5 minutes ago, Chisoxfn said:

JR hasn't spent or invested in the minors and the other stuff - they have always cut corners there. The impression has been that Getz has clearly not spent on the roster, but he has made more investments in the infrastructure. Whether that puts them on par or not, probably not - you can't just throw money at something that was ignored while rest of the baseball world advanced...but you can still make progress and that progress takes time. I'm just not going to be lazy and say ha we still suck...nor am I saying the opposite. And I do think they are still a far way away from being some world class organization - but is momentum at least moving them forward (after years of heading in the wrong direction).

I agree with on the minors and the also the absolute epic Dave Wilder international failure.

5 minutes ago, WestEddy said:

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?

The initial post was just the information. The follow up post was after the reactions, and doesn't disqualify the information provided.

What you are missing is that the things you are talking about aren't separate issues, and very connected. And the fact that other teams have issues doesn't change the Sox having issues. Putting an additional burden on the people participating in a poll is an odd way to try to invalidate their opinions, but sure. It's kind of the "but what was she wearing" school of thought, that I can't subscribe to.

Regardless of the potential validity of this, I can’t wait for Ishbia to take over. You know no matter where we stand now, after he has had a couple years with the reigns, we’ll have one of the most modern franchises in the sport.

Miguel Vargus August of 2024 / Miguel Vargus June of 2026. I would say the 2026 version is all onboard with the White Sox.

12 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

The initial post was just the information. The follow up post was after the reactions, and doesn't disqualify the information provided.

What you are missing is that the things you are talking about aren't separate issues, and very connected. And the fact that other teams have issues doesn't change the Sox having issues. Putting an additional burden on the people participating in a poll is an odd way to try to invalidate their opinions, but sure. It's kind of the "but what was she wearing" school of thought, that I can't subscribe to.

Are you really using that example? Really?

46 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

How do you infer that the current players didn't have nice things to say based on this article alone?

That's just it. It's inferred from a negative perspective because the author didn't go out of his way to say White Sox players had nice things to say. It's basically him doing what he always does which is creating his own gossip out of nothing. I read nothing in this article that says anything about any Sox player saying anything nice, therefore Sox players never say anything nice about the organization, no matter how many times you hear how they love and support one another and how collaborative the front office is. But that cheap bastard JR doesn't give me handi-wipes with my peanut butter sandwich on the plane and that makes all the difference ! Mr. Fairness !

5 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

The initial post was just the information. The follow up post was after the reactions, and doesn't disqualify the information provided.

What you are missing is that the things you are talking about aren't separate issues, and very connected. And the fact that other teams have issues doesn't change the Sox having issues. Putting an additional burden on the people participating in a poll is an odd way to try to invalidate their opinions, but sure. It's kind of the "but what was she wearing" school of thought, that I can't subscribe to.

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.

Edited 14 hours ago14 hr by WestEddy

2 minutes ago, Baron said:

Are you really using that example? Really?

LOL and I take s%*# because I pat myself on the back about a few baseball predictions and this guy fools people by always proclaiming what a saint he is. What a crock.

56 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

I know the kool aid is popular right now. I get it. Everyone wants to believe after wandering in the dark for so long. I am wanting to see that something is fundamentally different about the last three years, and going forward. It's a red flag to me that we still seem the same things being said about this franchise. Are the guys having fun playing the game? Obviously. But we are still seeing the same underlying issues from any outside reporting. At the very least, I would expect someone to say that this was a good place to play, but literally no one did, and why? Because the Sox are still cutting corners pretty much everywhere outside of public view, and even in full public view of the payroll. Maybe Chris Getz can win inspite of this where only Kenny Williams has been able to do so, but it lessens my optimism for the future.

How many of the 73 respondents are active players or played with the team last year. I hope the answer is a high amount for your sake, because you have drawn so many conclusions here.

Edited 15 hours ago15 hr by Chicago White Sox

7 minutes ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

That's just it. It's inferred from a negative perspective because the author didn't go out of his way to say White Sox players had nice things to say. It's basically him doing what he always does which is creating his own gossip out of nothing. I read nothing in this article that says anything about any Sox player saying anything nice, therefore Sox players never say anything nice about the organization, no matter how many times you hear how they love and support one another and how collaborative the front office is. But that cheap bastard JR doesn't give me handi-wipes with my peanut butter sandwich on the plane and that makes all the difference ! Mr. Fairness !

