Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
This was one of those games during which fans have to remind themselves: even the very best teams lose 60 times a year. At some point last night – I think it was right around when Matt Whiteside entered the game – you had to just resign yourself to the loss and start looking ahead to the next game. Players can’t do that, of course, but fans can. That’s one of the many advantages to not actually being a member of the team.

Anyway, here are a few notes on the game:

• I thought John Gibbons was slow to get the bullpen going twice last night. It was pretty obvious by the start of the third inning that Ted Lilly was unable to locate his pitches, yet the bullpen phone didn’t ring till the third batter of the frame. Pete Walker rushed to get ready and he wasn’t sharp when he entered the game, leaving his pitches up and allowing both of Ted Lilly’s runners to score. Then when Walker couldn’t find the strike zone, Whiteside also got a late call to warm up in a hurry. Walker at least was able to finish the inning, so the Jays were fortunate that a second reliever didn’t have to enter the game on short notice.

• The first few weeks of this season have been a pleasure to watch – but over the last four games, we’ve seen Blue Jay starters fail to escape the third inning three times. The bullpen did its job on the first two occasions, but couldn’t answer the bell the third time. It should go without saying, but the Jays’ margin of error is extremely thin, and with a mediocre batting lineup and a bullpen-in-progress, the rotation has to be steady. The Jays will only go as far this year as their starters will carry them.

• Frank Catalanotto had an inning from hell last night. After pool-cueing an inside-out shot down the third-base line in the bottom of the first, he galloped to second base for what he must have figured was a routine double – and found the throw from Hideki Matsui waiting for him. The new FieldTurf just killed that ball – it slowed almost to a stop before Matsui corralled it. If nothing else, it should alert the Jays to the fact that automatic doubles down the line aren’t so automatic anymore.

• Then, in the top of the second, Cat turned into Kenny Williams in left field. Of the three doubles the Yankees dropped into left field, two seemed catchable: Cat let one go over his head and on the other, he misread the ball off the bat and froze before backpedaling, too late, to try to catch it (the scoreboard might have been a factor too). Lilly didn’t have much going for him last night, but some better play from his left fielder in the second inning would have given him a chance. The Jays’ solid pitching has been complemented most nights with solid defence; last night, neither showed up, and again, this team has very little margin for error.

• I wonder if the Jays were at 100% for this game. Their schedule the last couple of weeks has been brutal: Florida, Tennessee (by bus), Florida again, Ontario, California, Texas, Massachussetts, and back to Ontario over the course of the end of spring training and the first 15 games of the regular season. And that big win in Boston on Tuesday was a high from which any team would have to come down. Certainly, they looked much less sharp than they’ve been recently. If nothing else, it gives one hope that the Jays will come out sharper and angrier tonight and make Mike Mussina pay the price.

• What was particularly frustrating for the Jays was that this game appeared very winnable. Carl Pavano didn’t impress me all that much – he gave up some very hard-hit balls that found their way into fielders’ gloves. If Lilly had had enough time to get a better grip on his breaking stuff and get his pitches out of the upper half of the strike zone, he might have hung around long enough to get into a groove. But, perhaps thanks in part to Cat’s misadventures in left field, his clock ran out early. And although this sounds strange, I don’t think the Yankees were actually all that fearsome at the plate. The Jays hung a lot of fat pitches in the zone and issued about 103 walks, and most teams will score a bunch of runs in those circumstances. But despite the big name and the big salaries, when I look at the Yankees right now, I do not see an overall team that’s that much better than the Jays. I’d like to think the Jays themselves see that, too.

• Alex Rios is getting closer. That flyball to right field just missed being a home run, and settling for a triple is a nice consolation. He’s hitting .280 and he’s getting more comfortable at the plate by the day. It would be good to see him improve on 2 walks in 52 ABs, of course. Basically, I want to see him play 150 games this year and learn everything he possibly can on the job while hitting the weight room every day. I don’t much care what he does this season, so long as he learns enough to be an above-average right fielder in 2006. It’s the same reason why I want to see Gabe Gross in left field for Toronto at the earliest reasonable opportunity. The better Catalanotto hits in these first two months, and the longer Hillenbrand maintains a hot bat, the sooner that day – via a trade – will come.

• Welcome back to the major leagues, Matt Whiteside! Walk, walk, home run, hit batter. Welcome back to the minor leagues, Matt Whiteside!

• If there’s one good thing to come out of this game, Ruben Sierra’s bizarre run of success against the Jays might convince Joe Torre to play the Village Idiot more regularly at DH. In the long run, that’s good news for the AL East.

• Is it just me, or do the Yankee hitters stand way too close to home plate? Jeter leans over almost on top of the plate, while Sheffield crowds the zone with his silly bat-waggling thing and A-Rod is far too comfortable in there. I’d really like to see a Jays pitcher dust one of those three guys, start reclaiming the inner half of the plate. Just don’t do it on Tony Womack, because the Yanks will certainly think the Jays are using him for target practice.

• I didn’t much care for Gregg Zaun getting pulled in the 6th inning. That’s at least one inning too early, as far as I’m concerned, to be officially giving up on the game and trotting the benchwarmers out there.

• NFH’s Photo of the Day worked again! This time, Jason Frasor pitched a terrific 8th inning. Unfortunately, Aaron’s picture cropped out the rest of the 25-man roster….

• You know what’s funny? When a team is going well, fans discuss the team using the pronoun “we” – “if we can take two out of three from the Yankees, we’ll be in great shape.” But when the team is losing, suddenly the team is “they” – “I can’t believe how badly they’re playing tonight! They need to start hitting.”

• Gustavo Chacin’s start tonight is going to be very interesting, because it’s the first time that the young lefty will have faced a team for a second time. We’ll start to get an idea after that performance of the degree (if any) to which unfamiliarity with Chacin’s stutter-step is a factor in his success.

• I was pleasantly surprised to see a pretty substantial crowd tonight (22,000-plus) that wasn’t at least partly composed of Yankee fans. Normally, when Boston or New York is in town, their fans usually flock north to catch their team on the road. The crowd was pretty vocal, too – granted, they were negatively vocal, but at least they’re showing up and yelling. Not having been at Rogers Center yet, I’m inclined to think that the new atmosphere really is more fan-friendly and helps the crowd get into the game more.

• That said, I caught a mention during the TV broadcast that tickets for a particular future game will be $2 each. I thought the Jays had killed this ridiculous promotion, and were no longer giving away their seats at bargain prices. Not only does it devalue your product, it attracts exactly the wrong kind of person to the ballpark. I was at one of the $2 Wednesdays two seasons ago, and it was a zoo – “fans” running onto the field repeatedly and stopping the game, and getting cheered lustily by the other morons in the stands. It was a bad idea then and it’s a bad idea now.

