Chicago Baseball Discussion: Cubs & White Sox

[MadmanLA]

To piggyback on RichO's comments in regards to the two teams' TV coverage...you could say that the dynamic between the two starting changing in the late 60s, back when both teams still had their games on WGN, but the Sox moved to WFLD Channel 32 (the station eventually became the local Fox outlet) starting in 1968.  That and coupled with Bud Selig and his car-dealer buddies up the lake wanting the Sox to move north permanently (as they were playing selected home games at Milwaukee County Stadium in '68 and '69), the tide definitely started turning in the Cubs' favor. 

 

WGN launching nationally, the Tribune's deeper pockets (albeit, they only really spent on payroll if necessary) and Harry Caray coming over as Jack Brickhouse's heir apparent as the voice of the Cubs pretty much sealed themselves as Chicago's favorite baseball team.  The Sox putting most of their games on cable/subscription TV (while still maintaining an OTA presence on WFLD) vs. nearly every Cubs game being on Channel 9 (upwards of 140 telecasts a year at one point) in those days of cable infancy also put things in their favor.  This was still during the era where you were lucky enough get 30-50 games on your favorite baseball team on local TV (except in New York City, where at least the Mets and Yankees put at least 80 games a year on local TV), plus any appearances on NBC's Saturday Game of Week package or ABC's Monday Night Baseball.  Of course, also a having a likeable and professional play-by-play man should have helped the White Sox, but I think Hawk Harrelson probably drove away more fans from the Sox than helped bringing them in.

[RichO]

22 hours ago, BayouJim said:

Do

 

Douglas Park is great for the small area it encompasses. The issue is when you move one block south and you're in the middle of one of the most violent neighborhoods in Chicago. Seriously, go to Google, search "shooting Bronzeville" and various dates come up of shootings that have happened in just the last four months.  Wrigley isn't just an island of safety in a warzone but it borders Old Town, Lincoln Park, and the Gold Coast.

I don't think there will ever come a day when Bridgeport is even a fraction of what Wrigleyville is. I've been going to White Sox games since I can remember and I always hear, "They're really trying to fix the neighborhood up." Yeah, I'm going to call BS on that, the only thing they've really added is a huge bar next to the stadium where you can buy $8 beers.  

Bridgeport is too separate from transit to really take off. I can easily see some kind of Southside renaissance along the State/Green Line/Dan Ryan corridor where the projects were from Bronzeville all the way to Washington Park over the next generation, Aldermen willing of course. Great transportation access, Bronzeville's rich cultural heritage, lot of vacant land.

 

But the Sox lease ends in 2029 and there's bound to be new ownership by then so who knows what the Sox will be doing.

[Alex Houston]

2 hours ago, RichO said:

Bridgeport is too separate from transit to really take off. I can easily see some kind of Southside renaissance along the State/Green Line/Dan Ryan corridor where the projects were from Bronzeville all the way to Washington Park over the next generation, Aldermen willing of course. Great transportation access, Bronzeville's rich cultural heritage, lot of vacant land.

 

But the Sox lease ends in 2029 and there's bound to be new ownership by then so who knows what the Sox will be doing.

 

I don't know if I'd classify Bridgeport that way. The neighborhood is sandwiched in between the Red and Orange Line and has well known bus routes going down Archer and Halsted. Let's also note that the median sales price for homes last year was $404,000. Yes, that's right. Nearly half million dollar lots in the area. The next decade will be an interesting one for that stretch of town for sure.

 

As for Douglas, I think it would have to gentrify like hell from Cermak to 31st first. Every time I've driven through that area I just think to myself, "Man, if this place was up and coming, I would really consider buying here. Close to downtown, all the stuff by the lake, GRF, Skyway and a bunch of other things. I have the south version of Lincoln Park here and I'm paying half price? :censored: yea." Unfortunately, this would rekindle the same anti-gentrifying nonsense Humboldt Park is seeing, which is finally starting to fall as well.

