 (guessing - I don't see season ticket figures anywhere online - and the guess is based on the end of the year day game that drew 13,000 fans). I don't think 14,000 walkup to a game is that bad. The Sox problem is that they don't have enough season ticket holders. If you watched the Cubs during the week at the end of the season, the announced attendance would be 35,000, but seeing highlights on tv it was pretty clear that there were about 10,000 fewer actually at the games. How do you get more season ticket holders? Lower the prices.

I honestly think Cubs fans in the metro-Chicago area outnumber Sox fans 4 to 1. I think the Sox need to seriously lower prices and market themselves as the cheaper alternative. I'd guess the Sox had about 9-10,000 season ticket holders this season. I base this number on the Tuesday afternoon game at the end of the season that drew 13,000 fans - that's tickets sold, not actual butts in the seats. So, when the Sox draw 30,000 for a big game, the media take is that the fans don't care and aren't loyal, but I'd say a walk-up of 20,000 to any game is pretty impressive. Attendance is pretty poor throughout the league. All you have to do is watch MLB or ESPN highlights and look at all the empty seats throughout baseball. Then compare them with the reported attendance. Where the Sox really lag behind other big market teams is season ticket sales. I really get tired of the attendance argument/discussion, but it's a valid one to have. Unfortunately, it usually devolves into Cubs fans are just there for the ballpark, or to get drunk, or .... Whatever the reason, they have a large, loyal fanbase. It's supply and demand. Their demand allows them to raise prices. The Sox lack of demand should result in lower prices, and considerably lower at that. However, we go into the season with basically the same prices as the Cubs and expect to compete with them for fans. I went to one game this year when I was in town. Wednesday afternoon game. For myself, wife and three kids, it was around $200 for five bleacher tickets. Another $20 for parking. Another $50 or so for food and drinks. $270 for a baseball game is a bit much. The neighborhood doesn't keep me away. Neither does the lack of bars/restaurants in the area. Neither does a bad experience with a player not signing my hat or Jerry Reinsdorf or Kenny Williams being arrogant. None of that stuff matters. The cost of a baseball game keeps the fans at home watching on tv. It's happening all over baseball and sports in general, fans are staying away because, for the price, it makes more sense to watch from the comfort of home. A few places are somewhat immune, but even the Cubs had more empty seats than I can remember seeing in 15-20 years (despite what they announce for attendance).

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 20, 2012 -> 11:12 AM) You have to have the $13 million to pay him... Considering the crowds haven't matched the 1st place for 100+ days of the season, it could be difficult. Cross your fingers and pray for a deep playoff run. Can't argue with the attendance being poor, but the Sox overhead can't be that bad. The Reinsdorf group bought the team in the early 80's, so they don't have a big payment (if any) to make. They also don't have a stadium payment to make because they didn't build the stadium. So, what are their costs? The way I see it, they get tv money, merchandising, tickets, parking, etc., and they only have to worry about making enough to pay the team, costs to operated the team, and team employees.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 4, 2012 -> 09:40 PM) Trade Youk back to Boston for Lester, lol. Exercising the option on Youk and bringing back AJ are looking more and more likely....as for Peavy, the numbers just don't make sense. And quite ironic that Middlebrooks is now out and they might have to play Lillibridge there. OK - Peavy might just feel like the Sox are the best team for him because they successfully helped him back from a major injury that really had no precedent in baseball. He's owed about $22M next year, but if the Sox feel he's healthy, they could buy him out of next year's contract for $4M, and negotiate a competitive 3 or 4 year deal with him. If the market is $15M/year for a guy his age, they could offer him $14.5M/year + the buyout, and he'd still be ahead.

As an out of town fan, my biggest problem with the Sunday line-ups in the past has been that the Sunday game is often televised, and I get to watch Rob Mackowiak and friends play baseball. I'd rather see the manager sit guys in a more staggered way and field the strongest possible line-up each game.

Bar - Robin. Club - Ozzie. Can't understand anyone in a club anyway.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Jun 3, 2012 -> 08:18 PM) I have the same experience he has. The revenue per goes way down. Overall increase possibly just by sheer numbers in the park, but it's diminishing returns. So if you already "lost" money on tickets or parking, you aren't making up for it with the merchandise (or possibly food). That's kind of what I figured - a dip in revenue per person. Still, selling (practically giving away) the upper deck seats for $5-10 per game is a decent idea just to fill up the park even if there isn't an uptick in concession sales. Creating an atmosphere in the park, maybe making new fans who come more often/upgrade to better seats in the future - not bad things.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 3, 2012 -> 07:28 PM) When I worked for a minor league team, the assumption was always that free/discounted tickets led to lower sales of souvenirs and concessions... Really? Why? It seems to me that more people going to the games would increase concessions sales.

