Things That Make You Go "Hmmmm"
There's not a whole lot to say about the Cubs' 8-4 loss to the Braves that hasn't been said 84 other times this year (I say 84, because before last night, that's how many games the Cubs had lost.
I do want to point out a couple of shake-your-head-how-could-they-have-said-or-written-that quotations, both from the above-linked Yahoo/AP recap, and from the CSN telecast last night.
First, even the AP is dissing the Cubs. AP writer Paul Newberry first says the Braves are desperately trying to stay in the wild-card race and
While that happens to be true, it's still jarring to see it in an actual game summary. Later in that article, Dusty Baker says of Turner Field:
Big park? Since when? Turner Field isn't the launching pad that the old Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium was, but I have never heard it described as a "big park" before.
And finally, Angel Guzman's take on his 4.1 IP, 7 H, 3 HR performance:
Well, duh, Angel. This was one of your worst performances, but Len and Bob, who have in the past been critical when warranted, were spouting the company line last night, saying that Guzman had "thrown well". Well? What's their definition of "well"? Guzman was awful last night, and I do not see how he can be counted on for next year. His next turn, and the rest of the year, should be given to Jae-Kuk Ryu, someone who has a much better chance at being a successful major league pitcher.
Anyway, I'm done with that game -- as should we all. I want to use the rest of this post to talk about some stuff I found out while I was looking up something else -- always fun. Today is the 41st anniversary of the last time the Cubs were no-hit -- Sandy Koufax' perfect game. As you may know, that was the second no-hitter thrown against the Cubs in a three-week period; Jim Maloney of the Reds had no-hit the Cubs at Wrigley Field on August 19, 1965; that was the last CG, extra-inning no-hitter (10 innings) thrown in the history of baseball.
What you may not know, and I didn't till I started looking things up, is that the Cubs were also one-hit two other times in the second half of 1965 -- on July 23 by Bob Friend of the Pirates at Wrigley Field, and on the second-to-last day of that season, October 2, at Forbes Field in Pittsburgh, by ex-Cub Don Cardwell, who had thrown a no-hitter in his first Cub start on May 15, 1960.
It was in the process of looking up those games that I noted the small attendance at many Cub games in the mid-1960's, and since attendance is now becoming a hot issue, I thought you would like to know this:
Between 1959 and 1966, there were nine games at Wrigley Field in which the announced attendance was less than 1000. They were all mid-to-late September dates, pennant races long ago decided, and I'd think likely the weather was bad on most if not all of those dates. They are as follows (date, with attendance):
(Note: there were no such games in 1963, a year where the Cubs briefly contended for the pennant and wound up with a winning record, 82-80.)
9/22/1964, 961; this game included beating Don Drysdale and an 8-inning relief appearance by Cal Koonce.
9/16/1965, 550; in this game, Sandy Koufax recorded one of his nine career saves. I have a vague memory of seeing this game on TV, with Jack Brickhouse noting the bad weather and the very small crowd.
9/21/1966, 530; this is the lowest attended game in at least the last fifty years.
In 1967, the Cubs suddenly broke through their two decades of losing, and attendance rose accordingly, never again dropping to this level, even for September games. Remember, in those days very few season tickets were sold, and the announced attendance was the turnstile count. In recent years, the closest a single game attendance has come to those levels was on 9/22/1980, 1171.
There's a point to all of this, so stay with me. Attendance rose through the 1980's, peaking in 1984 and 1985, in the first division title years, then declining till the next one in 1989. In 1992/1993, the National League shifted the way attendance was announced (the AL had done this several years before) -- before 1992, it was turnstile count, but in 1993, they changed to tickets sold, with the following result:
1992, sixteen crowds under 20,000
1993, two crowds under 20,000
This despite the fact that the '92 and '93 teams were substantially the same in performance, and the '93 team had lost Greg Maddux under the bad circumstances you all know about.
The last home crowd under 10,000 was 5,267 on 6/1/2000; that was an extenuating circumstance, as the game the day before had been rained out and that was a makeup game. The last "legitimate" crowd of less than 10,000 was 9,603 on 9/28/1992.
And before last Thursday, the last crowd under 30,000 was 29,236 on 5/2/2003, just before that team took off and created the attendance boom we have seen up to this year.
