Greg Hibbard

After some reflection, I'm just angry about this whole thing today. I'm angry at Eaton for apparently instigating a shouting match, I'm angry at Shark and Sale for being loose cannons, I'm angry Avi couldn't pull the trigger or lay off some questionable pitches, I'm angry about our f***ing lack of execution with runner on 2nd, 0 out in extra innings. We couldn't even effectively get him over. Most of all, what I'm angry about is Robin Ventura's "things have happened before with this team" comment about KC. What makes me particularly angry is that there is absolutely no accountability and there's no fire from this manager. I want to see some f***ing EMOTION about this loss. You're at home against a contending division rival, a bench clearing brawl happens, five players are ejected including two of your three best starters in an extraordinarily important divisional series that will largely decide how the next month may go - and your apparent f***ing response as a manager is "well, what CAN you do?" I want a closed door meeting - that should come from Robin. I want a manager calling out HIS OWN players for their lack of DISCIPLINE. I want a manager doing ANYTHING to light a fire under this team which has a total lack of cohesion. We need a CHANGE in this department. WHY do we have this manager? I like Robin as a player (god I'm tired of that qualification). I've seen NOTHING from him that he adds ANYTHING to this team in the management department, and the response AFTER THIS - an important f***ing home game against a division rival that we SHOULD have won - is INFURIATING. These types of games are the difference between 75 and 90 wins, folks.

Ozzie made several crucial calls during the playoffs which were arguably the most important calls of their respective games. bringing in El Duque with the bases loaded and no outs.... deciding to bring Buehrle in as a closer for the first time ever.... I could go on. His importance to that playoff run and outcome cannot be equated with 'any other member of that team' that is utterly foolish logic.

Alexei gets an "A" for .273 with a .713 OPS?

I really thought he'd eventually figure it out. Now I'm just angry that we stuck with him so long.

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Apr 17, 2014 -> 11:38 AM) Go anywhere, museum, movie, great america is like a vacation in and of itself, zoo, local carnival for christ sake. Start at about $50 and go from there. A White Sox game is no more expenses than those. Yes, many other forms of live entertainment have gotten disproportionately expensive recently. I don't do many of those things as well, because the cost is outsized to the value I perceive of the product. Concerts, Great America, the Zoo...everything. In the early 2000s, I made about half the money I make now but I found a way to go to about 20 games a year. Nowadays, I'm lucky if I make it to one, even though I have way, way more money. Why? Because my HOME entertainment options are way better. I have better television programming alternatives, I have a better internet. I also now have a high definition huge TV and a DVR to cut out commercials. Personally, I don't go to White Sox games anymore largely because I can watch them on crystal clear high definition television - without commercials - for zero cost. Suddenly, an all night commitment...getting to the ballpark.....all night there.... at $30-$40 plus food becomes a whenever-I-want-thing for 60 minutes at no money. It would be substantially more attractive to me if the cost was more in line with what I perceive the value to me to be. That's just me, though. It could be different for different people. However, if you have a family of four, and the average cost to get them all into the ballpark is $25-$40 a ticket....plus other stuff.....for just a regular season ball game....that would seem to me to be very outsized from what most people can afford to blow on a couple hours of entertainment.

Specials aside, though, what is the AVERAGE cost for a family of four to go to an AVERAGE white sox game? Also, I was talking about HOME entertainment options being better these days.

Also...there are 13 home sundays on the schedule....and 68 other home games.

QUOTE (ewokpelts @ Apr 17, 2014 -> 10:18 AM) A family of four can go to a sox game on a sunday for $30 which includes parking. Brookfield zoo is actually more expensive. You're including transportation to and from the ballpark and food, right?

I think it has much more to do with other factors than anything necessarily intrinsic to the White Sox. Recent home entertainment options have made the value of going to a baseball game vs. the cost of going to a baseball game absurdly disproportionate. If MLB teams do not wise up, they will lose almost everybody eventually. I'm sorry, but it is simply no longer worth $50-$100 to go to a regular season baseball game.

Boy, there's nothing I hate more than 1-out walks. Except 0 out walks and 2 out walks.

As instructed, I took it.