[Alex Houston]

What about you other inner city rivals? Angles/Dodgers, Mets/Yanks. Even Giants/A's to a lesser extent. What are those situations like?

[ninersdd]

It's been kinda discussed here, but it seems like the A's fans hate the Giants then vice versa. Obviously the Giants have the Dodgers as their main rival, while the A's don't exactly have that.

[masterchaoss]

yeah the Dodgers and Angels are like the Giants and As, though the Angels haven't had nearly had the success as Oakland, so the Dodgers probably have a bigger hold on the market (even down here in orange county there are a lot of dodger fans) than the Giants do in the bay, though if the dodgers don't end up on TV anytime soon that my change. 

[cmm]

 

2 hours ago, Alex Houston said:

What about you other inner city rivals? Angles/Dodgers, Mets/Yanks. Even Giants/A's to a lesser extent. What are those situations like?

Most Met fans can't stand the Yankees. Most Yankee fans are more focused on the Red Sox. But they're all fat, obnoxious, smelly jerks anyway.*

(*-I'm joking. Most of my friends are Yankee fans. There's a lot of good-natured teasing and ball-busting.)

The Mets owned the city when I was growing up in the 80s but the Yankees took over. But it's starting to even out a bit. Winning will do that. Anecdotally, I've seen a lot more Mets hats around town since last year's World Series run. And the Mets drew higher ratings on tv this year for the first time in the SNY/YES era. Whichever team is winning will be New York's team.

[MadmanLA]

3 hours ago, Alex Houston said:

What about you other inner city rivals? Angles/Dodgers

 

Traditionally, the divide was always pretty much (and still is) Los Angeles and Ventura Counties leaning towards Dodger Blue, while most Angels fans are in Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties.  You also have areas along the Orange Curtain (the OC-LA County boundary line) such as Long Beach and those surrounding cities that Angel or Dodger fandom could go either way, perhaps depending on who's the better team that season.

[Still MIGHTY]

7 hours ago, MadmanLA said:

 

Traditionally, the divide was always pretty much (and still is) Los Angeles and Ventura Counties leaning towards Dodger Blue, while most Angels fans are in Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties.  You also have areas along the Orange Curtain (the OC-LA County boundary line) such as Long Beach and those surrounding cities that Angel or Dodger fandom could go either way, perhaps depending on who's the better team that season.

 

Yeah pretty much. And all the reason why Arte Moreno's old manifest destiny of trying to move the Angels to Los Angeles proper was misguided at best. The Angels gave up Los Angeles when they moved (in a figurative sense and a literal, with the California moniker). Had Gene Autry not moved the Angels out of Chavez Ravine and south to the orange groves in 1966, SoCal baseball fandom would have been an entirely different conversation. It's also interesting because the Dodgers only had a 10-year head start on the Angels. Much different than Lakers-Clippers (intracity(arena)/24-year gap) and Kings-Ducks (LA vs OC/26-year gap).  The Angels are one of only three SoCal Big 4 teams to be born here (Angels, Kings, Ducks) and the longest running of them (6 years on the Kings). That fact probably makes the Angels-Dodgers split the closest to being equal among the different SoCal fandoms.

 

But as things stand, boundaries are pretty clear. It's not really an intracity rivalry. And in terms of sheer numbers, the Dodgers have the edge.

 

And as far as the relationship between Angels/Dodger fans, it is all over the board. Some are indifferent because they're not direct competition. Some hate each other because they feel they should for whatever reason. LA vs OC and the demographics that produces. Dodger fans bristled up saying they're the real Los Angeles team (when some Angels fans like myself argued back... yes, we agree. Stop yelling). Despite 55 years of sharing the market and the aforementioned only 10-year head start, the Dodgers will always have the history and the Angels will always feel like the new kid down the road. Different eras of success. (We've never even been that close to a Freeway Series in October.) Really whatever reason Dodger/Angel fans choose to hate each other is either contrived or a personal matter. Hell, there's even plenty that root for each other (or live together, right LMU?) because it doesn't matter.