Here's the point of all of this; thanks for patiently plowing through to find it. The current attendance total for 2006 is 2,722,472, an average of 39,456 for the 69 dates (one rainout). To make 3 million the Cubs will need 277,528 or 25,230 per date for the eleven remaining home dates. That many tickets have likely already been sold, considering that four of the upcoming dates are weekend dates and four others are night games. But to break the club record of 3,170,184, they will now need 447,713, or 40,702 per date -- so that event, which only two weeks ago I was certain was going to occur, is now clearly not going to happen.
And therein lies the tale for Cubs management -- they ought to realize that they cannot simply open the gates any more and have people just file in. Winning baseball is the way to accomplish this on a continuing basis. Even the Tribune Co. suits ought to stand up and take note of the crowds this past week, which, as I have noted, were about 50% of the tickets sold.
Next year, unless there are bold moves made to improve this club, the actual tickets sold numbers could decline to levels we haven't seen in nearly 20 years.
39 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Comment
His next turn, and the rest of the year, should be given to Jae-Kuk Ryu, someone who has a much better chance at being a successful major league pitcher.
I hope that you mean, "Ryu, someone who has a much better chance at being a healthy major league pitcher".
The Trib
I believe a true accounting of profit and loss would show 2006 as their most impressive performance. Certainly they see the unhappiness in the fan base, but I'm not convinced they don't feel that sprinkling some pixie dust won't satisfy the mob outside the gates. That is their arrogance as it was for many fallen icons. And until they add up the numbers at the end of the year and see a decline, I expect more lip service than diligent effort from the Tower.
Guzman's performance
Another math lesson
It seems 4 playoff appearances in 14 years is more significant than 15 years in a row.
Once again, we are reminded that the new math is beyond our comprehension and should be left to the experts.
What does that mean?
Both interpretations are plausible given his wording. If the latter, then this might be a rare bit of honesty from Baker acknowledging that he does not prepare for games during the season.
sarcasm off\
I applaud your premise
This was a very well thought out analysis. The reason I believe 100 losses will usher in the end of the MacPhail and Hendry eras is that the Tribune HAS SEEN performance on the field has a tangible effect on their bottom line (not to mention asset valuation).
In order to protect their precious Golden Goose, it only makes sense to hire people who have had actual success building a winner. GROTA has written a very thoughtful piece on The Case Against Andy MacPhail that I encourage all to read.
MacPhail's 13-year tenure with the Chicago Cubs can be considered nothing more than an abject failure (.478: 915-1000), and 100 losses is just the catalyst I think it will take for this tired organization to wake up and make the more they should have made 10 years ago.
So 6-15 is the goal I certainly hope we attain, it would be nice to be able to go back to actually pulling for the team I've always named my favorite in professional sports.
by Santos Sorrow @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Sep 9, 2006 9:27 AM CDT reply actions
Nice post.
I hope you haven't forgotten how to say go Cubs. :)
You know...
I wondered why, especially considering that the Cubs had had several poor years in the early and mid 1950's, why the REALLY low attendance games didn't start till 1959 (for example, similar dates in 1957 and 1958 drew in the 1000-3000 range).
The answer is so obvious; maybe that's why it didn't jump out at me. The White Sox won the pennant in 1959, and were serious contenders through 1967, when the Cubs finally leapt back into contention.
The casual baseball fan must have dumped the Cubs and switched allegiances in those years. I have been saying this won't happen immediately, and it won't -- there are too many other factors today, including the huge Cub fan base generated by years of national cable TV coverage -- but it COULD happen if the club doesn't improve rapidly. If the Sox are still a contending team and the Cubs aren't two years from now, that could make things begin to shift.
I think you over-rate
For a long while Jerry Reinsdorf must have felt a little like Sisyphus rolling that stone up a hill never to reach the top.
By their combined incompetence, MacPhail and Hendry have bulldozed that figurative hill and Reinsdorf is steps away from the pinnacle.
2007 is year one of Chicago, White Sox town.
This, of course, can be still avoided but it'll take a lot of good decisions, a little money, and the immediate dismissal of Andy MacPhail this October.
by Santos Sorrow @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Sep 9, 2006 1:02 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm not so sure...
You're right about the good decisions and a little bit of money making change. Your vendetta against Andy MacPhail may be misplaced.
I'd be very interested in comparing TV ratings for Cubs and White Sox games this year, both WGN and CSN games. Anyone have access to this data?
