Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nobody's really explaining why 974 people showed up. The Sox are bad or "Sox fans are bad" are lame and lazy reasons. Re-read my post. Paid attendance is over 10,000 for that game, while still not good, is not uncommon for April games for a team expected to come in 4th or 5th in the division. It's even worse when it's a Monday game and it gets moved from a night game to a day game. This isn't a "families can't afford it" situation. This is a "who's dumb enough to pull their kids out of school on a Monday to see a last place team in 35 degree weather and possibly snow, and it's not Opening Day and you didn't already have tickets." And again, for those that already purchased tickets, they received a voucher for an equivalent ticket to a future game.
For the overall attendance trend for the Sox to improve, they need to put a better product on the field. All the other stuff won't move the needle as much given the stadium isn't downtown.
For the guy comparing Cubs/Sox/Milwaukee attendance: The Sox haven't made the playoffs since 2008 and have gradually been more disappointing as the seasons have gone on, bottoming out record-wise in 2013. Of course attendance blows and ranks "on average 23rd", or for you "CPS grads" the average of those numbers listed is 20th, or cherry pick information if that's what you enjoy doing. Just curious if you think the Sox will continue to rank "23rd" in attendance if they make the playoffs a few years in a row? Or the Brewers are completely hopeless for several years, will they potentially see a decline? Probably. In this instance, they're doing a pretty quick rebuild, so their dip in attendance was never horrible.
The Cubs rarely take a hit in attendance, but they were in such disarray after 2010 that they finally took a hit in attendance until guess what, they made the playoffs again in 2015. For most teams, other than maybe Tampa Bay and the Cubs (in this case Rays fans tend to stay away no matter what), attendance is driven by team performance, or expected team performance based on the prior season. Look at the Blue Jays the last couple years. They're in the same dumpy stadium the past 30 years or so, but they had an attendance bump the last few years. Toronto's a big market, and the stadium is in a great location, but prior to 2015, the team hovered around .500 since they won the World Series in 1993.
It's early (very early) in the season, the Cubs were in town, too (thanks MLB for that brilliant job of scheduling), the weather stunk, far too cold and misty for baseball.
A better question: why did those 947 show up? Was it going to be a "fun day at the ballpark"? Seriously, folks, "947 show up at a Sox game" is a pretty meaningless statistic: it doesn't tell us a damned thing.
It's early (very early) in the season, the Cubs were in town, too (thanks MLB for that brilliant job of scheduling), the weather stunk, far too cold and misty for baseball.
A better question: why did those 947 show up? Was it going to be a "fun day at the ballpark"? Seriously, folks, "947 show up at a Sox game" is a pretty meaningless statistic: it doesn't tell us a damned thing.
I completely agree. There's just clearly people out there that bought into the media narrative that the Tribune spun during their ownership of the Cubs rather than thinking for themselves.
The White Sox fans are not good fans at all. Cubs fans show up for anything good bad or ugly. Let's compare Cubs v White Sox attendance and we will throw Milwaukee in there for a baseline number as they are the smallest market in baseball and Chicago is number 3.
Why even mention those other teams? I thought this was a thread about the Sox, and up until your post, it has been. Was it really necessary for you to derail the thread? The Sox don't have the media machine behind them like the Cubs do. I mentioned the Ch. 7 sports report earlier - have you ever seen it? They are a Cubs broadcast partner and thus what is good for the Cubs is good for Ch. 7. They have special segments and special graphics for the Cubs reports and as always there are special mentions of all upcoming Cubs games on Ch. 7. Not even WGN was this bad when they had 100% of Cubs games.
The Tribune had a banner at the top of Page 1 the other day: "Cubs/Brewers Rivalry Hotter Than Ever". Seriously, a rivalry? Against a team which switched leagues just so they could have some good-selling midweek games by selling seats to Cub fans? Oh, sure, I know that's not the "official" reason they moved, but c'mon, everyone knows its why they moved. 1998 was still in the doldrums of the post-94 strike and the Brewers were desperate to draw in enough people to justify the new stadium that was under construction at the time. The cynical Brewers ownership threw their fans under the proverbial bus by going after the big money from fans of the new "rival".
