August 17, 2005

Nice read. I am a Cubs fan and I had to use the dictionary several times while reading the article; I hope he has a cliff notes version for the Sox fans, lol.

posted by panteeze at 10:16 PM on August 17, 2005

Elements of this article are tired and derivative; anyone who continues to call the ballpark "bland" or "cavernous" hasn't set foot inside, certainly not in the last five years. The nonsense about the upper deck is laughable; Yankee Stadium and Coors Field, among others, have upper decks just as steep and "distant." And calling St. Louis' "midget" a cool trick and dissing Veeck's Sox regime as having only provided baseball with short pants is ludicrous. However, the piece is done well, if sluggishly, in that it at least attempts to differentiate among the Red Sox, Cubs, and White Sox. The two Sox teams had much more in common in their futility prior to last season; both are traditionally competitive, "winning" teams. The Sox were traditionally No. 1 in the town dating back to Bill Veeck's first run (where his fan-friendly gestures were a stark contrast to the stone-slab Wrigley ownership); only the dawn of Superstation WGN/acquisition of Harry Caray and a burgeoning Wrigleyville area swung popularity toward the Cubs in the 80s and 00s. The big difference between the Cubs and Sox is that fans of the former seem to embrace losing, celebrating the team as "lovable losers"; Sox fans despise such a notion. However, the truest piece of information in all of this comes from clever respondent panteeze: "I am a Cubs fan and I had to use the dictionary several times while reading the article." There's a shocker.

posted by Brett at 10:01 AM on August 18, 2005

However, the truest piece of information in all of this comes from clever respondent panteeze: "I am a Cubs fan and I had to use the dictionary several times while reading the article." There's a shocker. Brett, using the dictionary allows us Cub fans to remain educated, there is no disgrace in admitting that you are ignorant to a words meaning. True disgrace comes believing the notion that Harry Caray, Wrigleyville and WGN brought popularity to the Cubs in favor of the Sox in the 80s, 90 and 00s. Laughable.

posted by panteeze at 10:48 AM on August 18, 2005

cheebus: "comisky"? Is that a synonym for "bleacher bums"? panteeze: I'm a Sox fan who didn't need a Cliff Notes version nor a dictionary. Thw White Sox have never been part of those "losery teams" Weedy. That's the point of the article I believe. In all my years as a baseball fan Cubs fans embraced losing as an art. Not as a curse, as did Red Sox fans, but as a point of pride. When the White Sox lost we knew it wasn't part of a tradition, but an example of poor ownership. As for attendance: The Cubs fans go to be seen at a baseball game. They don't care if the team loses or not. In other words, Cubs ownship could play a bunch of goats and the fans will still fork over their cash. (Is there any wonder their former owner Wrigley saw LA as a place where he could find fans like he had back in Chicago?) Sox fans are brighter. They don't bother to show up if the ownership doesn't bother to find ballplayers. (Look at 1970 for example.) Brett: I think the Cubs outdrew the Sox in the 60 and 70s, but I agree that WGNs constant hyping of the team has given them more exposure than the team deserved. Finally, any team that can come 5 outs from winning their league and fall apart simply because a fan grabbed a foul ball deserves to be laughingstocks for at least another 50 years. Notes: Let's look at the last 45 years (1960 to 2004). Neither team has been in the World Series. push The Cubs won three divisions and a wild card. The White Sox took three division titles. adv: Cubs Records: WS: 3606-3532 -- .505 Cubs: 3391-3742 -- .475 adv: Sox

posted by ?! at 01:49 PM on August 18, 2005

Poor Joe Poor Joe.

