Comments on: ‘Ambassador to fans’ on Tom Ricketts’ full Chicago Cubs plate

By: Jeff McMahon

Jeff McMahon — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:57:48 +0000

Weird pot-kettle response, George. Jibes like “envious”? And it’s obsessive if we respond to such jibes?

By: George Castle

George Castle — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:28:24 +0000

As a rabid Sox fan, you’re not reading what I wrote. When the Sox have news, I’ll report it or analyze it. I’m not asking you to provide me with the news.

This whole debate is not necessary, but it does indicate the obsession Sox fans have. And, Jeff, if you’ve ever read any of my nine published books — have you? — or any of my newspaper/broadcast coverage of the teams, I’ve been far more critical of the Cubs — at Wrigley, TribCo. execs, MacPhail — than the Sox. I even praised Kenny Williams’ trade of Carlos Lee for Scott Podsednik, the sacrifice of power for speed. It’s doubtful Kenny was even aware of that or cared.

Jeff, if you want Cubs fans to love the Sox, you have to be more welcoming than a blizzard of jibes that make them look ignorant, drunk or effete. It’s not even a love-us-or-leave-us deal — you don’t want more people in your exclusive club.

By: Jeff McMahon

Jeff McMahon — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:37:23 +0000

I’m not wasting energy on the Cubs, George. I’m dedicating energy to media bias and to misrepresentations of the White Sox and White Sox fans. In the interest of rectifying what is wrong.

Bruce Levine pulling a number out of his (hat) means nothing to me. In 2005 and 2006, the White Sox were the most popular team in Chicago. They were number one on television here. Unlike Bruce Levine’s opinion, that’s measurable. Using your own logic, wouldn’t the media coverage reflect that?

I don’t see how your experience gives you an edge on me when you just keep pulling these tired old fan arguments out of your hat, all of which are irrelevant to the point: White Sox fans do not envy the Cubs. Yes, I’ve heard the TV argument, the popularity argument, the attendance argument, and many more. Zzzz. Because far more poignant is the fact that here you are, a sportswriter/Cubs fan, telling me I need to provide you with your White Sox news. While out of the other side of your mouth, telling me there’s no bias. Haha.

By: George Castle

George Castle — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:34:48 +0000

Only a few minutes after the Sox won the World Series at Minute Maid Park in 2005, Jerry Reinsdorf was on the infield celebrating. But he also appealed with the angle — why can’t we all just get along — Cubs fans and Sox fans? I was right there and heard it clearly. Apparently, our friend Jeff didn’t listen. Just the fact he’s making this a point of debate shows some “envy.”

The issues going forward are Ricketts building the Cubs into a Red Sox-quality organization and Reinsdorf-Kenny Williams making their farm system more productive while taking advantage of Jake Peavy’s presence. Committing to Peavy’s contract shows Reinsdorf wants to win even if it goes outside his financial comfort zone.

By: George Castle

George Castle — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:28:47 +0000

Bruce Levine of ESPN-1000 estimates the Cubs-Sox fan split in the Chicago area — not outside in the Midwest — at 60-40 in favor of the Cubs, with the 40 percent being pretty firm. I think it might be a tad higher in favor of the Cubs. If that’s the case, wouldn’t the media coverage reflect that?

Ozzie himself said the Sox would have to win five World Series in a row to take the town away from the Cubs.

Again, the Sox have established themselves as a Chicago success story in their own right, dominating their own niche. There’s no danger of moving as in the 1960s and 1970s. As you said, be happy about the 2005 World Series and zero in on getting back there by putting dead-aim at the Twins, Tigers and Yankees (lions, tigers and bears, it sounds like). I’ll repeat that and outlast you, Jeff. Don’t waste energy on the Cubs.

Bias? No, just 30 years experience in the business at work here and 15 more years previous to that as a fan. I’ve got an edge on you, Jeff, in perspective about how things came to be in this market. Did you ever hear Jerry Reinsdorf admit one of the worst things the Sox ever did was go off WGN-TV in 1968 for then little-watched UHF Channel 32?

Give me some legit Sox news and I’ll write about it. That’s my full intention. Except Milton Bradley, Soriano and the ownership change have been dominating headlines since mid-summer.