Like has been mentioned several times already, most of those who didn't go to Monday's game will be there later in the year because they were offered vouchers. Given a choice, who wouldn't trade a snowy 30+ degree weekday day game in April for something more appealing (and warmer), later in the season? I sure would have, but I'm not a sports fan. Just an astute media watcher.
I completely agree. There's just clearly people out there that bought into the media narrative that the Tribune spun during their ownership of the Cubs rather than thinking for themselves.
I personally believe that having the Sox in town with them is a definite plus for the Cubs. They benefit from the interest in aseball in Chicago is spiked by having two franchises. Of corse the Cub-Sox rivalry is huge..and it may be the biggest MLB rivalry we have in Chicagoland; As far as I am concerned, the Cub-Cardinal rivalry is biggest in downstate Illinois, the fertile ground both those teams fight over.
The Cubs have more identity due to the fact there are two teams in town. It works that way for teams like the Cubs, Sox, Yankees and Mets. If we compare the Cubs with the franchise most like them, the Red Sox, the Cubs ultimately have more identity. The Red Sox are Boston; they fully represent the Boston area. The Cubs share our market with the Whie Sox....so the identity is greater.
In a previous post, I mentioned that Chicago alone has that eams-forever identity. That history is a large contributor to our interest in the game.
And for the record, I think the Yankees were more interested nteresting when they were part of a three team NYC rivalry with the Giants and Dodgers.
As for the Cubs, I’ll repeat: n this most traditional game, having the Sox here is a definite positive for them.
Historically, this goes way back. The Cubs were on WGN before most people had cable. Their games were on TV every day, while we had to watch the occasional Sox game through static on old Channel 44. This went on for years, so as kids watched games after school, it was the Cubs. It was easy.
Those kids are now adults. Also, Wrigley Field is a unique experience in a very nice neighborhood. Sox Park is off on an expressway with some sketchy spots nearby. While Bridgeport is a decent neighborhood, it's working class, not full of a ton of bars, etc. And until a few years ago, there were projects a few blocks away.
Fast forward to now. Games are super expensive to attend. Sox fans, on average, come from more working class areas of the city, and don't have the same disposable income. At Wrigley, trixies and Chads can buy the ticket and a bunch of $9 beers and have a great time. That's a real dent in a lot of Sox fans paychecks, and given the history mentioned above, the base was smaller from the start.
Winning helps, obviously. But the Sox attendance will never hit the level of Cubs attendance, even with a perennial winning team (which may be coming here pretty soon). It will increase, maybe reach the top 10, but never top 5.
And Sox Park is actually pretty nice now. When they first built it, the things was terrible. But they've softened the park a lot, have tons of kids activities (more than Wrigley), clean bathrooms, etc. It's a nice ballpark now. That's not it.
Could try winning! White Sox are horrible. Cubs just got killed by the Pittsburgh Pirates and have a 6-6 record now. What's the incentive to go see them lose and pay money to go see them lose, along with transportation costs, unless you're car pooling and going with friends. Bulls completely stink and the bears roflmfao are a lost cause. Blackhawks completely stink. Get your stuff together Chicago and maybe someone will pay money to see your garbage teams! Ticks me off, because I want to see one of those teams have a good year.
Could try winning! White Sox are horrible. Cubs just got killed by the Pittsburgh Pirates and have a 6-6 record now. What's the incentive to go see them lose and pay money to go see them lose, along with transportation costs, unless you're car pooling and going with friends. Bulls completely stink and the bears roflmfao are a lost cause. Blackhawks completely stink. Get your stuff together Chicago and maybe someone will pay money to see your garbage teams! Ticks me off, because I want to see one of those teams have a good year.
Sox are in the beginning of a massive rebuild. It will take another 2 years probably for them to be good. But then, watch out. 2020 will begin a great era for Sox baseball, hopefully.
The Bulls are also rebuilding, and some early signs show that it might be starting to work. They were tanking this year, and they will get a stud in the draft, maybe even two. The Bulls will win more games next year. Their rookie Markkanen is the real deal. But really, with Golden State, Houston and LeBron out there, the Bulls have no shot at an NBA title for awhile. I do expect them to work their way back into the playoffs in 1-2 years, but until they break up those superteams, they'll have a ceiling.
