southsider2k5

So Vaughn is leading, hitting, and playing defense? Wonder when he learned to do that, because if he did any of them for the Sox, he would still be here.

I can't believe you still can coach, hahahahha

Especially now that the Sox aren't on basic cable.

It's like literally 20 blocks, but the access to people is completely different, being on the edge of the financial district and in one of the fastest growing residential areas of the city.

It's not often I champion some of the bloggers causes, but it would be nice to see literally any of the credentialed White Sox media ask Chris Getz about these firings, especially in the case of Katz, who has had so many successes happen under his watch.

And he was in the majors for like two weeks at the beginning and a month at the end appaently.

I'm second standard deviation!

Baseball tourism IS a large part of the Cubs fan base. That is NOT happening right now for the White Sox, and neither is the fan looking to make a day out of going to a ball game by having a game day experience of bars, clubs, and whatever else is around the park. For the history Sox fan base, the model is currently "Show up when they look like they might do something big", and that leads to huge drop offs when things aren't good. That's where we are today. This is a failing model, and seeing where we rank among our peers both in attendance and love of stadium in MLB, it's pretty easy to figure out why. This is a franchise that NEEDS to do more with it's game day experience, and what we have done the past 35 years and 35th and Shields isn't it. It's a sterile ballpark with its most prominent feature being "it's not bad". It's a neighborhood with no real easy access to game day entertainment before and after the game, and definitely not a volume of easy options, as is happening intentionally these days in places like Atlanta and Arlington, and historically in baseball entertainment friendly neighborhoods like Wrigley and Fenway. If we want the White Sox to exist in 50 years, we need to realize the historic fan base is currently fleeing Chicago and the Chicago burbs and think about what Sox fans will look like in 2075, not what they looked like in 1975. The trend is greater than just showing up for 3 hours of baseball in a generic building, and the teams that realize that? Those are the franchises doing the best right now.

And calling people names at the top of your lungs IS NOT an effective way of portraying NOT being mad.

Did he get the full number, or was he prorated for the portion of the season in which he pitched in the majors?

And still wins.

The transaction was announced in April 1980, which was a strike year, so I went with 1981s attendance. All that to say, the post statistics are still accurate. The Sox have a shrinking fan base since Jerry took over, and for some reason there are those pretending like we can't mess with success. It's not the good old days anymore and the Sox are being left behind.

I will even tack on to this, Jerry bought the team in April 1980. In his first full (non-strike) season as owner the White Sox averaged 19,316 per game. This year the Sox averaged 17,849. The only teams behind the White Sox? They are playing in literal Minor League ballparks and are looking at potential moves. It's the same location since 1910. It's the same owner since 1980. It's the same park since 1991. Tell me again how all of these things are soooo important to a franchise whose fanbase is shrinking and among the smallest in baseball.

If they "understand it" why are fewer fans at any point since 1999 going to games at this location, despite there being parking, Jerry Reinsdorf, and located where they have been since 1910?

Let's be real. While there are some much older people in the Sox fan base, for the vast majority of it, they don't remember the 1950's or 1960's. The median age right now in the US is 38.7 years. Somewhere around 5 out of 6 people in the US right now are under 65.

Depending on who they are, and where they ranked, it absolutely could. Also that isn't the only reason the Sox list dropped. Smith and Schultz had pretty awful years too. A year ago Colson was #9. Any system is going to give much heavier weight at the top, vs at the bottom. It's common sense. You don't just count up top 100 guys and equate them equally. The Tigers having #2 and #8 is worth more than the Sox top two guys of #35 and #40, even though they are both in the top 100. Just since the midseason when we were number 17, our top two guys fell in the rankings. despite all of the season's graduations in front of them. The weight is going to be heavier up front.

How are you offended by basic math?

It means 1967 was almost 60 years ago, and that puts you really close to the age where you start collecting social security. It wasn't that deep.

Nice of Cohen to finally let Stearns hire his own people.... no wait...

That overlooks like a hitter gets to hit once every nine team ABs, while a starting pitcher throws to all nine of them when they are in. Garrett Crochet was 2nd in MLB with 814 batters faced. Looking quickly the leading batters had about 700 PAs.

Colson's floor is what we saw with is back injuries and his sub .100 stretches with a ton of strikeouts.

I also remember Robert out there swinging with one arm for an entire September.

I am sure the weighting of the systems changes because of where guys rank too. If you just rawdog adding up how many people are in top 100, that equates 100 with 1 as equal. With a team like the Tigers skewing towards the front with less players, but 2 top 10s, and 4 top 40s, that could outweigh the Sox five who starts at 35 and are mostly in the backhalf.

Honestly, I think the theme was having guys play through injuries, and it destroyed their legs being more of the problem.