 

I grew up hating the Dodgers (First, because of the "felt I should" because they were the "other" baseball. Second, my grandpa grew up as Giants fan in NYC. He ditched the Giants when they ditched him, but he couldn't get rid of the Dodgers hate.) but I've softened on it as I've gotten older and grown perspective on it. I fall more under the "they're not direct competition, so who cares?" now. I've actually found plenty to like about the Dodgers (gorgeous stadium, nice uniforms, Vin Scully), but I'll never be a fan of them, because I've got my team.

[Alex Houston]

16 hours ago, cmm said:

 

Most Met fans can't stand the Yankees. Most Yankee fans are more focused on the Red Sox. But they're all fat, obnoxious, smelly jerks anyway.*

(*-I'm joking. Most of my friends are Yankee fans. There's a lot of good-natured teasing and ball-busting.)

The Mets owned the city when I was growing up in the 80s but the Yankees took over. But it's starting to even out a bit. Winning will do that. Anecdotally, I've seen a lot more Mets hats around town since last year's World Series run. And the Mets drew higher ratings on tv this year for the first time in the SNY/YES era. Whichever team is winning will be New York's team.

 

I always figured the Yanks were the primary team just because of the immense national following at the bajillion titles they're accrued over the year. 

 

16 hours ago, MadmanLA said:

 

Traditionally, the divide was always pretty much (and still is) Los Angeles and Ventura Counties leaning towards Dodger Blue, while most Angels fans are in Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties.  You also have areas along the Orange Curtain (the OC-LA County boundary line) such as Long Beach and those surrounding cities that Angel or Dodger fandom could go either way, perhaps depending on who's the better team that season.

 

The map seems to validate your boundaries. Is there a sort of socioeconomic difference too, with Dodger fans being perceived as being more well off?

 

 

[Alex Houston]

9 hours ago, Still MIGHTY said:

 

Yeah pretty much. And all the reason why Arte Moreno's old manifest destiny of trying to move the Angels to Los Angeles proper was misguided at best. The Angels gave up Los Angeles when they moved (in a figurative sense and a literal, with the California moniker). Had Gene Autry not moved the Angels out of Chavez Ravine and south to the orange groves in 1966, SoCal baseball fandom would have been an entirely different conversation. It's also interesting because the Dodgers only had a 10-year head start on the Angels. Much different than Lakers-Clippers (intracity(arena)/24-year gap) and Kings-Ducks (LA vs OC/26-year gap).  The Angels are one of only three SoCal Big 4 teams to be born here (Angels, Kings, Ducks) and the longest running of them (6 years on the Kings). That fact probably makes the Angels-Dodgers split the closest to being equal among the different SoCal fandoms.

 

But as things stand, boundaries are pretty clear. It's not really an intracity rivalry. And in terms of sheer numbers, the Dodgers have the edge.

 

And as far as the relationship between Angels/Dodger fans, it is all over the board. Some are indifferent because they're not direct competition. Some hate each other because they feel they should for whatever reason. LA vs OC and the demographics that produces. Dodger fans bristled up saying they're the real Los Angeles team (when some Angels fans like myself argued back... yes, we agree. Stop yelling). Despite 55 years of sharing the market and the aforementioned only 10-year head start, the Dodgers will always have the history and the Angels will always feel like the new kid down the road. Different eras of success. (We've never even been that close to a Freeway Series in October.) Really whatever reason Dodger/Angel fans choose to hate each other is either contrived or a personal matter. Hell, there's even plenty that root for each other (or live together, right LMU?) because it doesn't matter.

 

I grew up hating the Dodgers (First, because of the "felt I should" because they were the "other" baseball. Second, my grandpa grew up as Giants fan in NYC. He ditched the Giants when they ditched him, but he couldn't get rid of the Dodgers hate.) but I've softened on it as I've gotten older and grown perspective on it. I fall more under the "they're not direct competition, so who cares?" now. I've actually found plenty to like about the Dodgers (gorgeous stadium, nice uniforms, Vin Scully), but I'll never be a fan of them, because I've got my team.