By: Jeff McMahon

Jeff McMahon — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:26:59 +0000

That’s interesting, George, because before the Tribune owned the Cubs Wrigley Field often sat largely empty every day. It took some vigorous media bias to create the fan atmosphere that they now use to justify their media bias. And I’m not surprised you can’t see the bias since we’re right now discussing an example of it in your own writing.

I don’t make Veeck’s column inches argument, because the tone and content of that copy also matters. But I do think it’s interesting how much relative attention is paid to the two teams. Remember that repetition is a key marketing strategy. Using the Tribune’s own search engine, I looked at how many stories the Tribune published mentioning each team during the regular seasons in 2005, when the White Sox lead their division from day one to day 162 and then won the World Series, and in 2006, when the Sox were defending World Series champions. Here are the numbers:

2005 Regular Season
Cubs: 2,824 Tribune stories
White Sox: 2,047 Tribune stories

2006 Regular Season
Cubs: 2,556 Tribune stories
White Sox: 1,975 Tribune stories

In those two regular seasons, 1,400 more stories mentioning the Cubs than mentioning the Sox. Those weren’t all Sports stories of course. There was all the fluff in your beloved Tempo section, too. No bias? Give me a break.

By: bigmikeglab

bigmikeglab — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:59:52 +0000

George, in the other two two-team cities (NY & LA) the teams pay a heckuva lot of attention to each other. There’s a battle between the Mets & Yanks and the Dodgers & Angels for the limited sports entertainment dollar in each city. Often, a team will make a move simply to grab headlines from the other team. Of course, you can go too far with this but when you share a city with another team, your competition is both on the field and at the box office. The White Sox are wise for crying about the unbalanced coverage — it’s like Phil Jackson always moaning about ref favoritism. These complaints might plant a seed in the mind of a sports editor or ref that he’s not even conscious of. All that said, I think Sox fans really are overly envious. Were I a dyed in the wool Sox fan, I wouldn’t even think twice about the Cubs. I’d still be high as a kite on my 2005 World Series championship. I’ve heard too many times the very weird sentiment from White Sox fans that they;d rather the Cubs lose than the Sox win. That’s bizarre.

By: Bubbly Creek: Lead with Sweetness, close with funny Halloween picture | blogs.vocalo.org

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:42:48 +0000

[...] so that’s how the Ricketts family got so much good press last week. Good [...]

By: George Castle

George Castle — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:38:02 +0000

In 2002, I saw Bill Adee, then sports editor of the Sun-Times, in the pressbox at The Cell. Adee is now the Trib’s on-line guru. I asked Bill why the Cubs got more media coverage than the Sox. “Because they have more fans,” Adee said. In the end, that’s the bottom line if you bring up the old Bill Veeck column-inches argument. But I think the coverage overall is even. Remember, the Cubs and the Sox exist in the only two-team market where one team plays the majority of its home games during the day, making extra coverage in any medium much more convenient. That’s a built-in problem the Sox cannot overcome.

So just keep your eyes on the Twins, Tigers and Yanks. Focus. Don’t “ask the pitching coach.”

By: Jeff McMahon

Jeff McMahon — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:25:39 +0000

Thanks, George, that’s my point: not so much that Cubbie culture is nauseating, but that Sox fans see it that way and that Cub fans can’t, including Cub fans who work in the media. So they come up with this cheap “envy” claim. If you’ve ever seen a fungus consume a peach or a slice of bread, one can marvel at its proliferation, even remark upon it, without envying it.

I certainly didn’t say it was macho to stay away from games. I think there are many reasons for the attendance disparity, including the media bias that promotes Cubbie culture and portrays the South Side as a dangerous place-even though more crime occurs in the vicinity of Wrigley Field than in the vicinity of Sox Park–a different commercial atmosphere in the park and in the neighborhoods, as well as some common sense. I also wouldn’t trade the attendance figures: why would any fan want their ballpark to be sold out every day? It means you can’t get in. Like my buddy says, “You can have the attendance flag. We’ll take the World Series trophy.”

None of this means we envy you. We don’t.