Attendance is a problem throughout sports. Sometimes the problem is masked by the size of the fan base, though. Watch a regular season NBA game in most cities and you'll see plenty of empty seats - often the ones closest to the court. Watch a Yankees or Dodger game (traditionally two of the highest attendance fan bases) - empty seats right behind home plate. Teams have priced out the regular fan in favor of corporations. The Dodgers have the 6th highest attendance this season, but if you watch one of their games the park is empty most nights. http://espn.go.com/mlb/attendance Remember, attendance is tickets sold, not actual people in the seats, and the White Sox probably don't rank favorably in season ticket sales when compared to other large city teams. There are plenty of empty seats at Cubs games every night. When a team has a waiting list for season tickets, though, it's hard to see that fans are disastisfied because for every fan who decides they've had enough, there's another happy to take that seat. Consider, then, what it takes to have empty seats at Wrigley. I'm going to make up the numbers, but I don't think they're a huge stretch: Let's say there are 1 million baseball fans in the Chicago area who go to at least one game per year. I don't think it's crazy to say that 75% of those fans are Cubs fans, 25% Sox fans. I actually think this percentage is probably generous to the Sox. So, 250K fans go to one or more Sox games per year, and 750K go to at least one Cubs game. That's their available fan base for each game. So, if the Cubs have 35,000 fans at a game, 715,000 fans have made the choice not to go. If the Sox, have 20K fans at a game, 230,000 fans have chosen not to go. When the Cubs were filling up the park every night, it was just assumed that their fans were more loyal and the Sox fans had to have a winning team on the field to get them to the park. What's the reason for the empty seats now? It's not 3-5K fans that aren't going to every Cub game now, though their attendance figures would tell you that they're at 90% capacity for every game. It's 715K fans who've chosen not to come to games. Is it because the Cubs are bad? Is it the economy? Who knows? However, one thing for sure is that the Cubs are having a hard time getting they're fans to the games, too. They're saved by having a HUGE fanbase both locally and nationally. Wrigley Field, love it or hate it, is a destination for people coming to the city in the summer. The Cell is not. But empty seats at Wrigley, be it 1K or 15K, are a huge red flag that Cubs fans are fed up. Maybe they're sick of losing, maybe they're sick of being gouged for their loyalty. I think the idea of deeply discounting tickets to create a buzz and fill up the our park is brilliant. The Sox economy is simply not the same as the Cubs, so they should quit competing for the same fans. It's simple supply and demand. Large demand for Cubs tickets allows for higher prices (though I think they might have finally reached the max. point). The Sox don't have the same demand. Sell tickets cheap. Get the young fan who doesn't have $140 for a bleacher seat to come to the park and return again and again. Get the casual fan. Get the older fan who remembers when baseball was affordable and simply doesn't consider going to games anymore. Get them back. If you get the fans in the park cheaply, they will buy food and drink, and they will return. The Arizona Diamondbacks do a great ticket deal. $19 for a bleacher seat, a hot dog, a drink, and a coupon for another drink. http://arizonashoppingsecrets.blogspot.com...tickets-19.html That's a pretty good value. The Sox have to think this way. The Charlotte Bobcats are offering a 2 for 1 season ticket deal. Buy 2012-13 season tickets and get 2013-2014 season tickets for free. http://www.nba.com/bobcats/1213_seasontickets.html That's what small market teams (or teams with newer fan bases like the Rays, Marlins, and Diamondbacks) have to do to fill up the park and create a fanbase. Sadly, the Sox have a small fan base, and they have to appeal to fans in this way also. If you're having trouble drawing fans, you need to be creative. If season ticket holders get upset (and they might), sweeten their deal a little. Offer them coupons or something reasonable to let them know they're valued. I hope the Sox are still offering the $5 tickets when I get to Chicago in July. Put me down for five. Drinks on me.