 

After looking at a map of LA, your observations make way more sense. I was only in LA for one night in Koreatown, yet because of how sprawling LA is, I had a hard time grasping where I was in relation to things. Also, LA had a 'Little Armenia?' That's super!

 

When you look at the aerial maps of LA and OC, it's weird how both closely both stadiums follow a similar layout. No offense to the Angels but their stadium looks like an industrialized, concrete version of Chavez Ravine. I'm also wondering if the Angels have a similar problem to the Sox when it comes to pre and post entertainment in the area. I see a brewery right to the west, but other than that, it seems kind of sparse. The Dodgers have the surrounding neighborhoods to the west (Koreatown, Silver Lake and Echo Park) and even though you can't walk to those spots, I could see transplants being more enticed to check out Dodgers games first.

 

It also dawned on me that the proximity of the stadiums undoubtedly lends itself to Ducks/Angels and Kings/Dodgers pairings, which fits the profile of you and LMU. Do you guys see any outliers of Ducks/Dodgers or Kings/Angels people? With the way it seems to break down, it looks like the same pairings I see in Giants/Rangers and Jets/Mets pairings in NY.

 

Really interesting perspective so far. I've always wondered how these dynamics work in other spots, so these discussion is great to have.

 

 

[Kramerica Industries]

19 hours ago, cmm said:

 

Most Met fans can't stand the Yankees. Most Yankee fans are more focused on the Red Sox. But they're all fat, obnoxious, smelly jerks anyway.*

(*-I'm joking. Most of my friends are Yankee fans. There's a lot of good-natured teasing and ball-busting.)

The Mets owned the city when I was growing up in the 80s but the Yankees took over. But it's starting to even out a bit. Winning will do that. Anecdotally, I've seen a lot more Mets hats around town since last year's World Series run. And the Mets drew higher ratings on tv this year for the first time in the SNY/YES era. Whichever team is winning will be New York's team.

 

I do feel it's only fair to point out that YES was not carried to Comcast subscribers last season, which I'm sure didn't help matters.

 

(...I wonder if you had an over/under as to when someone was gonna point this out, haha.)

[MadmanLA]

3 hours ago, Alex Houston said:

 

I always figured the Yanks were the primary team just because of the immense national following at the bajillion titles they're accrued over the year. 

 

 

The map seems to validate your boundaries. Is there a sort of socioeconomic difference too, with Dodger fans being perceived as being more well off?

 

 

 

There's certainly socioeconomic differences in the L.A./SoCal region, but it's multi-fold...in the city, most of the wealthier people live on the Westside (pretty much everyone west of I-405, plus the western suburbs of Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, Santa Monica, Malibu, and the Beach Cities), and there are pockets of neighborhoods with more upper class people (Downtown near Staples Center, Hollywood Hills, Loz Feliz, Hancock Park, Ladera Heights/View Park/Windsor Hills for example)...everywhere else is all pretty much working class.  Northern Orange County is more working class and typical suburbia, while the southwest part of O.C. is very wealthy.

 

The Antelope Valley in northern L.A. County is pretty similar to the Inland Empire (Riverside & San Bernardino Counties) demographically...more and more lower and middle class people have moved into those areas in the last 15-20 years, mostly due to affordability and maybe just a better qualify of life.

[cmm]

2 hours ago, Kramerica Industries said:

 

I do feel it's only fair to point out that YES was not carried to Comcast subscribers last season, which I'm sure didn't help matters.

 

(...I wonder if you had an over/under as to when someone was gonna point this out, haha.)

 

This is true, but it probably wouldn't have made a difference. At least according to Newsday:

http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/mets/mets-outperform-yankees-in-ratings-for-first-time-1.12399592

Quote

YES’ figures were dented by a season-long carriage dispute with Comcast that kept the network out of about 900,000 homes overall, about two-thirds of which count in metropolitan-area ratings calculations. But that was not enough of an effect to be the deciding factor in the SNY vs. YES race.

