NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Oct 24, 2012 -> 09:32 AM) Q: How many fans in the survey talked about the on-field product – the team performance? How big a deal was that? Brooks: A year ago, I would have said it had to be near the top… but as it turns out, in the survey, team performance didn’t even make the top 4. Fans said they’d rather see a team that is competitive and fun and plays hard, represents the fan base well, than one that wins but doesn’t deliver those other things. Surprising but true. Obviously it was mentioned in some surveys, and obviously it is a big part of things, but not as big as they thought it would be. I still have to think that winning does matter. The White Sox were in 1st place when this survey was given. It's pretty tough for those fans to use the winning excuse when the team is in 1st place. I'd like to see if it would be in the top 4 when the team is bad. Yeah, he wasn't saying it was nonexistent, more that it wasn't AS big a deal as one might think. And yes, taking the survey while they are in 1st I'm sure has some effect. Winning matters, but apparently in terms of attendance, it isn't the only thing, or even the most important thing.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 09:31 PM) McCain knew about them and didn't use it. He refused to use Jeremiah Wright ads too and got a lot of flack about it from a lot of Republicans. Yeah, McCain ran a relatively classy campaign, at least by modern standards. Until he added Palin.

Surprise 5, Salt River 4 C Sanchez: 1-5, 2 K, CS(PO) S Rodriguez: 1 IP, 0 H, 0 R, 1 BB, 2 K

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 03:32 PM) Small sample size. I try to avoid getting too worked up over hitters in the AFL simply because of that. Brent Morel looked like a great, young hitter, Eduardo Escobar looked like he had developed gap power, Tyler Flowers looked like he could be a .270 average guy with power, and they just don't seem to pan out. It's not a bad thing by any stretch though. I am much more interested in pitchers and their results, so I really like what I'm seeing out of Rienzo, and while Sanchez may not quite be Sergio Santos, he's intriguing nonetheless. Anything AFL of course is small sample size, even the full season, since they don't play every day. But after a few games, I think it is worth highlighting things when they stick well out from the expected. Andy Wilkins being one of the couple best hitters in the AFL so far, even in a 7 game sample, is worth noting. But I agree on the pitchers, and Rienzo's performance is very encouraging. Santos Rodriguez, on the other hand, not so much.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 06:26 PM) I'll accept that, but he had more to do with Freddy Garcia being in a Sox uniform than he did Mark Kotsay. Mark Kotsay being a starter and main DH was 100% Ozzie. KW specifically wanted Thome, Ozzie said no I want a guy who plays the field, so Kotsay was his DH and occasional 1B.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 06:04 PM) In the end, quibbling over bat speed is silly. His contract is a detriment to the team for its duration. Now that I might agree with. Maybe. After last year, he needed to come back big, and he did. He now needs to show he's back to more or less "normal" Adam Dunn, which would mean further (but smaller) improvement from 2012. If he does that, the contract is a heavy weight, but he earns it more or less. If he falls short, it starts to become a bigger problem. And I am actually concerned about injuries with him.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 04:28 PM) The guy hit .159 and .204 in the last 2 years. The year before that, he hit .260. From '10 to this year, his OPS dropped almost 100 points. Come on. When was the oblique injury? He was awful after May, absolutely dreadful. If you don't think that's a sharp decline, I don't know what the hell one is. I'm not a Dunn hater by any means, but let's get back to reality. If you don't think he's lost bat speed, then you're in complete denial. That Comeback Player of the Year award's an absolute joke. Rios had such a better year than Dunn it's laughable to even compare. QUOTE (Marty34 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 04:38 PM) Dunn was 30 K's above and 35 points below his career averages in K's and AVG respectively. I think it's wishful thinking to believe he "hasn't lost any noticeable bat speed." People like easy solutions. Loss of bat speed would seem to be. But if you actually watched him hit, you would see he was rarely behind the fastball. And I think its interesting you two seem to be able to ignore the fact that his OPS jumped 200+ points, and all his other stats of value went up so much since last year. Clearly not a player in decline. You don't think is oblique injury in August had an effect? His OPS numbers were .881, .976, .769 and .789 in april, May, June and July. August and September he was in the high 600's. Plus, again, if you actually watched the games instead of just looking at numbers, you could SEE it on him when he was playing hurt... then was out... then came back and still looked not quite right. Also worth noting... who else dropped off in offensive numbers after May or June? Was it the guy hitting right behind him? You don't think that had an effect? Look, he may fall off next year, I don't pretend to know. But the evidence all suggests he is anything but a guy losing bat speed.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 03:49 PM) I have been saying all along that these distortions are built into the system on purpose as a protection of minority rights. And it has never been true, for the purpose of the Electoral College. Go look up the history, first of all. As I said before, they did it due to lack of trust of the masses, and to get smaller states on board with having a nation at all. Second and beyond that, you have still not once come up with a single example of how any system other than a national vote would be more fair to voters. Not one. All you have done is try to defend the idea that rural states should get privileged leverage.