What percentage of fans who attend at least one baseball game in the greater Chicago area are Cubs fans? 75%? 80%? More?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 23, 2012 -> 11:04 AM) They aren't filling it consistently now. They sold out only 1 of 3 against the Sox. So, on ESPN 1000 in the past two days, I've heard: 1) Harry Teinowitz muttering about Hawk pointing out the empty seats "over and over" (Monday) 2) Bruce Levine blamed the empty seats on Sox fans not buying enough tickets to the "Crosstown" games (Monday) 3) And the first hour of Waddle & Silvy on Tuesday taking calls from listeners who don't go to games but follow the team on tv, radio, internet, etc. because tickets are too expensive and the team stinks. Aren't those Sox fan arguments? By the way, $140 for a bleacher seat for their premium games? That's crazy. http://purchase.tickets.com/buy/MLBEventIn...ts-HotTix-Games

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 11, 2012 -> 08:32 AM) Chris "Birdman" had child pr0n. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/10/c...html?ref=sports There's something really wrong with the nature of the investigation being released prior to any charges being filed. Even IF Anderson is found not guilty, he'll never recover. I don't have much compassion for him if he is involved in child porn in some way, but the information leaking out so quickly is really unfair.

We have a separate can/day for recycling that's included in the fees for garbage pickup. Everyone in the neighborhood (as far as I can tell) participates. They take just about everything, but not plastic store bags. I drop those off at the grocery store, and they recycle them. Cardboard and paper go to the church, and they get money for recycling it. I take the cans and any other metal to a place that pays for metal recycling. Kind of a pain, but I feel guilty just throwing everything into the trash barrel.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 26, 2012 -> 06:00 AM) The problem is some people do not listen to anything their "opponent" in a discussion says, so they learn and take nothing from the discussion. A little more of this would go a long way in making this a better forum.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Apr 22, 2012 -> 01:03 PM) The question is: What will Hawk nickname him and I could see him use Humburglar. Yuk. Hawk isn't using "Tank" anymore, so I vote for that.

QUOTE (Tex @ Apr 19, 2012 -> 12:04 PM) The loudest voices in almost every forum or subforum are moderators. Two factors to becomming a mod is longevity and how active you are. So we are active and have posted a lot for a long time. I should add that I actually like this subforum, but being active and posting a lot isn't a license to break the rules. 1. I will not insult other posters, directly or indirectly 3. I will not bait people or push them over the line (a.k.a. pushing their buttons) 4. I will not post statements for the purpose of angering others 5. I will not prod posters repeatedly on a subject or chase them across topics to make a point I could find numerous examples of these rules being broken again and again by the same people - people with 10K or more posts who differ politically and go around and around in almost every thread in the filibuster. It may be ok between the people involved, buts it's tiring when it's the same two people making the same handful of points repeatedly. You name the topic, and I pretty much know how the most active people in this subforum will feel before I even enter the thread. Just my two cents.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Apr 19, 2012 -> 11:16 AM) Well, 1, I went for breakfast, and 2, I haven't had fast food since like January. My comment wasn't pointed at you, just McDonald's patrons in general. And it was a joke.

QUOTE (Tex @ Apr 19, 2012 -> 10:38 AM) Easyily one of my all time favorite Sox players. Tex Wortham? I guess that makes sense.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 19, 2012 -> 07:01 AM) IMO the only "rule" should be that if you're being an asshole and personally attacking someone (not with snide remarks, but actually something like "you're a f***ing idiot"), you're gone - suspended, banned after a while, whatever system the admns want to come up with. Everything else should be fair game. We're all adults here. We're not being forced to read/contribute. Since i've been a member (something like 2006), I've never really seen a "group" attack that would keep people from posting at all so I don't really see that as being a concern. But really the problem is the nature of the board. There are two major "political leanings," with one being completely dominated. So basically the discussion always gets drowned out by the numbers. That has killed most discussion, especially the last 4-5 months. Occasionally we'll have a fresh news story that can be debated (Martin), but otherwise as NSS says, we all pretty much know what people are going to say, so I find myself not posting something new just because I know exactly how the discussion will go. Bringing new blood in would be the best way to spice this area up, and I think making people agree to rules/restrictions really hinders that. I think it's common sense on message boards like this that if you're being a dick you're going to get banned/suspended. And if that comes as a shock to someone they'll learn pretty quickly I think. The snide remarks are no less antagonistic than just coming out and saying "you're a f***ing idiot." The forum is dominate by 5-8 people who are hardcore in their leanings and rarely, if ever, concede a point. There is very little discussion, just a pissing contest. Unfortunately, the loudest voices in these "discussions" are often moderators.