Ill look around for the ratings data
On the MacPhail thing, what does he have to do to deserve dismissal in your eyes? Loss 1000 of his Cub career happened yesterday, how many more will it take?
by Santos Sorrow @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Sep 9, 2006 1:51 PM CDT up reply actions
I know you aren't talking to me...
MacPhail....
I'm not sure where I can find entire-season ratings data at this point. If you can find it, I'd be interested and I think others would too. Post a diary if you find it.
Earlier this year
There are other factors in the attendance, but if the Roman Empire could fall, if the Soviet Union could fall, well, all those predicting that the Cubs will "always" have better attendance/popularity arent thinking too hard.
If the White Sox, when dumping old Comiskey, had rebuilt in the South Loop rather than at 35th and Shields, I think they would have already surpassed the Cubs popularity.
Look, for many suburban and further afield (Iowa, Indiana, etc) fans going to Wrigley is one thing, but the "south side" is much more foreboding.
The location of the stadiums does not explain "national popularity" and so forth, but dont underestimate the suburban crowds reluctance to go to the "south side".
by NLBallClub on Sep 10, 2006 12:45 PM CDT up reply actions
I didn't see much in that column...
I view McPhail being hired as the Tribune/Cubs' serious attempt to bring a world series to Chicago. he was 2nd or 3rd choice, he was a proven World Series winner with the Twins and he was going to bring greatness to the Cubs, a real baseball guy with more resources available, a can't miss...
McPhail was brought here on a long leash and unless we have back to back 90+ loss seasons in 2006-2007, I think he'll be the guy to name Hendry's replacement. I am a huge McPhail critic but the case against him isn't very strong in the Trib/Cubs' eyes and although Hendry/Baker can be launched quickly McPhail will be around until the club is sold...
by DudeVf1 on Sep 9, 2006 9:59 PM CDT up reply actions
Can someone tell me...
Regardless of moves, I'm only going to buy tickets to one Cubs game once next year unless they are winning a lot, and I will not buy those tickets in February. I don't know why I didn't do this this year, but I'm hoping to go to The Cell next year. I want to see my second favorite Venezuelan pitch.
He has a bad back
by Santos Sorrow @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Sep 9, 2006 9:54 AM CDT up reply actions
OK...
Z likes to pitch. Last year he said they would have to kill him to miss a start, and while they aren't going to kill him he is going to try to come back as soon as possible. Maybe he will return to make only one start on September 30.
Stadium size
Turner Field, at 390 to right center and 380 to left center is among the biggest in basball. The 390 in right center is the third biggest and 380 is 11th biggest. The 2 that are bigger in right center, SBC and Petco, are both substantially shorter than Turner in left center. And the ten that are bigger in left center are all smaller than Turner in right center.
Down the lines, Turner is 335/330, which is above average (7th and 10th respectively).
Baker did not say it was the biggest in baseball, only that it was big. He was right.
by DSZ on Sep 9, 2006 9:50 AM CDT reply actions
Size doesn't matter.
- 15th
- 27th
- 32nd
- 6th
- 21st
- 15th
I don't have time to combine all these numbers, and you can see they vary widely (in 2003, Turner Field was the worst HR park, in 2004 one of the best), but it appears to be about league-average over time in terms of HR.
So while Baker might be able to observe that the park is "big", it apparently doesn't play that way. Thank you for confirming another indictment of Baker -- he pays no attention to actual stats.
Very confusing
Park size is a constant. Park factor, as the numbers you cited show, is not. That a stadium can go from 32nd one year to 6th another to 21st the following year should demonstrate that to you.
Incidentally, if you take the average of those rankings, you find that Turner Field is pitcher-friendly field when it comes to home runs.
But again, facts obviously aren't that important to you when it comes to Dusty Baker or what you choose to publicly criticize.
The Cubs organization is terrible. Their major league team is terrible. The minor league system is terrible. For years, they have consistently failed to develop players and they have failed to sign top-tier free agents. Yet you reserve nearly all of your public outrage for Dusty Baker (with the occasional shot at his coaching staff) when there is not a manager in baseball who could have won with this bunch.