Every so often, the Sox host a "blogger call", where individuals representing the various Sox social media sites (including our SoxTalk, FutureSox and Soxnet, along with WSI, SSS and a half dozen or so others) can get on an open call with someone from the Sox and ask questions. We had one today with Brooks Boyer, who heads up the marketing department. PR head Marty Maloney was also on. Here are my quick-version notes of the conversation, not a detailed transcript, for discussion... Brooks opened the call with a few words about the ticket price changes, and said that he had seen the chatter about them on the various sites. Also mentioned a big emphasis with the prices changes being targeted at families with kids. Also mentioned the consulting firm-generated survey data and analytics they looked deeply at for the pricing changes, and for other changes they will be doing this offseason that are yet to come. Then he took questions... Q: Any surprises from the survery results for the Sox? Brooks: No "oh wow" moments, but were overwhelmed by the volume of responses. Got hundreds of forms with extra comments that were not even specifically asked for on the survey, that they have read through. Mostly the comments and answers were along the lines of what was expected, about affordability and other factors. Q: What major non-pricing concerns came up on the survery results? Brooks: Interestingly, while pricing was big, it was NOT the number 1 concern. The biggest reason why fans didn't come to the games was actually the commitment of TIME. This was especially pronounced among suburbanites. As the economy changed the way fans spend money, what the survey indicated was that many Sox fans (especially families) saw trips to the Sox game like a trip to Great America - a once a summer thing. Cost was a big part of that. Season Ticket holders are the life blood, but they really got hit with the pull-back from the more casual fans. Also, there were comments about the broadcast, but even more so, the overall ballpark experience, team performance aside. Q: How was the level of price cut decided upon? What was considered the right level, and why? Brooks: Part of this was some very detailed analytics that they got from MLB and other sources, looking at what other teams were doing. Some stats... Sox had the 4th HIGHEST cost for tickets in the outfield and bleachers in all of baseball... But had the 3rd LOWEST for seats in the first few rows on the infield. Also, the Sox were the ONLY team who had he same prices for the first few rows of infield sections, as the other rows. So the cuts were distributed in part to get more towards a typical balance, relatively (and this is why a few elite sections are going up in price). As for overall pricing level changes, they took a proposal to Jerry Reinsdorff that they thought was pretty aggressive cutting... and he actually said, no, cut it more. So they got even more aggressive in the end. Q: Follow up about the broadcast... with Hawk being so "sad" and quiet this year, are there any changes to be made in the broadcasts? Brooks: *laughter* Hawk has had to adjust a bit, though he's always had the emotional reactions to things. Still gets quiet when a game is going badly. Hawk and Stoney get along very well, contrary to some internet rumors. They see the broadcast as having three main objectives: 1. Teach the game, 2. Paint the picture of the action on the field and the ballpark, and 3. Sell the experience of being there. Q: What about the Red Line construction? What are the Sox doing on that? Brooks: Green line is operational, Metra is operational. They are looking at maybe some shuttle bus services. Also working with the city on making sure the 2 blocks along 35th between the Green Line and the Red Line are safe and easy. They do anticipate some impact. And this was taken into account in part when making the pricing changes for parking. Q: What about the earlier discussed ballpark experience? What are you looking at to improve that? Brooks: Looking at EVERYTHING: music, inning break entertainment, pre-game entertainment, etc. More survey data is still being analyzed for that, this is their next area to look at after pricing. Sponsorships for these things are key, and they are trying aggressively to get that going better. Q: Since you looked at ticket and parking prices, what about concession prices? And is this the Sox or ISFA that dictate this? Brooks: It is the Sox, with their vendors, who set the prices – not ISFA. Sox did a lot of measuring at other facilities, in Chicago and otherwise, baseball and otherwise, to get to the competitive price levels. They are going to look at it in depth later this offseason, to see about changes in this area. Will also continue to