• Overall – it was only one game. And as JP told Mike Wilner afterwards, it’s the first game this season in which the Blue Jays weren’t really in it (maybe he thought they looked flat, too). I think they can take New York tonight, and then they’ll be ready to meet the Orioles, who should be just about ready to be taken down a notch.

Roundup:

Spencer Fordin's game report -- I like this opening: "Pitch count wasn't a problem."

The Jays may have lost to the Yanks, but they can take consolation that New York owes about $31M in payroll taxes -- or about the entire payroll of the Tampa Bay Devil Rays. It sure is good to see the payroll tax bring fiscal equity to baseball.

Break up the Dodgers? L.A. improved on the best record in baseball with their eighth straight win last night -- and they've done it all without Eric Gagne in the bullpen.

Intriguing situation in San Diego, where the Padres have hired Sandy Alderson away from the Commissioner's Office to be the team's new CEO. Alderson was once considered one of the game's top young executives before crossing over to the dark side, and it'll be interesting to see how this former Selig henchman runs a ballclub in 2005. Kevin Towers has a contract through '07, but his owner is clearly crabby, so this could be interesting.

Is it really All-Star balloting time already? Yes, it is.

Yankees 11, Blue Jays 2 | 89 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Pepper Moffatt - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 08:47 AM EDT (#112988) #
Then, in the top of the second, Cat turned into Kenny Williams in left field.

Cat traded a talented reliever for Billy Koch?

Pistol - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 09:06 AM EDT (#112990) #
• You know what’s funny? When a team is going well, fans discuss the team using the pronoun “we” – “if we can take two out of three from the Yankees, we’ll be in great shape.” But when the team is losing, suddenly the team is “they” – “I can’t believe how badly they’re playing tonight! They need to start hitting.”

I hate the use of 'we' at any time. I don't care how many games you go to, how many games you watch on tv, or how closely you follow things - you're not a part of the team.

---

It's a good thing that Nomar fund didn't work out. He went down like he got shot last night. As Steve Phillips said on the broadcast it was similar to Mike Piazza a few years back. I'd be shocked if Nomar isn't on the DL and surprised if he's back in 6 weeks. It looked really bad.

Spartan - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 10:04 AM EDT (#112997) #
Jordan and Pistol, you guys need to lighten up a little

First the $2 dollar days are a good idea I think. They are during games where a big crowd is not expected with normal prices so this way we can get a big crowd during a weekday against a poor team. I don't care about the 'bad' fans, they will always exist and I don't want the club to dictate policy because of a few bad fans. Being a student, it would be sweet to get to see a game for such a great deal, now I just have to find a way to get to the Roger's center from Ottawa :P. But I will be going to some Skychiefs games when they come to Ottawa.

Secondly, I don't mind the 'we' that some fans use when talking about the team. I think that I say it a few times, I'm just very passionate about the team. I've been following them since I was 10 when I moved from England, so this team means a lot more to me then say John Macdonald.
Grand Funk RR - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 10:17 AM EDT (#112999) #
I agree with Spartan - lighten up a little, guys.
Until you own the team, and can dictate ticket prices and security policy, live with it. Anything that garners increased interest amongst casual fans is a win-win proposition to me. Do I wish the idiots on Opening Day hadn't been throwing magnets? Do I wish dummies didn't run on the field? Yes, of course. There's always a few bad apples in any bucket. You need to concentrate on the positives, not the negatives. Increased crowds, increased awareness, increased 'atmosphere', increased profit (by way of concessions). The only negatives to me are the old cranks who come to cheap $2 games and tell all the young whippersnappers to sit down and be quiet.
Jordan - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 10:31 AM EDT (#113000) #
I've been following them since I was 10 when I moved from England, so this team means a lot more to me then say John Macdonald

Spartan, with all due respect, that's nonsense.

The reason you don't use "we" when referring to the Blue Jays is that you don't have the right. Counting yourself as part of a group is a privilege that belongs to those who've earned their way into that group. John McDonald, for all I criticize his use as a pinch-hitter, is a major-league ballplayer with fantastic defensive skills that you and I can only dream of having. He gets to stand in front of the microphones and refer to the Toronto Blue Jays as "we" or "us" because his talent and experience has obtained for him a roster spot. The same goes for all the ballplayers, for the coaching staff, the trainers, and the front-office personnel.

When fans talk about their favourite team as "us," they're devaluing the accomplishments of the people who actually draw a cheque from and contribute value to that team. Fans like to think of themselves as the lifeblood of baseball, and in a very aggregrated sense, they are -- but individually, they are not. I could buy a season's tickets package and spend tons of money every game on Jays merchandise, and I'd still contribute less to the organization than the guy who massages Corey Koskie's neck before the game. There is a world of difference between those who do and those who watch, and that chasm precludes the use of "we" when describing people like us on the near side.

It doesn't matter how passionate I may be about the Toronto Blue Jays -- I am not a Toronto Blue Jay myself. The only "we" I refer to around here stands for the Batter's Box Roster or Jays fandom in general, and even then I have to careful not to speak for anyone but me. The Blue Jays are "them," and they always will be.

jsut - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 10:32 AM EDT (#113001) #
There are only 4 "value" games (aka $2 nosebleeds) all season from what I recall.

Apr 26 vs Tampa
May 10 vs KC
May 24 vs Boston
June 14 vs St. Louis
Spartan - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 10:37 AM EDT (#113002) #
Jordan

I don't think I use the word "we", I haven't thought about it until now. But if someone did or I caught myself saying it, I wouldn't think much of it.

Any fan knows that the players are the real team, but some like to associate themselves more with that team. If that means refering to the team as "we", then I don't see the problem. As long as Blue Jays baseball is alive and well, I don't care.
Lefty - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 10:37 AM EDT (#113003) #
You know it doesn't really matter to me how fans refer to their respective team.

I'd actually like to hear the thoughts of pro sports marketers. It occurs to me that team publicists try and get the public to buy in and emotionally invest into clubs.

I can't recall how many times I have gone to pro games and as the team is coming out of the tunnel the stadium announcer bellows; Ladies and Gentleman your fill-in the blank.

I'm sure the Blue Jays are tickled to hear the word "we" rather than those overpaid under-achieving jerks.
jsut - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 10:45 AM EDT (#113005) #

• You know what’s funny? When a team is going well, fans discuss the team using the pronoun “we” – “if we can take two out of three from the Yankees, we’ll be in great shape.” But when the team is losing, suddenly the team is “they” – “I can’t believe how badly they’re playing tonight! They need to start hitting.”

If the game is won, some fans want to share that. The game may have been won by the Jays, but the effects of the fan at the park and at home could maybe ever so slightly have effected the game. Thus the "we".

