i think hawk is a box of rocks but given what i have observed of umpiring the last few years he's probably closer to being right than wrong.

Barrett's strike zone before the ejections, give or take a pitch.

Even Seattle's broadcasters were defending A.J.

According to Texas Leaguer Quintana got no called strikes out of the zone while Beavan got two. Beavan had 4 of his strikes called balls and Quintana had 7 called balls.

Hawk is a complete embarrassment, and fits right in with that franchise.

Barrett's strike zone before the ejections, give or take a pitch.

Even Seattle's broadcasters were defending A.J.

When you're announcing the Miss USA pageant, it's not necessary to remind the viewer that Miss New Jersey is a dog.

A Major League Baseball official told ESPNChicago.com's Bruce Levine on Sunday no action was expected to be taken against Harrelson for his latest remarks.

It's a bit surprising that no action will be taken. Harrelson said he was read the riot act by Selig and Reinsdorf when he criticized an umpire on the air in May. Selig does not like this. If Harrelson "quietly" decides to retire this offseason, we should look back to this incident. Meanwhile if he continues on like nothing happened, Selig comes off looking very weak.

Hawk calls out shitty umpiring and praises good umpiring. I don't see what the big deal is.

Hawk is a complete embarrassment, and fits right in with that franchise.

There is only one embarrassment in Chicago baseball, and that's the one that hasn't won a World Series in over 100 years and is on pace to fly the white flag of losing around 100 more times this season.

Isnt a bigger embarrassment that they have drawn better all year then there division leading neighbors while almost losing 100?

The white flag is for winning. It is a blue flag for losing.

Isnt a bigger embarrassment that they have drawn better all year then there division leading neighbors while almost losing 100?

In a year when Theo Epstein's past mistakes forced his old employer to part with Adrian Gonzalez and the owners' bumbling attempts to get public money to modernize Wrigley Field as Daddy dissed the mayor's old boss, Hawk Harrelson's stupidity pales in comparison.

Well, if I supported a team that's resigned itself to losing for the next few years despite having such a huge payroll advantage, I suppose I might play the attendance card, too.

The white flag is for winning. It is a blue flag for losing.

I thought they sent up white smoke.

And Harrelson is worse at his job than any MLB umpire is at his.

You know who likes to play the attendance card? The Sox' radio play-by-play guy, who spent a good portion of the first inning of Monday's game againt the Yankees castigating his audience for not showing up at the game in larger numbers.

Well it cant be helped considering how bad the org was coming into this season. Had to be torn down and i am will to bet a $20 bref sponsership that the cubs have a better record next year.

You know who likes to play the attendance card? The Sox' radio play-by-play guy, who spent a good portion of the first inning of Monday's game againt the Yankees castigating his audience for not showing up at the game in larger numbers.

There's a couple of interesting facts here that complicate the situation. The first is the the Sox' lease at the Cell that actually punishes them to the tune of $3 to $7 for every ticket over 1.9 million sold.

The other is that Chicago charges premium prices for premium teams like the Yankees. They make more money charging double tickets and drawing 28k than charging regular and drawing 40k. Obviously this also helps avoid the fee paid in the lease agreement as well.

That said, I'd hope they draw better when they are winning, such as they have all year. That the crowds haven't grown more in late summer is disappointing, but some of it is due to the factors I mentioned.

Had to be torn down and i am will to bet a $20 bref sponsership that the cubs have a better record next year.

Than the 2012 Cubs, or the 2013 White Sox?

There's a couple of interesting facts here that complicate the situation. The first is the the Sox' lease at the Cell that actually punishes them to the tune of $3 to $7 for every ticket over 1.9 million sold.

What? Really? That's insane. Do you have a cite for that? I cannot imagine a team willingly signing a lease that holds down their attendance, unless Rachel Phelps made the deal.

Isnt a bigger embarrassment that they have drawn better all year then there division leading neighbors while almost losing 100?

You're right. Cubs fans should be much more embarrassed than Cubs management.

Rb it basically.means they pay a bit more rent however if they sold out for the ywar rhey would still make a ton of money. Reinsdorf got a sweet heart deal. If chicago.still had its old mayor i dont doubt the cubs would have some money to fix it up.

The White Sox have an agreement with the state in which if they don't draw over 1.9 million fans then they don't share any ticket revenue with the state.

If they draw over 1.9 million then they are charged between 3 to 7 dollars per ticket above 1.9 million depending on the tier of the ticket.

It isn't really a fee that discourages the Sox from selling tickets. It does change their calculus when trying to figure out how much to charge and budget for marketing but there is no reason in the world the Sox wouldn't want to have an attendance higher than 1.9 million.

Sosh, next years white sox. Too many key players are old

The White Sox have an agreement with the state in which if they don't draw over 1.9 million fans then they don't share any ticket revenue with the state.

Ah, I see. madvillian's assessment is not really accurate.

What? Really? That's insane. Do you have a cite for that? I cannot imagine a team willingly signing a lease that holds down their attendance, unless Rachel Phelps made the deal.