NP: The Jam - "The E(a)ton Rifles"

perhaps the diehards at the park can get 16-18 innings out of this perfect weather day for baseball

This has all the makings of a white sox game-3-of-a-series-about-to-sweep late-inning choke.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jul 31, 2013 -> 05:49 AM) 84 appearances, 83 starts, 537.2 IP, 36-29, 4.00 ERA, 7 CG, 3 SO, 1.15 WHIP, 7.97 K/9, 3.66 K/BB Is it just me, or do those peripherals not add up to a 4.00 ERA? Too many HR allowed with people on base?

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/i...g-the-white-sox Some pretty interesting insights into the intangibles like Schneider that are never considered when evaluating this franchise

Beckham showed flashes last year, but he's maybe the best player in baseball history at being just on the cusp of acceptable for the longest period of time

This team will do what 80% of our teams going back to 1999 have done, they will win between 79 and 87 games. They are set up to be competitive and to have a less than 50% chance of winning this division. I am sincerely hoping that once we shake loose of these huge contracts in the next 2-3 year, the general White Sox strategy of ensuring that the team is "competitive" and "has the opportunity to win the division" every year (at the expense of bottoming out) gets revised. White Sox fans aren't interested in a competitive team anymore, and if 2012 taught us anything, it's that being in first place even most of the year isn't going to put asses in seats unless the team wins the division. Pre-05, the 80+ win strategy ensured interest and some fans coming to games. Moving forward, it will be better to completely scrap heap the team every few years. The floor of ticket sales and budget is easier to deal with than the ceiling. There apparently is nothing to be done to raise that ceiling these days, especially considering live baseball is a particularly good entertainment value anymore at the price points it has swelled to, given the HD home entertainment alternatives. That's a whole 'nother thread and conversation.

QUOTE (Jose Paniagua @ Oct 29, 2012 -> 11:36 AM) You better live within the city limits... I'm not talking about a city/suburbs argument, and I think you know it. FWIW, I currently live within 2 miles (actually 1.25) of the city limits. For 12 years, I lived on the west side of the city proper. I have lived within 2 miles of the city limits for the last 30 years. I'm talking about other cities. People who abandon their cities for Chicago, but root against Chicago teams in a vitriolic, hypocritical way (this includes against the Bears, Blackhawks and Bulls btw) because "their team" representing "their city" is suddenly somewhat good again. These are fans of convenience who will literally ignore sports unless "their" team is suddenly in contention - and then suddenly there they are at the cell jumping on the bandwagon. Sorry for the vitriol.

The main reason I hate Twins, Tigers and Indians "fans" - many of them live in Chicago, because they abandoned their cities years ago. They attend games at The Cell to root for "THEIR TEAMS". You know, the ones who play for the cities they abandoned to come live in a real one. I loved seeing the various 40 year old female "chicagoans" with their brand spankin' new Tigers hats on the train the last two weeks. So yeah, f*** the other teams in the AL Central. And f*** fake Chicagoans.

2000 and 2008 were both electric experiences that allegedly were going to rejuvenate interest in the Sox and create a buzz and add credibility. Both were unexpected just like 2012 would have been. Both featured young players that were allegedly signs of good things to come. In both subsequent seasons, the team did significantly worse (which is not inconceivable for 2013, by the way - it could go either way) and there was no residual attendance bump from a playoff appearance anyway, in fact, the team actually lost a significant number of fans in both years. So, if your argument is that a single playoff GAME's revenue like 2008 would some sort of salvation for the franchise... well I guess...I disagree. The only thing that impacted the Sox was the WS win - and that was only for 2-3 years of a modest attendance bump. Sellouts every night? Root for another team. It will never happen.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 3, 2012 -> 02:13 PM) The Sox desperately needed to complete the deal this year to generate that playoff buzz and excitement that only the postseason can bring. A division title would have meant a real playoff series, not the one game wildcard bulls***. Jerry should be furious because that playoff buzz would have really helped this franchise regain credibility. Just like the attendance bump they experienced in 2001 and 2009, right?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 3, 2012 -> 02:05 PM) It wasn't a two year trend. It was a five year trend. Attendance has fallen every year since 2007. Ozzie didn't generate anything. As a matter of a fact we lost almost a million fans a year under his watch. More accurately, we gained a bunch of fans, and then lost them, under his watch.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 3, 2012 -> 01:54 PM) Thing is, '67 was considered a failure throughout history and this one is being shrugged off with the Sox still being applauded since "nobody expected them to be in contention and to lose 90 games." So how is the answer to "worst collapse in franchise history" not "1967"? I'm not sure what the point of your reply to me is.

As far as the topic at hand goes, '67 was worse.