If the game is lost, some fans immediately want to disassociate themselves from the team, and thus shift the blame entirely onto the players (despite the fact that they may have influenced the game)

err... or something?

Dr. Zarco - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 10:57 AM EDT (#113007) #
Ah, the "we" discussion! Jordan and Pistol, I couldn't agree with you more, and Jordan put it far more eloquently than I could have...so could you please copy/paste that into a Cubs blog? Everyone around this town is crazy with the "we" and it has always annoyed me.
Ryan C - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 10:57 AM EDT (#113008) #
So does this mean that they've been lying to me all these years that they've been announcing and marketing the team as "Your" Toronto Blue Jays?

I think people are getting too worked up over this. If somebody who is a passionate fan of the team wants to refer to the team as "we" or "us" then I dont really care and I certainly dont believe that it "devalues" the accomplishments or contributions of the actual team members in any way.
robertdudek - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 10:59 AM EDT (#113010) #
I'm not saying which is more important, but without the paying public, the guy massaging Koskie's neck wouldn't have that job. For that matter Koskie wouldn't have his job either.

There's a symbiotic relationship between team and "support community": discussions about who "we" and "they" are really miss the point, don't you think?

Jonny German - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 11:00 AM EDT (#113011) #
I can't recall how many times I have gone to pro games and as the team is coming out of the tunnel the stadium announcer bellows; Ladies and Gentleman your fill-in the blank.

That example demonstrates the exact opposite of your point - they're Your Toronto Blue Jays, i.e. you are not one of them. Or did you think they were saying "You're Toronto Blue Jays"?
robertdudek - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 11:09 AM EDT (#113012) #
That example demonstrates the exact opposite of your point - they're Your Toronto Blue Jays, i.e. you are not one of them. Or did you think they were saying "You're Toronto Blue Jays"?

It's even worse - it implies that we (the fans) possess the team. They are "ours" and so we should do with them as we see fit.
I don't particularly like that use of pronoun either.
Lefty - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 11:09 AM EDT (#113013) #
Thats a fair point. So this must actually mean we get to call the shots, as a community I mean.
Mick Doherty - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 11:15 AM EDT (#113014) #
I mostly agree that use of "we" is nonsense. But there's a subtle line between "we the ballclub" and "we the city the ballclub represents."

I personally sense a difference in the "we" I hear in New York about the Yankees and the "we" here in DFW about the Cowboys. Every single male Cowboy fan in Texas believes he really should be starting at tailback and chasing Emmitt's records and the Cowboys are "we" because he believes that and would be a better owner than Jerry and coach than Tuna besides.

In New York -- and Boston and Chicago, for that matter -- I think the traditional "we" is used moreso as "We New Yorkers ..." or "We (insert obligatory "long-suffering") Cub fans" ...

It's the difference between "I can't believe we're losing to the *&^%^$ Redskins!" and "We have a chance to win this year if Brown stays healthy and Giambi hits."

The first is the team; the second is the city.
Ryan C - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 11:16 AM EDT (#113015) #
That example demonstrates the exact opposite of your point - they're Your Toronto Blue Jays, i.e. you are not one of them.

I think that's oversimplifying. No sane person deludes themselves into thinking that they're actually a member of the team or that they own the team, but it certainly indicates to me that the team is actively trying to connect with the fans.

Terran - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 11:22 AM EDT (#113017) #
" I think it was right around when Matt Whiteside entered the game "

If Whiteside is going to be used only in games we can no longer win (and given not just this preformance, but his career up until this point I don't see why we would have him in anything other then that) then why not atleast bring back up League? Perhaps League's confidence was hurt by the majors, but if this was at all a learning experience for him then he might as well have stayed for situations such as last night. At 37, Whiteside probably doesn't have alot more room to grow :/
Mike Green - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 11:33 AM EDT (#113019) #

I've been following them since I was 10 when I moved from England, so this team means a lot more to me then say John Macdonald

I couldn't figure out whether Spartan finds the Blue Jays more significant than Sir John A. in his/her life or whether Spartan felt that the Blue Jays meant more to him/her than they do to shortstop John McDonald. I guessed that it was the former.

It does not really bother me when fans of the home team get carried away and describe them as "we". The Cubs fan who celebrates in the year 2525 with: "I can't believe it! We finally won the World Series!" is one thing. It is a perfectly understandable reaction, that goes hand-in-hand with these events, like high-fiving strangers in the street. On the other hand, when the more serious fan thinks about how the home team can be improved, then the detachment associated with "they" is called for.

Lefty - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 11:40 AM EDT (#113020) #
If we start looking for the delusional fans, I guess we would start with all of those wearing their ball caps and Joe Carter jerseys. ; )

Seriously though, lets get the Blue Jays pulicist on and have this discussion with her / him.

And look, I see the logic of Jordan and Pistol's arguement but as others have said, this is harmless stuff. It is a sense of communitty, something that is sorely lacking in todays society.

Personally, I am not really a "we" person but every once in a while I may get caught up in a moment.

So shoot we.
mathesond - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 11:43 AM EDT (#113021) #
I've always felt that the 'We' referred to the Blue Jays Nation, composed of players, management, administration, and fans, among others.
Four Seamer - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 11:45 AM EDT (#113022) #
"I can't believe we're losing to the *&^%^$ Redskins!"

This is a poor example Mick, since we the Cowboys have only had to say this once in our last fifteen meetings with Washington!

Now the Eagles, on the other hand...

Six4Three - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 11:53 AM EDT (#113024) #
Wow, I can't believe how quickly you guys jump on people about little things. Like the use of "we". Any successful organization creates a community around it. Those that are part of this community are the players, fans, local media, trainers etc. We are all a part of the Blue Jays Community. And if you don't believe that look at what was the Expos community. Lack of community is disastrous for any team. So I don't understand how your knuckle wrapping on the use of the word "we" is helpful. Especially, the comment about being no more important than the guy that rubs Koskie’s neck. However your passion for the game and the jays is inspiring. Anyways lets focus on supporting the team so “we” can be a successful franchise. Go Jays!
Wildrose - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 12:07 PM EDT (#113025) #
A few days ago, I noted two different web sites had listed Kansas City Royal third baseman, Mark Teahen as a Canadian.
This observation was met with some rather caustic skepticism, so I decided to research the matter further. I contacted Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame director, Scott Crawford, and Toronto Sun baseball writer Bob Elliott, both were kind enough to reply to my query about Teahen and their web sites inclusion of this fellow as a Canadian.

They confirm, as suspected that Teahen's parents are Canadian, from St. Marys Ontario (and yes, Mark Teahen, somewhat ironically, played his NCAA ball at St. Mary's College in California). Young Mark was born in the U.S and obtained his Canadian citizenship in 2004. Apparently several members of his extended family still live in Southern Ontario.