Considering that fee is the only rent he pays... His deal is incredibly cushy as per his usual business acumen.

Lease Details

Ah, I see. madvillian's assessment is not really accurate.

Why? If you know JR, you know he's a cheap ####### bastard. Yea he's a good businessman and (for Sox fans at least) he's a fine owner. But he'll avoid paying any "fee" he can, no matter how small its significance to the larger plan. See the White Sox' trifling investments in the draft and overseas prior to maybe the last 2 years. I'm certain he structures the pricing at the stadium with at least a small amount of attention paid to that that 1.9 million number. Jacking up ticket prices is one way to do it.

And of course, I'm also a Bulls fan, and since Jordan left, he's repeatedly gone cheap at major expense to the team.

He's JR, for better or worse, for fans of his teams, it means stability and solid leadership, but it also means cheapness.

Saying the Sox are "punished" for $3 to $7 for every ticket over 1.9M is like complaining that people who make a lot of money are "punished" by a progressive tax structure. Its still in the White Sox interest to sell more tickets, even if their profits per ticket are slightly lower.

Why? If you know JR, you know he's a cheap ####### bastard. Yea he's a good businessman and (for Sox fans at least) he's a fine owner. But he'll avoid paying any "fee" he can, no matter how small its significance to the larger plan.

Unless his larger plan is "not make any money" then he has no reason to suppress attendance. Looking at that article, the Sox paid out about $450K when they went over by about 150,000 tickets. But those tickets--even if not every one of them turns into fans in the ballpark--will obviously generate more than $450K in revenue.

I have no horse in this White Sox/Cub pissing match, but arguing the Reinsdorf keeps attendance down as part of some master, money-saving plan simply makes no sense.

I have no horse in this White Sox/Cub pissing match

Thank G*d this is a mere message board and not a podcast. I'm really tired of listening to the dueling renditions of Take Me Out to the Ballgame.

Rb i was just mocking the poor attendence. I dont think there is a.master plan to keep it low, it just sucks!

Unless his larger plan is "not make any money" then he has no reason to suppress attendance. Looking at that article, the Sox paid out about $450K when they went over by about 150,000 tickets. But those tickets--even if not every one of them turns into fans in the ballpark--will obviously generate more than $450K in revenue.

I have no horse in this White Sox/Cub pissing match, but arguing the Reinsdorf keeps attendance down as part of some master, money-saving plan simply makes no sense.

I don't think he's set on keeping attendance low, but with the way Sox ticket prices have risen while demand has decreased the last several years (prior to this year, when they made slight superficial cuts), it seems like there's an effort to maximize the value of the 1.9 million or so he could expect to draw, rather than make serious adjustments to increase the overall number.

Well obviously the fee factors into pricing decisions, the question is whether it's enough to make a difference.

Let's say the Sox can sell 1.9 million at an average of X. That's 1.9M*X in revenue.

To increase attendance, the Sox have to drop the average price. Let's say it drops by $1. Let's say that, given the mix of tix sold, that the average fee is $5. So ever ticket up to 1.9 M generates X-1 dollars, every ticket over 1.9 M generates only X-6 dollars.

1.9X = 1.9(X-1) + Y(X-6)

where Y is the increased sales.

1.9 X = 1.9X - 1.9 + Y(X-6)

1.9 M = Y(X-6)

So if X is 30, a drop to $29 has to generate about 80,000 more attendance to break even. That's a bit over a 4% increase in attendance due to a 3.4% decrease in price -- I'm not sure that does work out in favor of lower prices.

I've simplified things just a tad. :-) Obviously parking, concession and other revenues are increased, not just ticket revenues. That's balanced a bit by an increase in costs (more workers) but probably not by much. If the average revenue per attendee is say $50 ($30 ticket plus $20 in other spending) then the break-even attendance boost is in the 40-45,000 range.

Duh, that can be done more simply.

Average prices X (or revenue per ticket sold) are dropped by Z. So the amount of reduced revenue on the first 1.9 million is 1.9 (million) Z; the amount gained from extra attendance is Y (the gain in attandance) times (X - Z - 5) assuming the average fee amount works out to $5 per extra ticket. The break-even point is

1.9Z = Y(X - Z - 5)

Y = 1.9Z/(X - Z - 5)

where Y is in millions of extra tix. It might simplify to something easier to work with by specifying Z as a percentage of X (i.e. Z = cX where 0<C<1) but I've spent enough time doing Reinsdorf's math for him.

Am I a bad person for reading those Harrelson excerpts above in the voice of Foghorn Leghorn? It seemed to fit.

There's a couple of interesting facts here that complicate the situation. The first is the the Sox' lease at the Cell that actually punishes them to the tune of $3 to $7 for every ticket over 1.9 million sold.

Or you could say they are rewarded $3-$7 dollars in tax breaks for every ticket sold below 1.9 millions.

Am I a bad person for reading those Harrelson excerpts above in the voice of Foghorn Leghorn? It seemed to fit.

Ah say, ah say, that umpire's CRA-zee. The boy's one beer short of a six pack!