be working this way on merchandise as well, keeping it competitive. Q: What did the survey data say about dynamic pricing? Other input on dynamic pricing? Brooks: There was not much said in the survey responses about dynamic pricing. But fans talked a lot about wanting to KNOW the price, which was probably a reference to that. They wanted simplicity. But the Sox also were aware of the negative reaction in social media to it, and saw that the perception was that dynamic pricing only meant prices going up, even though they were more often going down. (***at this point Brooks kinda goes on a tangent***) They can’t lower prices right before the game, because it is bad business. They really want to address families and kids, to get them cheaper deals, and a way to see the games for a reasonable price. With the new $7 seats for most games and lower parking, a family of four can now go to a game for much cheaper than before. Families didn’t seem to care a lot WHERE they sat in the stadium, just wanted to be there, for less money. Q: So no more prime and premier games, etc.? Brooks: No more of that, no more labeling games that way. There are just Opening Day, Cubs Games (2), and the other 78 games are all the same after that. Dynamic pricing will STILL occur, from that baseline set. But the $20 and $7 seats will always be there, never go up for any games of the 78. Got much more competition from secondary markets in 2012 (like Stub Hub), than in 2011, when the team was “half in the coffin late in the year”. Q: Where has all the advertising gone? Saw very little TV, billboard, other ads this year or last Brooks: Last year there was no momentum at all at the end of the year, with the disappointing season, so they didn’t want to put the players out there in ads very often. Thought it might be a negative effect. Had an Adam Dunn ad that never ran because of the season he had. But for 2012 they did contract with a company that did crowd-sourced advertising, called Pop Tent (sp?), which created some ads: the baby with the baseball, dad with kid in the crowd, and a couple others. Did some Ventura spots. The Appreciate the Game theme was supposed to be more about the fans than the players. But for 2013, expect more TV ads with players in them. Also did a LOT more last year in the digital spaces for advertising, and will do even more in 2013. Includes track-and-follow ads, where they detect based on browsing that you are a Sox fan, and the ads follow you. Q: How many fans in the survey talked about the on-field product – the team performance? How big a deal was that? Brooks: A year ago, I would have said it had to be near the top… but as it turns out, in the survey, team performance didn’t even make the top 4. Fans said they’d rather see a team that is competitive and fun and plays hard, represents the fan base well, than one that wins but doesn’t deliver those other things. Surprising but true. Obviously it was mentioned in some surveys, and obviously it is a big part of things, but not as big as they thought it would be. Q: How did dynamic pricing effect season ticket holders? Brooks: There remains a gap between STH and individual games, and that will remain that way – best deals around are still the season tickets. Even when dynamic prices showed savings over normal individual ticket prices, they rarely if ever dipped below STH prices. There will be NO STH tickets in the $7 and $20 sections of the park, period. Secondary markets like Stub Hub really screwed the team “across town” this year, because of the way they do things, but that didn’t happen with the Sox, or not nearly as much anyway. Dynamic pricing also never really touched the premium lower box seats, as those always sold out or were STH anyway.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 01:12 PM) I was agreeing with you, if not very clearly. I figured, but it gave a nice segue into a reason that really is valid to worry about Dunn - he's a big dude getting older, and injuries may become more of an issue as time goes on.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 02:53 PM) Why did he hit .204 and strike out 222 times then? Why has he hit low 200's and struck out around 200 every season in his career, nearly? Take out the last few weeks with the oblique injury, and he had almost exactly his career norm year. That just reinforces what your eyes will tell you if you watch him hit - he strikes out a lot, but always has, and hasn't lost any noticeable bat speed.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 03:06 PM) It will change from state to region/urban area. It won't be "national" because we do not have a uniform population distribution. It will be the very definition of national to have a simple popular vote.