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.

Edited 15 hours ago15 hr by WestEddy

First, there's something to be said about sample size. Anyone with even basic knowledge of statistics could tell you the results of this "poll" are not worth taking seriously. Plus, who did they survey? Players who now play with the Sox? From a few years ago?

Second, this current team looks to be all in for each other and the team. If you were to interview these guys, you'd probably get a much more positive picture.

Third, what's the point of posting something like this when things are FINALLY going well? We've all been miserable Sox fans for the past 3+ years. Let's actually embrace that the team is winning, and it's a team of really likable players. Enough with finding things to be miserable about, especially when it's something stupid like this.

5 minutes ago, hogan873 said:

First, there's something to be said about sample size. Anyone with even basic knowledge of statistics could tell you the results of this "poll" are not worth taking seriously. Plus, who did they survey? Players who now play with the Sox? From a few years ago?

Second, this current team looks to be all in for each other and the team. If you were to interview these guys, you'd probably get a much more positive picture.

Third, what's the point of posting something like this when things are FINALLY going well? We've all been miserable Sox fans for the past 3+ years. Let's actually embrace that the team is winning, and it's a team of really likable players. Enough with finding things to be miserable about, especially when it's something stupid like this.

Your third point - DING DING DING

12 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

How many of the 73 respondents are active players or played with the team last year. I hope the answer is a high amount for your sake, because you have drawn so many conclusions here.

It is such bad data and very lagging data too. The way this is conducted it is going to give a heavy lean towards historical views and bias. That doesn't make those views wrong - but none of that is a leading indicator of what is shifting (or not). This is very different than the NFL PA view that is done across a deep sub-set of the players and very much has a quality sample size.

Anyone who understands statistical analysis has to understand the importance of the data set and thus what conclusion(s) can or can't be made off of said data set.

1 hour ago, southsider2k5 said:

I know the kool aid is popular right now. I get it. Everyone wants to believe after wandering in the dark for so long. I am wanting to see that something is fundamentally different about the last three years, and going forward. It's a red flag to me that we still seem the same things being said about this franchise. Are the guys having fun playing the game? Obviously. But we are still seeing the same underlying issues from any outside reporting. At the very least, I would expect someone to say that this was a good place to play, but literally no one did, and why? Because the Sox are still cutting corners pretty much everywhere outside of public view, and even in full public view of the payroll. Maybe Chris Getz can win inspite of this where only Kenny Williams has been able to do so, but it lessens my optimism for the future.

I don't know.

One, this poll was conducted at the beginning of February. Additionally, with 100 players interviewed there might have been 3 White Sox players, and given the youth of the team I'm guessing it could have been even less. For all we know, they asked Benetendi or a vet, who has enjoyed his time here but doesn't think it's the best experience in the sport. Because it's obviously not.

Meanwhile, outsiders are looking at an org spending at historically low levels while being projected to have another terrible season. Makes sense they'd get a few shout outs for misery.

The Sox could become an elite developmental org and they could still finish at the bottom with penny pinching ownership.

Do i think the sox are having a "great year" as some here are saying? Obviously not, they have a -2 run differential. Do i think theyre having a lot of fun and watching them has been much more fun than i ever expected? 10000%.

31 minutes ago, WestEddy said:

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.

They didn't post only negative comments. The only comments which contained Sox related information were negative. This is just as anecdotal as watching what is happening the dugout or listening to guys whose careers depend on the Sox liking them. But those don't get invalidated for lack of a scientific process, I wonder why.

20 minutes ago, hogan873 said:

First, there's something to be said about sample size. Anyone with even basic knowledge of statistics could tell you the results of this "poll" are not worth taking seriously. Plus, who did they survey? Players who now play with the Sox? From a few years ago?

Second, this current team looks to be all in for each other and the team. If you were to interview these guys, you'd probably get a much more positive picture.

Third, what's the point of posting something like this when things are FINALLY going well? We've all been miserable Sox fans for the past 3+ years. Let's actually embrace that the team is winning, and it's a team of really likable players. Enough with finding things to be miserable about, especially when it's something stupid like this.