The Bears are not a lost cause. They just spent a ton of money on several big free agents that will instantly improve their team. With such as young QB, it will take a bit of time, but they've made some big strides this offseason and I expect them to be a lot better.
All three of those teams (Sox/Bears/Bulls) are in this bad stretch, but I believe all three are temporary. The Bulls, to me, are in the worst position of the three to have meaningful improvement.
The Blackhawks, however, are on the wrong side of things. Their era of dominance is over. But geez, man, they just won THREE Stanley cups in the last what, 8 years? What more do you want?
The White Sox fans are not good fans at all. Cubs fans show up for anything good bad or ugly. Let's compare Cubs v White Sox attendance and we will throw Milwaukee in there for a baseline number as they are the smallest market in baseball and Chicago is number 3.
No matter what year it is, the White Sox will typically be 23rd in league attendance. The Cubs will typically be 6th and the Brewers will typically be 12th. Milwaukee is only 2M people and Chicago is 10M. St.Louis will almost always be 5th in total attendance. The White Sox just don't have much to cheer about, changing ownership has done wonders for Milwaukee. The White Sox fans suffer from apathy, they just don't care anymore.
No offense, but this is a lousy hot take. Even if you're from out of town, it's unfair to paint a whole fanbase with such a broad brush. "White Sox fans are not good fans at all" and "White Sox fans suffer from apathy, they just don't care anymore" are lazy arguments.
In fact, the whole attendance argument is tired, lazy and irrelevant. Anyone who's spent any amount of time paying attention to Chicago baseball knows that the Sox draw when they win. They haven't been to the playoffs since 2008, so there you go. They don't have the luxury of playing in a tourist attraction in one of city's nicest neighborhoods. The Cubs will always have the casual fans to help boost their numbers, no matter their record. The Sox need to work a little harder to earn the larger crowds. And there's nothing wrong with that. Outside a few teams (BoSox, Cubs, Yanks, etc.), that's how it generally works across most of MLB.
Sox fans are great baseball fans. They're passionate, they know the game and they pay attention. Lousy April attendance in a year the team is not expected to compete does not take away from that.
Also, I will note that the Cubs' announced attendance for their past couple games has hovered just over 29,000 (and believe me, there weren't that many people at Wrigley). So I think lower attendance, as some others have mentioned, is an MLB-wide thing. Not that I would call out the Cubs for not selling out home games the season after they went to NLCS. Because, as I have to remind my Cub fan friends all-too-frequently, they don't hand out trophies for attendance
No offense, but this is a lousy hot take. Even if you're from out of town, it's unfair to paint a whole fanbase with such a broad brush. "White Sox fans are not good fans at all" and "White Sox fans suffer from apathy, they just don't care anymore" are lazy arguments.
In fact, the whole attendance argument is tired, lazy and irrelevant. Anyone who's spent any amount of time paying attention to Chicago baseball knows that the Sox draw when they win. They haven't been to the playoffs since 2008, so there you go. They don't have the luxury of playing in a tourist attraction in one of city's nicest neighborhoods. The Cubs will always have the casual fans to help boost their numbers, no matter their record. The Sox need to work a little harder to earn the larger crowds. And there's nothing wrong with that. Outside a few teams (BoSox, Cubs, Yanks, etc.), that's how it generally works across most of MLB.
Sox fans are great baseball fans. They're passionate, they know the game and they pay attention. Lousy April attendance in a year the team is not expected to compete does not take away from that.
Also, I will note that the Cubs' announced attendance for their past couple games has hovered just over 29,000 (and believe me, there weren't that many people at Wrigley). So I think lower attendance, as some others have mentioned, is an MLB-wide thing. Not that I would call out the Cubs for not selling out home games the season after they went to NLCS. Because, as I have to remind my Cub fan friends all-too-frequently, they don't hand out trophies for attendance
Brewers are able to draw fans because they have a stadium with a retractable roof. Also there's only two professional sports teams in the city. In Milwaukee there are much fewer alternative activities to draw people away from major sporting events whereas Chicago is full of things to do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