 

[TheGrimReaper]

17 hours ago, Still MIGHTY said:

(We've never even been that close to a Freeway Series in October.)

 

In 2009 the Dodgers were in the NLCS while the Angels were in the ALCS. 

[TheGrimReaper]

7 hours ago, Alex Houston said:

 

After looking at a map of LA, your observations make way more sense. I was only in LA for one night in Koreatown, yet because of how sprawling LA is, I had a hard time grasping where I was in relation to things. Also, LA had a 'Little Armenia?' That's super!

 

When you look at the aerial maps of LA and OC, it's weird how both closely both stadiums follow a similar layout. No offense to the Angels but their stadium looks like an industrialized, concrete version of Chavez Ravine. I'm also wondering if the Angels have a similar problem to the Sox when it comes to pre and post entertainment in the area. I see a brewery right to the west, but other than that, it seems kind of sparse. The Dodgers have the surrounding neighborhoods to the west (Koreatown, Silver Lake and Echo Park) and even though you can't walk to those spots, I could see transplants being more enticed to check out Dodgers games first.

 

It also dawned on me that the proximity of the stadiums undoubtedly lends itself to Ducks/Angels and Kings/Dodgers pairings, which fits the profile of you and LMU. Do you guys see any outliers of Ducks/Dodgers or Kings/Angels people? With the way it seems to break down, it looks like the same pairings I see in Giants/Rangers and Jets/Mets pairings in NY.

 

Really interesting perspective so far. I've always wondered how these dynamics work in other spots, so these discussion is great to have.

 

 

 

I don't know man, Angel Stadium isn't built into the side of a hill, for one thing. Angel Stadium also don't have the same symmetrical outfield wall dimensions as Dodger Stadium.

 

There's actually quite a few Ducks/Dodgers and Angels/Kings fans, especially in places like Long Beach. 

[The_Admiral]

It was close to symmetrical in its days as Anaheim Stadium (you know, calling it that and dropping "of Anaheim" from the team would seem to be a fair trade), and it still plays close to neutral today, I believe. I wish they would go back to a symmetrical outfield wall, or something closer.

 

The Dodgers only had a three-year jump on the Angels, I thought, not ten.

[infrared41]

38 minutes ago, the admiral said:

The Dodgers only had a three-year jump on the Angels, I thought, not ten.

 

Yup. The Dodgers first season in LA was 1958. The Angels started play in 1961. 

[Still MIGHTY]

16 hours ago, Alex Houston said:

When you look at the aerial maps of LA and OC, it's weird how both closely both stadiums follow a similar layout. No offense to the Angels but their stadium looks like an industrialized, concrete version of Chavez Ravine. I'm also wondering if the Angels have a similar problem to the Sox when it comes to pre and post entertainment in the area. I see a brewery right to the west, but other than that, it seems kind of sparse. The Dodgers have the surrounding neighborhoods to the west (Koreatown, Silver Lake and Echo Park) and even though you can't walk to those spots, I could see transplants being more enticed to check out Dodgers games first.

 

First regarding the stadiums themselves, as far as actual on-field measurements, they're a little similar sure. But the Big A has the big wall in right field, which helps it play slightly as a pitcher's park. And in terms of what's actually at the stadium and the concourses and what not, very very different. Like Grim Reaper said, Dodger Stadium is built into the side of a hill, so the layout is going to be different. And you also have to remember, Angel Stadium is in its third different configuration. Started as a pure baseball stadium and was much more Chavez Ravine-like, then became closed-in multipurpose for the Rams, then got opened up and refitted as a mostly baseball facility.

 

As far as pre/post game, there's a couple things that you could in theory walk to. (There used to be more. Either torn down or failed.) And Anaheim had this great "Platinum Triangle" concept (area between the 5 and the 57 with Angel Stadium, Honda Center and Disney as the points) that they've kind of half-assed. They've put in some of the planned luxury apartments and lofts, but they haven't sold much and the nightlife hasn't followed. They're in the process of putting together a lightrail system that might help things in that regard, but SoCal and public transport aren't necessarily hand-in-hand.