My interest in this matter is purely selfish. I want Canada in the proposed 2006 spring World Cup of baseball, to field its most competetive team. Would this kid play? Undetermined. I do think an interesting story may be lurking here, why would a kid born in California, at age 22, suddenly want to obtain his Canadian birth right? Perhaps he doesn't like George Bush.

Is he any good? We'll see. Teahen was a first round draft choice of Oakland in 2002, the so called "moneyball" draft. Unfortunately I've lost my copy of Moneyball so I can't say if he's mentioned by Lewis in the book. In 2004 as part of the Carlos Beltran/Octavio Dotel trade, he was sent to the Royals. Baseball America has him rated as the 85th. best prospect in baseball, third best on the Royals, Will Kimmey has this to say about him;

"Who would you compare Mark Teahen to most- Bill Mueller, Scott Rolen or even better George Brett?

A: Will Kimmey: None of the above. Why is it necesaary to say he'll be just like either of these guys? I'm thinking Teahen's defense might end up playing sort of like Rolen thanks to his solid actions and strong arm. Offensively, it seems he's more likely to give you a Rolen-like average near .280 or so, but not as much power. I'd guess in the teens for a home run total with some doubles factoring in. He was pulling the ball more during the Arizona Fall League, so there could be more power coming, as the Royals advise and hope. I think he'll be a very solid third baseman, a little better hitter and fielder than the recently departed Joe Randa."

The fellows at Baseball Analysts have him rated as <a href="http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2005/01/wtny_75_6046_pa.php">; such</A>.

Essentially he projects as a solid line drive hitter, with good plate discipline, and above average fielding skills. The biggest question mark is, will he develop enough power for a corner spot? He certainly, when healthy, will be given all sorts of opportunity to prove himself with this rather weak squad.

I'm not sure if he'll help Canada much in 2006. Unfortunately he's yet another left-handed hitter from a country that seems to produce such beasts at an unusual rate. You'd have to say, at this stage, Teahen is behind Koskie, Morneau, and Matt Stairs on the mythical depth chart. Still he merits watching.

Sorry for the length of the post, but Canada's preformance internationally, is a passion of mine.








Coach - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 12:09 PM EDT (#113026) #
As the only head coach UFA has ever had (until circumstances prevented me from returning this season) some might argue that I "could" use the first-person plural pronoun forever in referring to that team. Through changes in athletic direcors, staff advisors and assistants, I was instrumental in building a successful program at a very small school, and I'm proud that we made the city playoffs the last five years. However, it would be disrespecting this year's coaching staff for me to presume the slightest ownership of the 2005 squad.

I'm not saying this is a black-white issue or a matter of grave importance. It's just protocol. If I'm lucky enough to attend any of their games, I might turn to a coach, parent or player at some point and say excitedly, "We've got 'em now," or "We're having great at-bats today," but I would never address the team that way or post a comment here that implies a connection if I wasn't directly involved. Last year, they were actually my club, and I was very close to each player. This year, they are still my friends, but I'm only a fan. Go Flames! I hope you win it all and tip your caps to the old Coach.

Wildrose - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 12:12 PM EDT (#113027) #
Sorry, here's the correct Analysts link.
Mylegacy - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 12:15 PM EDT (#113028) #
We...

(This "we" is the Royal "we." My father thought there must be Royality in my bloodline. I know that for a fact because he used to say to me: "Get off your Royal fat *ss and get your homework done!)

were just thinking about Lilly's performance. Clearly, spring training matters. I predict it'll take him a few starts to build into game shape. The team has to leave him in to stretch him out a bit. IMO.

Joe - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 12:25 PM EDT (#113029) #
Is there any benefit to leaving him in if he doesn't have it that day? Wouldn't it just be demoralizing? (I'm actually asking, as I could see it going either way.)
Jordan - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 12:27 PM EDT (#113030) #
I don't understand how your knuckle wrapping on the use of the word "we" is helpful.

Words matter. They're powerful objects, full of meaning and weight. They can damage and they can bind -- most often and especially, the people who speak them. When you (and I mean this as a general, not a specific "you") are careless with words -- when you just grab something off the shelf in your mind and throw it out there -- you're playing with fire. When you don't use the right word, or when you deploy it incorrectly, you're bringing a knife to a gunfight.

It's easy to simply use words and not think about their impact -- what they mean in and of themselves and what they might mean to others. It's easy to use words and never examine the personal assumptions that underlie them. In short, it's easy to pay very little attention to the words you use. But the more this happens, the less words mean, and the less words mean, the more trouble we're in, because words are pretty much all we've got with which to communicate.

Is it important that fans refer to their favourite sports teams as "we"? It's important that people use words without thinking about what they mean. If you've thought about the use of "we" in this context and you keep on using it, that's your business. But as your listener, I'm probably going to take all your other words less seriously, because I'm going to assume you're as careless with all your other uses of language. It betrays a fault line in your thinking and makes me less inclined to pay attention to you.

Do you care if I take you less seriously? Almost certainly not. But you might want to consider the possibility that someone else, whose opinion does matter to you, will do the same thing. Be careful with words. They matter.

dr. haque - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 12:33 PM EDT (#113032) #
Hey Coach Kent i cant believe when i read this, u COACH or coached at UFA, thats my beloved high school. i know this is not related to anything to baseball but when i read that i had to reply. I started when the school first opened in 1995 and was part of the schools first graduating class. Wow congratulations on starting the website. Anyways its good to know that UFA has a good sports program, as a former member of the basketball team we used to hate the fact that we were never good. Well hope UFA does go all the way. GO FLAMES GO.
Pumped 4/05 - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 12:42 PM EDT (#113034) #
You guys all need to get a life...really.

I really don't think I've ever seen a more stupid or trivial discussion take place here.

Oh wait...the way people signed off their posts was close.

Pumped 4/05 has left the building!
robertdudek - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 12:55 PM EDT (#113036) #
Thank you for that informative post, Pumped!
Mick Doherty - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 01:03 PM EDT (#113040) #
"How To Kill a Threaded Discussion" by Pumped 4/05.

If Internet discussions were graded on their worth in the grand scheme, IRC and BBS would've died in the late '80s. Also, Seinfeld never would have made it past 13 episodes.
Ryan Day - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 01:04 PM EDT (#113042) #
Words matter. They're powerful objects, full of meaning and weight. They can damage and they can bind -- most often and especially, the people who speak them. When you (and I mean this as a general, not a specific "you") are careless with words -- when you just grab something off the shelf in your mind and throw it out there -- you're playing with fire. When you don't use the right word, or when you deploy it incorrectly, you're bringing a knife to a gunfight.