Do we really want a page where we are only allowed to post what is approved by some random standard? Like we can't read something non-positive because it has been decided that all is well? Come on. This is exactly what I am talking about with an echo chamber.

This is Sox related news that was literally published today, this is a Sox related message board. Get a grip people.

People act like he went and dug up some months old story just to stir the pot. This team is 4 games over .500 with a negative run differential and they play in the worst division in baseball, in a terrible AL so far this year. Stop acting like this is some magical season that is being s%*# on.

3 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

They didn't post only negative comments. The only comments which contained Sox related information were negative. This is just as anecdotal as watching what is happening the dugout or listening to guys whose careers depend on the Sox liking them. But those don't get invalidated for lack of a scientific process, I wonder why.

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.

8 minutes ago, WestEddy said:

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.

All of what we know about the White Sox is hearsay from somewhere. Zero of us have first hand knowledge of what is happening. Despite the claim, none of us have direct or specific knowledge of anything here, and are all inferring from secondary and tertiary sources. None of what you tell us on a daily basis about how good things are is scientific, peer reviewed, statistically significant, direct knowledge, or anything else, yet you offer it up at without all of the discounting of the information for the lack of that rigor. Can we at least pretend that this is no different than any other information presented here?

We need Vasil to fix this with his magic.

1 hour ago, Falstaff said:

Miguel Vargus August of 2024 / Miguel Vargus June of 2026. I would say the 2026 version is all onboard with the White Sox.

I think that has a lot to do with the dark years of TLR and Grifol.

While the current manager may not be the greatest tactician it could be players like playing for him.

32 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Can we at least pretend that this is no different than any other information presented here?

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

52 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Do we really want a page where we are only allowed to post what is approved by some random standard? Like we can't read something non-positive because it has been decided that all is well? Come on. This is exactly what I am talking about with an echo chamber.

Posting about how Dominguez can't close games or how the bullpen overall is lacking or Venable's use of Colson at 3rd or even how bad an owner JR is are current issues that are not positive. These are the things we should be talking about, and rightfully so. This original post is seemingly old news, talking about conditions that have most likely improved greatly. And the "data" is bad with an extremely small sample size. It reeks of "things are going well, and I don't like that, so here, read this!"

We should be talking about the good and the bad...in the present and future. Everything is not all roses and sunshine. There's plenty to discuss about what still needs to improve. We already lived through the dark ages of terrible teams - on and off the field.

1 hour ago, T R U said:

This is Sox related news that was literally published today, this is a Sox related message board. Get a grip people.

People act like he went and dug up some months old story just to stir the pot. This team is 4 games over .500 with a negative run differential and they play in the worst division in baseball, in a terrible AL so far this year. Stop acting like this is some magical season that is being s%*# on.

I think that he, like you, want to just continue to complain and b**** about Getz and Jerry; that neither one of you want to or are able to move on from that position and admit that things are clearly improving and that Getz is doing a good (great?) job.

And I believe he, and you, dig around searching for this or that stat, post, or source that you can use to continue your narrative that the Sox organization is terrible and cannot change.

That is what I believe.

29 minutes ago, hogan873 said:

Posting about how Dominguez can't close games or how the bullpen overall is lacking or Venable's use of Colson at 3rd or even how bad an owner JR is are current issues that are not positive. These are the things we should be talking about, and rightfully so. This original post is seemingly old news, talking about conditions that have most likely improved greatly. And the "data" is bad with an extremely small sample size. It reeks of "things are going well, and I don't like that, so here, read this!"

We should be talking about the good and the bad...in the present and future. Everything is not all roses and sunshine. There's plenty to discuss about what still needs to improve. We already lived through the dark ages of terrible teams - on and off the field.

I'm going to guess the Sox have changed very little about accommodations being provided to players. Maybe there is a better video room or something, but doubt they're leading the league in post-game spreads, or that they're chartering family of players around during times of need and etc. They're certainly not paying players well as they rely mostly on guys who aren't eligible to be paid yet. Reminder again that this is a job.

There's plenty to be critical of, but 100+ is like 13% of the league which is certainly substantial enough for any study. It doesn't mean the study is true or 100% accurate, but it's certainly not a small sample issue.

Edited 13 hours ago13 hr by Look at Ray Ray Run