The Cubs have not built a consistent winning team in over 30 years, yet you're the most upset about the guy who's been managing for the last 4. You do not criticize Hendry much, I don't think you've ever criticized MacPhail. And your response to people who say the Tribune should sell the Cubs is that either it's not realistic because it's not going to happen (based on what insight I'm unsure) or that we don't know if the new owner would be better. So you barely criticize the GM, you don't criticize the President and you don't criticize the ownership. Instead, you criticize the lowest level managers in the corporate hierarchy. A corporate hierarchy, by the way, that chooses managers so successfully that once they leave the Cubs they cannot get another managerial position in the MLB. Doesn't that seem strange?
I'm not writing this to attack you personally at all. I truly do not understand why you single out Baker, who actually has a track record of success in baseball that is far superior to Hendry or the Tribune.
by DSZ on Sep 9, 2006 10:36 AM CDT up reply actions
This is so puzzling...
Saying a park is "big" implies that you know it's not a home run park. This simply isn't true.
Incidentally, averaging those rankings isn't the way to get the correct 2001-2006 averages, because the number of home runs is not the same each year, nor is the home/road split. You'd have to add up all the numbers for ALL the teams to figure this out, and as I said, I don't have time to do that. But you're welcome to if you'd like.
I think you've both
And, if you look at the Park Factors table and sort for HRs allowed, you will find that, not surprisingly, Wrigley Field consistently allows more HRs than Turner Field. In most years, significantly more.
So, with an extremely young pitching staff, who are prone to get hit hard, Baker has a good point. It is statistically more likely that the Cubs pitchers will keep Braves hitters in the ball park at Turner Field than they would be at Wrigley Field...although that did not prove to be the case last night, which I think is what Dusty was saying.
by jazzman56 on Sep 9, 2006 1:22 PM CDT up reply actions
Your point is taken...
Yes, this is what I thought...
by DudeVf1 on Sep 9, 2006 10:04 PM CDT up reply actions
Guzman
Bullpen
1.74 ERA in 10.1 IPs (2 ER) out of the bullpen.
Yes, that's an absurdly small sample size, but it shows that at least he CAN have success as a reliever. So far Guzman hasn't shown any indication that he can be an effective starter at the ML-level.
Plus, with his health history, it just seems like the smart move is to put him in the bullpen and let him work his way back into the rotation.
I'd prefer his spot by taken by Ryu, who's way outpitched Guzman in the past two years, or O'Malley, whose shown he's at least capable of winning a game.
Would Guzman
by NO100 on Sep 9, 2006 4:07 PM CDT up reply actions
He has to pitch much more...
by DudeVf1 on Sep 9, 2006 10:08 PM CDT up reply actions
Guzman
That said, his saying that "when you fall behind, you have to go for the strikeout" is really mind boggling. I think that one problem a lot of our pitchers have is they think they have to strike everyone out. Of course, if I had Cedeno playing behind me, I'd go for the K too, but that aside, they need to learn how to pitch a complete game instead of trying to strike everyone out.
Agreed.
About Ryu, I think my point is that I'd like to see him get more opportunities. Perhaps he could take Guzman's turn in the rotation the rest of the year. At least then we'd have an idea of what he can do at this level.
FYI
In fact the 3 dingers were hit on counts of 3-1, 3-2 and 2-0.
Which is true...
Rothschild, along with the rest of the staff, MUST go. He's done more damage than all the rest put together.
I agree
I'd much prefer a pitching coach who would make "First pitch strike" as his foundation for the staff. Also, I wonder if having Maddux around had anything to do with the nibbling. Greg was exceptional and could get away with it but I don't think many pitchers, particularly young ones, are capable of that type of consistent and accurate nibbling that worked for him.
On Maddux...
Do you think Rothschild wishes he had taken that Tigers job?
Not certain
I was never a big fan of his but supported bringing him back simply to add a non Baker coach to the staff.
I hope that Dusty takes not of this...
by DudeVf1 on Sep 9, 2006 10:09 PM CDT up reply actions
Attendance
I was wrong. It has been incredible to see how small the crowds have gotten. I was there on Tuesday night and I felt like I was in an alternate universe, especially comparing the crowd that night to some of the games I went to in April when the bleachers were packed.
I hope it's getting the Trib's attention.
I want to see Ryu also.
by jag alskar bjornungarna on Sep 9, 2006 2:45 PM CDT reply actions

by 




