 

Because what you also have to remember with SoCal, we are very much a driving culture. We spend at least half the day in a car or on a freeway. You usually don't have too many people milling about looking for a place to go. We're pretty trained to get in the car and go somewhere. We're okay with driving over to Downtown Disney or to the Orange Circle or even up to Downtown Fullerton, or just all the way back to our local watering holes. And when talking about SoCal baseball stadiums and driving, I'm obligated to mention that driving in and out of Dodger Stadium is a bitch and a half.

 

16 hours ago, Alex Houston said:

It also dawned on me that the proximity of the stadiums undoubtedly lends itself to Ducks/Angels and Kings/Dodgers pairings, which fits the profile of you and LMU. Do you guys see any outliers of Ducks/Dodgers or Kings/Angels people? With the way it seems to break down, it looks like the same pairings I see in Giants/Rangers and Jets/Mets pairings in NY.

 

There are plenty of outliers sure. More Kings/Angels than Ducks/Dodgers though. Because again, the Kings had a 26-year head start on the Ducks. If you were a multisport fan between 1967-1993, you had one of the two baseball teams but just one hockey team to choose from. The Ducks/Angels group is a much younger crowd, like my generation (Born in 1990) and almost exclusively those that grew up in Orange or Riverside counties. The Ducks/Dodgers group tends to skew younger as well but with the Dodgers fandom inherited. Lakers and Clippers though is much different and can be spread throughout. Pretty much everyone that likes basketball is a Lakers fan, and I still don't know why people choose the Clippers, but they're there. Now had the Clippers ever made the full move to Anaheim, maybe that adds a Ducks/Angels/Clippers strain, but the Lakers have strong hold.

 

8 hours ago, TheGrimReaper said:

 

In 2009 the Dodgers were in the NLCS while the Angels were in the ALCS. 

 

Oh yeah, huh. Well once. And it didn't exactly turn out well for either lol.

 

4 hours ago, the admiral said:

The Dodgers only had a three-year jump on the Angels, I thought, not ten.

3 hours ago, infrared41 said:

 

Yup. The Dodgers first season in LA was 1958. The Angels started play in 1961. 

 

You are correct. For whatever reason, the Dodgers' date always sticks as 1955 in my head. I know that's when they won in Brooklyn before coming over, and I do know that, but that sticks with me as their LA date. And because I brought it up I was confusing the Angels move to Anaheim with the 1961 date. All that led to messed up math.

 

But yes, a three-year gap which actually strengthens the point haha. Had the Angels stayed in Los Angeles proper and not moved south, SoCal baseball fandom would be much much different. Very interesting what if scenario.

[Alex Houston]

18 hours ago, MadmanLA said:

 

There's certainly socioeconomic differences in the L.A./SoCal region, but it's multi-fold...in the city, most of the wealthier people live on the Westside (pretty much everyone west of I-405, plus the western suburbs of Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, Santa Monica, Malibu, and the Beach Cities), and there are pockets of neighborhoods with more upper class people (Downtown near Staples Center, Hollywood Hills, Loz Feliz, Hancock Park, Ladera Heights/View Park/Windsor Hills for example)...everywhere else is all pretty much working class.  Northern Orange County is more working class and typical suburbia, while the southwest part of O.C. is very wealthy.

 

The Antelope Valley in northern L.A. County is pretty similar to the Inland Empire (Riverside & San Bernardino Counties) demographically...more and more lower and middle class people have moved into those areas in the last 15-20 years, mostly due to affordability and maybe just a better qualify of life.

 

Yea, I was thinking the same in terms of the 405 divide when I came and visited. One thing that definitely surprised me was how 'spacious' Koreatown felt to me, even though it's really not too far from the downtown area. I mean, yes, it's still strip malls and apartments, but I guess I was expected it to be more like Manhattan and it seemed more like Brooklyn or Queens. Either way, thanks for the breakdown. It's been really enlightening to learn more about things are set up in SoCal.