How people are "distributed" is irrelevant for a single, national office. The best and only way to give every person the same rights and same weight is to have one vote equal one vote. All the other arguments about urban vs rural, etc., are just political plays.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 02:23 PM) You'll just be choosing different patches of land to over represent. Not in the slightest - one vote means no one cares about the land, or the where. I will be choosing individuals over groups - which I thought was a core principle of the Republican Party.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 01:28 PM) It won't, but I never understood this idea that certain professions (doctors, lawyers, financial advisers) can be held to a certain standard of care, but other people can't. Why would that be such a bad thing? You'd have to prove they were negligent (I haven't read that story, so I'm not sure if it rises to that level) but I'd want to be able to go after them if i'm relying on them for something and they totally f***ed it up and I got hurt as a result. Wait... you think it makes sense to sue geologists for not correctly predicting an earthquake? Something that is nigh on impossible to predict?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 02:17 PM) I have the same problem with the outsized influence of rural states in the Senate, but there's at least a good case to be made for disproportionate representation there. Well yeah, Congress is intended to be a representative body - of both individuals, and states, in a federation.

I don't at all understand the idea of choosing land over people when it comes to voting. One person, one vote - when you are talking about the Presidency, which is a national office. Anything else you do is disenfranchising people.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 01:10 PM) Instead of swing states, the election will be concentrated in higher populated areas. No... instead of 80% of the country's votes being meaningless, each one has the same value. For the purpose of POTUS, I don't care if somoene lives in a city or a suburb or on a farm, nor do I can what state they live in.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 12:32 PM) I highly doubt it. It is (intentionally) about impossible to sue the government for anything outside of willful negligence. Yes, in theory that is true, you are right. I just worry that the already sue-happy culture in the US will continue to attempt to chink the armor, and eventually may find a weakness somewhere. Perhaps I'm just being paranoid.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 12:31 PM) I think if you got rid of the electoral college, you would just disenfranchise a different sector of the country. I have said before that we as a country did built in minority (as in not the majority of the votes) protections. I think the electoral college was another method, much like the senate, to try to limit the power of urban areas in a country that has a large agrarian history. Congress is a representative body. One chamber is purely population-based, the other is state-based. That works as well now as it did then, model-wise. A President is not representative, because he/she cannot be. It is one person. Well, two, if you include the VP. Your statement that you disenfranchise another sector of the country is entirely unfounded in reality. One vote equals one vote - that is the ONLY way to give equal power to each INDIVIDUAL, regardless of where they live in the country. Also, this idea that the electoral college was set in place to help protect rural areas simply isn't true. There was no significant imbalance of that kind when the Constitutional text regarding this was set up, and then amended for. It was set up for multiple reasons, primarily that they wanted representatives to vote for the President because they didn't trust the individuals in the country to be able to do so. There were also simple logistical reasons why it wouldn't have worked well. One thing you argue that IS true, is that it was there to protect small states from large ones - but remember, this was done at the time that there were 13 colonies, and they were trying to build consensus for the Constitution itself by giving those privileges to smaller states, in order to get buy-in. Simply put, none of these factors are in play now. It no longer makes sense as a model, and should be thrown out. Unfortunately, to do so requires a Constitutional amendment, and that ain't happenin'.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 12:26 PM) Dunn was fine until he pulled his oblique. After that he was worthless. He did fall off after that. Which is not the same as being sharp decline. Now, if you want to say you are worried about his health as he goes forward, that makes sense. But when healthy, he has no problem whatsoever catching up to strong fastballs.

QUOTE (oldsox @ Oct 21, 2012 -> 09:49 AM) Sure they do. They are all in sharp decline. Jones knows it and admits it, even if you don't. Dunn is in the opposite of sharp decline - the guy just won comeback player of the year. Also, if you watched Dunn this year, it wasn't that he was behind on fastballs. He's still got plenty of bat speed. For him, that is clearly not the issue.

Nice! Rios or him could have won it, happy either way.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 23, 2012 -> 09:56 AM) Italian Scientists were sentenced to jail for six years for failing to properly warn the public about the risks and dangers of earthquakes. This is some good commentary on how silly the case was. Beyond silly. And it scares me to think this might result in people in the US, after the next significant earthquake, suing the USGS or other agencies in a similar (but civil and not criminal) way.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 22, 2012 -> 06:59 PM) If you want change, start local. If you want to change that, we need federal changes to get rid of the arcane electoral college model for Presidential elections that effectively disenfranchises 80% of the country in any given election for President. On many subjects, I prefer more power to go back to states and localities. But there are a few inherently national issues that need to get the states OUT of it, and this is one of those few. One vote should equal one vote for President of the United States.