Strictly speaking, that's true. But we're talking about sports and marketing here, where words are often intentional yet still misleading or vague.

When the announcer says "Introducing your Toronto Blue Jays", he is completely wrong. They are not my Toronto Blue Jays, nor do they belong to anyone in the crowd other than those in the Rogers Executive Suite. But they say "your" because they want to foster a sense of community and connection with the team.

Fans using "we" is just another side of that. It's another way of connecting with the team and feeling a part of it. It's a bit silly, I'll admit, but it's pretty harmless.

Dave Till - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 01:06 PM EDT (#113043) #
I don't think I've ever used "we" to refer to the Blue Jays, since I've never played for the club.

Like others here, I'm concerned about the starting rotation, but at least J.P. has done all he can to try to find backups. The Jays have Rosario, Gaudin, Glynn, and eventually League starting in triple-A; most of these guys are at least replacement level. Pitching is inherently unpredictable, and there's not much anybody can do about it. All you can do is collect a bunch of arms and try to find five guys from that bunch who can stay healthy and who aren't terrible.

One outing is too small a sample size to judge Whiteside, but I've long noticed that marginal relief pitchers often do much better in AAA than the majors. Recall last year's Toronto-Syracuse shuttle: there were guys putting up ERA's around 2.00 in relief for the SkyChiefs who were getting beaten like gongs at What Used To Be The SkyDome. Hypothesis: experienced relief pitchers can retire inexperienced prospects at the AAA level because the young hitters haven't seen stuff quite like theirs. Experienced major league hitters, on the other hand, know what to do.

Last night was gloom-inducing, but every team has nights like that. As long as the Jays don't start losing confidence (and thinking to themselves: "Oh no! It's the *New York Yankees*!"), they should be fine. Assuming, of course, that the starting pitchers don't go into the tank.
Jordan - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 01:09 PM EDT (#113045) #
I can't remember the last time the Syracuse rotation had this much talent. League and Rosario alone are two of the best arms I can ever recall pitching for the Skychiefs, and Gaudin gets more exciting every day. A far cry from the days of Pasqual Coco and Mike Smith....
Six4Three - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 01:35 PM EDT (#113050) #
Be careful with words. They matter.... Is this how the knuckle wrapping is helpful? Do you write with the same passion against the PA announcer using the words "your home team". Once someone invests some of himself or herself into a team or idea they take some ownership of this team or idea. Do you not think that a home crowd can influence a game? Cheering on a pitcher for that third strike. They have helped contribute. Just like the backup catcher. I am careful with my words, I use spell check.
Mick Doherty - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 01:44 PM EDT (#113052) #
I know I shouldn't do this, but you really hung a slider for me to whack at, Six. Spell check doesn't help you, for instance, know the differnce between "knuckle wrapping" and "knuckle rapping."

Mike D - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 01:45 PM EDT (#113053) #
Calling the Jays "we"
Can improve esprit-de-corps
But is inaccurate

Henceforth, all comments on this issue must be written in strict haiku/senryu meter. Any argument that deviates from the 5/7/5 format will be deemed unpersuasive.
Mike D - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 01:46 PM EDT (#113054) #
Aagh! I blew my own rule.

Revised:

Calling the Jays "we"
Can improve esprit-de-corps
But is incorrect
Jim - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 02:03 PM EDT (#113058) #
I still find it arrogant and annoying, but I think that Sons of Sam Horn really is the best way to run the site.

Of course, I add very little value and would probably not be able to post, but I’m willing to make that sacrifice if it means the site becomes more readable.
Six4Three - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 02:05 PM EDT (#113059) #
I know I shouldn't do this, but you really hung a slider for me to whack at, Six. Spell check doesn't help you, for instance, know the differnce between "knuckle wrapping" and "knuckle rapping.".. I speak and wwrite with a lisp and I thank you to not pointh it outh.
Named For Hank - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 02:17 PM EDT (#113061) #
Is this how the knuckle wrapping is helpful? Do you write with the same passion against the PA announcer using the words "your home team".

I still fail to see how this humorous observation...

• You know what’s funny? When a team is going well, fans discuss the team using the pronoun “we” – “if we can take two out of three from the Yankees, we’ll be in great shape.” But when the team is losing, suddenly the team is “they” – “I can’t believe how badly they’re playing tonight! They need to start hitting.”

...is knuckle-rapping. Well, I suppose if you were guilty of referring to the team as "we" a couple of days ago and were referring to them as "they" today, it could be a mild rebuke...

Tom L - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 02:20 PM EDT (#113062) #
Wow. Some people are rather testy today. Don't worry, WE'LL take tonight's game.
Ron - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 02:23 PM EDT (#113063) #
I don't mind the $2 games. Too bad I live across the country and can't take advantage of the offer.

You can't let a few bad apples taint it for everybody else. There are idiot/drunk fans regardless if it's a $2 night or not.

Don't forget besides the $2 tickets, those fans might be spending money on merchandise, food, drinks, programs, etc....

I see no negative in a few selected $2 nights.
MatO - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 02:25 PM EDT (#113064) #
Hate to be the bearer of bad news but Jerry Howarth was just on the FAN and the situation with Tom Cheek is not good. Something to effect that they are trying to make things as comfortable as possible for him and they thinking of trying some experimental treatments. Let's hope for a miracle.
binnister - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 02:42 PM EDT (#113067) #
This critisism of using the term 'we' in reference to your favourite team smacks of elitism to me.

You are basically saying that 'only weak-minded, socially degenerate, attention starved Joe Six packs' would EVER say such a thing.

You may hide behind the mantra of 'words matter', but ultimately it seeems you're just trying to hide your distain for individuals who latch on to sports teams, something that the sports teams THEMSELVES foster (see: Sports Jerseys, Hats, Memorabilia).

Why not critise the teams themselves for promoting this 'unhealthy' relationship?

Named For Hank - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 02:45 PM EDT (#113068) #
You are basically saying that 'only weak-minded, socially degenerate, attention starved Joe Six packs' would EVER say such a thing.

Again, I quote:

• You know what’s funny? When a team is going well, fans discuss the team using the pronoun “we” – “if we can take two out of three from the Yankees, we’ll be in great shape.” But when the team is losing, suddenly the team is “they” – “I can’t believe how badly they’re playing tonight! They need to start hitting.”

I just don't see it.

Four Seamer - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 03:05 PM EDT (#113071) #
That's dreadful news, MatO. I will pray a little more fervently than usual that Tom and his family make it through this difficult time.
Ryan C - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 03:10 PM EDT (#113072) #
I just don't see it.