posted by HOE.O.K. at 03:19 PM on August 18, 2005

Sorry if my response to panteeze was sophomoric; I was responding to his Cliffs Notes crack. I'm also sorry that Weedy is being forced to comment on a debate that falls so clearly within his pyramid of suckitude. I'm curious as to what did bring such popularity to the Cubbies in the early 80s if my comment was so laughable, panteeze. Perhaps it's the Chicago Tribune ownership that is the true factor. In the 24 years of Chicago Tribune ownership, the Cubs have outdrawn the White Sox 18 times. That said, the White Sox held the all-time city attendance record for a season until 2003. In the 24 years prior to Tribune ownership, the Cubs outdrew the Sox 11 times. The Cubs went 14 consecutive seasons in the 1950s and 1960s without drawing one million fans. Coincidentally, in the 24 years of Chicago Tribune ownership, the Cubs have recorded more wins than the White Sox eight times, and finished higher in their division four. In the 24 years prior to that, the Cubs had more wins seven times, a better finish six times. Clearly there is no connection between winning and attendance when it comes to the Chicago Cubs. But in examining the pre-Tribune vs. post-Tribune, we can see that attendance has made huge gains in the past 24 years. Is "lovable losing" somehow more popular these days, or does having the city's most powerful--and only--media conglomerate behind you play a role? Much is made of the difference in atmospheres between Wrigley Field and U.S. Cellular. Most mention the bustling bars of Wrigleyville and the Wrigley's great view of the Chicago skyline. But that only scratches the surface: Visit both parks and you'll have distinctly different experiences. If you're 23 years old and fond of snapping bleacher bikini tops on your cellphone, then want to jaw on the phone about those shots to your friend sitting 200 feet away in the grandstand, you'll have an immesaurably better experience at Wrigley. However, if sightlines, cleanliness, interactivity, value, parking, fan behavior, and safety--not to mention a traditionally superior product on the field--mean anything to you, you'll want to visit the south side. Cubs fans. bless their hearts, respect their "shrine" so much they watch anything but the game and throw their beer cups on the field after every precious and rare win--how about THAT for "tradition?" Cheebus, you are aware that the kid who ran out to tackle KC's first base coach had spent the day earlier drinking at Wrigley, drove home, then went to that night's Sox game, right? You also recall the fan who ran onto the field and tackled Randy Myers on the pitcher's mound, and the brawl with the Dodgers' bullpen precipitated by fan contact with the players? Domo arigato for that highlight, gbert72. I still insist the karma of Sox fan Bernie Mac infiltrating Wrigley to sing the 7th inning stretch precipitated the Bartman meltdown that occured the next inning.

posted by Brett at 03:26 PM on August 18, 2005

OK Brett, you like to do your research, I'll give you that. But honestly, don't you think your carrying this a bit too far? For Christs sake, it is a game! I find great amusement in the sporting world when fans try to say they are more loyal to there team than you or I are to ours. Or the stadium of there team is much better than our stadium. Lost in this great spirit of fandom is that there doesn't have to be a set of rules to follow in order to like one team over another team. Brett, you like the Sox, I like the Cubs. The major difference is I am much more light hearted than you. I was never a fan of the Sox nor will I ever be a fan. I was just trying to have some so relax dude. Put your time to better use.

posted by panteeze at 03:50 PM on August 18, 2005

Panteeze, you hate the hockey, I like the hockey. The major difference is I am much more light hearted than you. You were never a fan of the hockey nor will you ever be a fan. Other people like hockey and in the hockey threads they was just trying to have some so relax dude. Put your time to better use. err, i mean Cubs rool, Sox drool. or is it the other way around.

posted by gspm at 04:33 PM on August 18, 2005

have some so relax dude. i was just sayin.

posted by gspm at 05:21 PM on August 18, 2005

I posted this a while back on a thread about Steve Bartman, it pretty much sums up my feelings on the Cubs: I lived in Chicago for 30 years and submit this: Cubs fans are pathetic losers who know nothing about baseball, in fact, they are so simple-minded that they cheer wildly if a cloud passes over Wrigley, which is just as well since 75% of them are so drunk that they couldn't tell you their own name, let alone the score of the game, by the 7th inning retch, er, stretch. The whole Bartman affair is the perfect example of the mob-mentality persecution that makes perfect sense to the obnoxious fratboy worldview of the average Wrigleyville yuppy/Cub fan. Here's an insight that these semi-retarded "baseball fans" will never come to: Cubs management is not interested in fielding a World Series team -- they have Wrigley field and they have beer, they make so much money off of those two items that they will never bother to pay for a team good enough to win it all. Losers. ps) Greg Maddux.

posted by sic at 07:51 PM on August 18, 2005

"To give you some idea, our Ben Affleck is Styx's Dennis DeYoung." Look, I don't like Styx or anything, but at least Dennis DeYoung has some talent.

posted by psmealey at 12:08 AM on August 19, 2005

at least Dennis DeYoung has some talent. Granted, even some talent is more than what Ben Affleck has, but I think that fame is more important than talent in assessing celebrity fans', hum, value. Go cubs Go where? I don't care for either one of the Chicago team, but even the first-round loss you predict for the White Sox is better than what the Cubs are doing this year, no?

posted by qbert72 at 07:03 AM on August 19, 2005

I think he meant "Chicago city", and was pointing out that the WS' one-season-attendance record was higher than the Cubs. It's an inner-city brawl, this.

posted by qbert72 at 08:35 AM on August 19, 2005