I dont see it in the original post either Hank, I didnt think any of it other than as a little ribbing between buddies kind of way. It's some of the follow up posts that rubbed me the wrong way. Like this one:

The reason you don't use "we" when referring to the Blue Jays is that you don't have the right. Counting yourself as part of a group is a privilege that belongs to those who've earned their way into that group...When fans talk about their favourite team as "us," they're devaluing the accomplishments of the people who actually draw a cheque from and contribute value to that team. Fans like to think of themselves as the lifeblood of baseball, and in a very aggregrated sense, they are -- but individually, they are not...There is a world of difference between those who do and those who watch, and that chasm precludes the use of "we" when describing people like us on the near side.

BCMike - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 03:12 PM EDT (#113073) #

It's some of the follow up posts that rubbed me the wrong way. Like this one:

Bingo

sweat - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 03:22 PM EDT (#113074) #
It's amazing how big a deal people make over the smallest things. Let me be the first to say...
sweat out.
Leigh - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 03:36 PM EDT (#113077) #
you're just trying to hide your distain for individuals who latch on to sports teams

I can only assume that you mean disdain. The people who run and produce this site do so precisely because we love baseball. When you write that we are equating rabidity of fanship with a lack of sophistication, you are dead wrong.

Mike D - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 03:43 PM EDT (#113078) #
Let's move on, shall we? We're getting far afield from Jordan's thoughtful analysis of last night's game, and we're less than three and a half hours away from Chacin vs. Mussina.

We (and "they") all have bigger fish to fry!
VBF - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 03:50 PM EDT (#113080) #
I liked Mick's approach on the issue. Using "We" as in Toronto, the people of Toronto, the fans of the Blue Jays makes more sense. I see Toronto, the fans, and the Blue Jays as one amalgamation. Which is what I refer to when I say "we". I'm not referring to the team as in the players and personnel.

However, if I were explaining a joke that O-Dog pulled on Koskie that I saw on SNet, I wouldn't say "We had a big laugh after", I'd say "They had a big laugh after".

Comparably, if we won the World Series, I would say "We are the Champions, my friends", not "They are the Champions". I'm not associating myself with the merits of the players, but am demonstrating my pride of the City/Team/Fan amalgamation like a wife refers to a husband as "hers".

I agree with Jordan about the $2 game though. It extremely devalues the product. Although, one must remember that it should not be associated with the $1 SARS game since all seats were sold for $1 on all levels. In the $2 games, the seats are restricted to 200 level outfield and SkyDeck, therefore a method of crowd control. Plus the extra people cushion the attendance figures as well.

And to be honest with you, it hasn't even been that much of a success, either. Last year, the $2 seats only increased attendance up to about 25,000 a game, compared to the 35,000 that showed up for the $2 promotions in 2003.

The $2 game isn't uncommon to MLB either. Several teams like Arizona, Atlanta, and I think Milwaukee have a $1 section each night (Mind you, it's in the nosebleeds).
binnister - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 03:55 PM EDT (#113081) #
Leigh: You're right. That's a blanket statement. I should have probably worded it this way:

you're just trying to hide your disdain for the way certain individuals latch on to sports teams.

I guess my objection boils down to this:

How can one be a 'Fan' of a team (notice, 'Team', not 'Baseball'), if there isn't some level of 'WE' involved?

The follow-up comments made on this subject suggested that no level of 'WE' is acceptible, thus implying that we should just be "Fan's" of Baseball Itself

....as if we couldn't be both.

Stellers Jay - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 04:00 PM EDT (#113085) #
I just wanted to chime in on the $2 ticket issue. I actually think it makes a lot more sense this year than in any of the past years because they own the stadium. Get them in the building for $2 and a good portion of them are going to spend another $10 on a program, pop, and hot dog. On the other hand, it was very poor business sense in past years because it just cheapens the product.

I am going to use an example that will go off on a tangent but I still think it's pertinent. The B.C. Lions in the past year and half to 2 years have really created a renaissance in the Vancouver football market by creating an artificial demand for their tickets. They have been strict in their policy of keeping the upper bowl closed to home games unless there have been "less than 5000 tickets available a week before the game" (which caps attendence at about 30000 in the lower bowl) Vancouver fans are notorious for their large walk-up crowds for any event. As a result to this policy (and putting a competitive team on the field), people were lining up to buy tickets to the last home game of the year and they had their biggest draw in 15 years when they had 55000 for the western final. Season ticket sales are up considerably for the upcoming year as well. In fact their season ticket base for this year is about what they averaged in attendance three years ago.

I'm not familiar with the layout of Rogers Centre, but it could make some sense to close the 4th & 5th deck and create a demand for 25000 seats to each game and charge a little higher price.
Stellers Jay - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 04:03 PM EDT (#113086) #
Back to baseball, I really hope Chacin's got at least 6 innings in him tonight because there are some arms in the bullpen that could use a day off.
Grand Funk RR - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 04:17 PM EDT (#113087) #
I spend an afternoon in meetings, and THIS is the B.S. I come back to?
Holy cripes, Jordan - you make we want to puke with your self righteous pontifications.
kpataky - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 04:25 PM EDT (#113088) #
Lineup for April 21st:

Yankees

1. SS Jeter
2. CF Crosby
3. RF Sheffield
4. LF Matsui
5. 3B Rodriguez
6. DH Giambi
7. C Posada
8. 1B Martinez
9. 2B Womack

P Mussina

Jays

1. LF Catalanotto
2. C Myers
3. DH Hillenbrand
4. 3B Koskie
5. CF Johnson
6. 1B Hinske
7. RF Rios
8. 2B Menechino
9. SS Adams

P Chacin


Glaring note: No Vernon Wells
Mick Doherty - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 04:35 PM EDT (#113089) #
No Bernie, no Vernon.

What is this, the All-Star CF-free zone?
Rob - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 04:36 PM EDT (#113090) #
Greg Myers is batting second? Um...okay.

If those are the starting nine, I would move Rios or Hinske up for the day, even Adams. But why Myers, who until yesterday did not have a hit since one year ago today?
Four Seamer - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 04:38 PM EDT (#113091) #
Gibby's sitting Wells, Hudson and Zaun?

Seeing as how I've got tickets to the game tonight, I hope those three just want to see Paul Martin's speech and will be back in the game by the second inning!
Dr. Zarco - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 04:39 PM EDT (#113092) #
Although I am anxiously awaiting the Jays game, there were actually some solid afternoon games today. Our old buddy Chris Carpenter threw a CG shutout (over the Cubs, who are now forced to start Neifi Perez and Jerry Hairston at SS and 2B...ha!). The Braves finally scored more than 1 run for Smoltz, although they did it too late to make a winner out of his 7 Inn, 1 ER, 0 BB, 10K performance. And they can thank those runs on the conditions in Washington. The umps should have stopped the game, instead letting a puddled infield cause an error to let the Braves 2 runs to score with 2 outs in the 9th. Thome finally hit his first HR.

Tonight should be fun with Chacin making his first career start in TO. Let's hope he can right the ship, although I don't feel that the bullpen is too stressed for a close game late, as guys like Schoeneweis and Batista are plenty rested.
VBF - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 04:42 PM EDT (#113093) #
I'm not familiar with the layout of Rogers Centre, but it could make some sense to close the 4th & 5th deck and create a demand for 25000 seats to each game and charge a little higher price.

I see what you're saying; the Argos have done it the past few years. They were smart about it too. They sold the entire Upper Deck to large organizations who gave the tickets to their employees, increasing attendance up to 4,000 a game.

But MLB is a much larger and different market than the CFL and in particular, Vancouver.

Last year, the average attendance for a weekday game was about 17,000. The lower bowl capacity is about 30,000, including the Club Level. And the demand was low since games are played frequently. In football, there is one home game every two weeks so the demand and paranoia for buying tickets is relatively high. That isn't the case for MLB. Fans will have 81 opportunities to purchase tickets.

Not to mention that closing the Upper Deck is unheard of in baseball, except the Expos. And what would the Cheer Club do?

VBF - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 04:45 PM EDT (#113094) #
Gibby's sitting Wells, Hudson and Zaun?

Greg Myers is batting second? Um...okay.

Ask Mr. Burns. It's called playing the percentages. Or lack of percentages.

Thomas - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 04:50 PM EDT (#113095) #
That is a bizarre lineup by Gibbons.

I'd have flipped Rios and Johnson. Well, I would have put Hinske in the five hole, Rios in the six and Johnson at seven, but I'm assuming Gibbons is adverse to putting lefties back-to-back. After switching Rios and Johnson I would move Adams or Menechino up to the two hole and slotted Myers in the eight hole.

I have no idea how comfortable people are with their spots in the linuep, but to leave them there at the expense of constructing a lineup like this seems like a strange decision.
Stellers Jay - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 04:58 PM EDT (#113096) #
VBF, I realize that they are completely different markets, but the principle of creating a demand for tickets is the same. Having 50000 seats and selling approximately 40% of those over 81 games doesn't make a lot sense. And really cheapening the product by offering $2 tickets doesn't make any sense either. If they cut the seating in half for all games (unless significant demand dictated the opening of more seats) you're creating artificial demand. When the yankees come to town in mid summer (a time when they draw traditionally 30000 plus) people will have to plan ahead to get tickets. It creates competition and a "buzz" amongst fans that they know they need to buy tickets in advance to ensure they are going to get tickets.
Sherrystar - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 05:00 PM EDT (#113097) #
Greg Myers should never bat 2nd in ANY lineup, majors or minors!

I didn't like the sound of the news on Tom... it's quite scary actually.

Rob - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 05:08 PM EDT (#113098) #
V-Dub is sitting because of an injury, I presume. The infielders vs Mussina, career:
Menechino:   13 AB .231 AVG  641 OPS
Hudson:      16 AB .313 AVG  790 OPS

Hinske:      25 AB .160 AVG  460 OPS
Hillenbrand: 36 AB .333 AVG 1028 OPS
Koskie:      16 AB .188 AVG  693 OPS

McDonald:     5 AB .600 AVG 1400 OPS
(Adams has not yet faced Mike Mussina)

If Gibby wants Menechino in there, for whatever reason, he can sit Hinske and play Hillenbrand at first. Is something wrong with the O-Dog (other than .265/.261/.368, that is)? He does have a six-game hitting streak going.

As for Myers/Zaun, Crash has faced him more often but has less success.

BCMike - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 05:09 PM EDT (#113099) #
Ok, I've been staring at that lineup for a while now and it still doesn't make much sense. Myers in the 2 hole and Johnson 5th is, IMO, a poor way to avoid unfavorable lefty-lefty sequences.

I'm wondering since Zaun got pulled a little early yesterday and is not in the lineup today, could he have suffered an injury?
Joe - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 05:19 PM EDT (#113100) #
While I don't really understand Myers batting second, I think we're missing something here: the Jays just got rocked by the Yankees, and Gibby probably wants to switch things up - give people a day off, change what the opposition sees of the team, and just generally shake things up a bit.
VBF - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 05:26 PM EDT (#113101) #
Stellers, I like the idea, but if there are still 13,000 seats empty even with the SkyDeck closed, it will have served no point. The idea is good, but only for crowds that can approach the capacity for the lower bowl. This idea could work for weekend games, where attendance is higher.

Elijah - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 06:10 PM EDT (#113105) #
That line up is strange. The one I see on Yahoo looks pretty standard to me:

Cat, Zaun, Shea, Koskie, Vernon, The Dude, Rios, Hudson, McDonald

I came here and I was puzzled. Now I don't know what to believe.

Bernie being out is no surprise considering he left early in yesterday's game but he's also in Yahoo's lineup.
Elijah - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 06:13 PM EDT (#113107) #
Oops, never mind. I didn't realize the game thread had been posted.
Jim - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 06:24 PM EDT (#113110) #
It creates competition and a "buzz" amongst fans that they know they need to buy tickets in advance to ensure they are going to get tickets.

Except that the moment it's a sellout at the lower 'capacity', they start to sell the other 20,000+ seats. Everyone knows they aren't going to leave those seats empty if there is any possible way they could sell them, so there is no artificial demand. There are two ways to increase attendance: 1. Build a new stadium (short-term only) 2. Win The concept of a $2 night doesn't bother me as it's a chance to get people into the park who might not otherwise check it out. I think it's much easier to turn a child into a fan who has been at a game. I think it's probably easier for a casual fan to take a child to a game that is $2. So I think in a way there is a small chance that the $2 night is a long-term investment in the fan base.

Stellers Jay - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 06:39 PM EDT (#113112) #
"Except that the moment it's a sellout at the lower 'capacity', they start to sell the other 20,000+ seats. Everyone knows they aren't going to leave those seats empty if there is any possible way they could sell them, so there is no artificial demand."

In Vancouver, they did turn people away at the gate. I was at the Roughrider game at the end of the 2003 season and they were turning the walk up crowd away at the ticket window because the lower bowl was sold out. It encourages people to purchase tickets early and it creates the buzz and demand of the sporting community. Once the demand is there it's easy to increase the price of the ticket and make up the difference in the 200 people you turn away at the gate. From a stadium operations perspective it makes it more cost effecient. (You know how many sections are open, so you know how many ushers, vendors, security personnel you need, etc).
Brian W - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 06:43 PM EDT (#113113) #
The Calgary Flames actually did the same thing for many years. They would never open the upper section of the Saddledome (at least on one side). This was partly to cut down on maintenance/staffing costs but it also increased demand for the more popular games and the more expensive seats. Of course during the playoff run last season those sections were reopened and sold out.
Ron - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 07:47 PM EDT (#113132) #
"In Vancouver, they did turn people away at the gate. I was at the Roughrider game at the end of the 2003 season and they were turning the walk up crowd away at the ticket window because the lower bowl was sold out. It encourages people to purchase tickets early and it creates the buzz and demand of the sporting community. Once the demand is there it's easy to increase the price of the ticket and make up the difference in the 200 people you turn away at the gate. From a stadium operations perspective it makes it more cost effecient. (You know how many sections are open, so you know how many ushers, vendors, security personnel you need, etc)."

And it can have a negative effect too. I know 2 people that wanted to attend that game but couldn't buy tickets until right before the start of the game because of work. They went up to the ticket window and were turned away. They didn't bother to buy any tickets last season because of that incident.

Also another problem by closing off sections is what happens to people that want to sit in the closed off sections. I've heard numerous Lion fans wonder why must fans have to sit in the end zones when you have thousands of seats in the upper bowl midfield closed off?
Jim - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 08:29 PM EDT (#113147) #
From a stadium operations perspective it makes it more cost effecient. (You know how many sections are open, so you know how many ushers, vendors, security personnel you need, etc).

They already know things like this. They know where the advance sales are and they know what kind of walkup they are going to get.

To me, it's a horrible experience when there is 'buzz'. There is nothing worse then a Red Sox game at Fenway Park now. It's nearly impossible to get tickets, if you can they are so expensive it's always in the back of your mind. Everyone is sardined into the stadium without an inch to move.

To me there is nothing better then a nice open section to spread out in. I can get some sun, get away from drunken idiots and watch the game where I can hang out comfortably with my friends.

Franchises look foolish when they try to artifically create demand. Just win and you'll have 'buzz' and 'demand'.

There are also other problems with closing the upper deck, like the economics of ticket pricing, but I won't get into that. Closing the upper deck might sound nice on a couple of levels, but I would guess that it might actually decrease attendance - unless you radically changed the pricing structure. By changing the pricing structure you might end up lowering ticket revenue when you increase attendance.

Stellers Jay - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 08:49 PM EDT (#113153) #
"And it can have a negative effect too. I know 2 people that wanted to attend that game but couldn't buy tickets until right before the start of the game because of work. They went up to the ticket window and were turned away"

They had the opportunity to buy a ticket for 5 months before that. It's not the teams fault for turning people away 15 minutes before the game when they decided to attend at the last minute.
Stellers Jay - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 08:57 PM EDT (#113156) #
"To me, it's a horrible experience when there is 'buzz'. There is nothing worse then a Red Sox game at Fenway Park now. It's nearly impossible to get tickets, if you can they are so expensive it's always in the back of your mind."

The Jays are in the business of winning baseball games and selling a product to cosumers at the same time. It's the owners purogative to try and make as much money as they can while winning baseball games.

"To me there is nothing better then a nice open section to spread out in. I can get some sun, get away from drunken idiots and watch the game where I can hang out comfortably with my friends."

This is the exact reason to do what has been suggested. If you look out in LF tonight there are 3 sections in a row with about 20% occupancy. Why they don't see fit to close 2 of those sections and put everybody in one section doesn't make sense. It makes fiscal sense to use 1 usher instead of 3. With all do respect, your whole opinion is based on what you like to experience at a game and has got nothing to do with the actual concept.

Stellers Jay - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 09:05 PM EDT (#113157) #
That should have said "due" not "do". I applogize, I need to proof read better.
Ron - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 09:29 PM EDT (#113166) #
"They had the opportunity to buy a ticket for 5 months before that. It's not the teams fault for turning people away 15 minutes before the game when they decided to attend at the last minute."

They thought it was crazy that a team would turn fans away with almost 30,000 empty seats. But they have chosen to stand up for what they believe in and that's not spending one single penny on the Lions.

Not everybody can plan their schedule ahead of game time. Sometimes there is conflict with work, finding a babysitter, etc...

I can see the logic with closing off certain sections but I can also see the argument for people that are opposed to it.


Stellers Jay - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 09:49 PM EDT (#113167) #
"I can see the logic with closing off certain sections but I can also see the argument for people that are opposed to it."

By all means, I'm not saying this is a be all and end all solution. The Jays have got far smarter and more experienced people working in their ticketing department than I. But, 2 financially struggling Canadian professional sports franchises have used this concept to successfully build on a dwindling fan base. At the end of the day though, putting a winning product on the field is going to increase revenue way more than any ticketing concept.
Jim - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 09:52 PM EDT (#113168) #
<i> It makes fiscal sense to use 1 usher instead of 3. With all do respect, your whole opinion is based on what you like to experience at a game and has got nothing to do with the actual concept. </i> <p>

Yes, I am partial to not doing things your way. However, that is a separate issue.

If you'd like to get into the economic problems with your idea, let's go ahead and do that. I'm no Moffatt, but my minor was economics. Here is the major issue: Ticket Pricing.

Currently on a single game basis the Jays have the following ticket prices:

Club 200 INF 59
Field Level Inf 54
Club 200 Baselines 44
Field Level Bases 37
Field Level Baselines 26
100 Level Outfield 23
200 Level Outfield 21
200 Family Zone 9
500 Level 9

So now you are closing off the entire 500 section - eliminating almost all of your $9 seats. If you don't lower the prices on another area you are going to lose many of the people that sit there. They aren't going to start paying 23 or 21 to sit in the outfield seats - which I'm sure many think are inferior to the 500 level seats behind the plate.

So, in order to keep these fans you are going to lower the price on a good number of seats - which seats? Maybe you make the 100 outfield 15 and the 200 Outfield 13...

That effects the decisions of a number of other fans. Now someone paying 26 to sit in the Field Level Baseline might say to themselves - I can sit 3 sections over and take 9$ a seat off my price. It cascades through the entire stadium. Some people at every price range might start to see more value in seats that you have lowered. You have no choice to lower some or your attendance is clearly going to down. Now by lowering some of the seats - you may draw the same amount or a small amount more but at the same time you've DECREASED the revenue from your ticket sales. Again, the only way to generate buzz is to win games - It's not like closing the 500 section would somehow sell 10k tickets last night or tonight.

Now when there is finally a game that 45k people want to see you won't sell them tickets? What do you think the Toronto media is going to do to a franchise that is stupid enough to turn away 15k fans. Throw in the fact that no way in hell it would happen in 10k years - no legitimate major league franchise is going to turn away fans when they have 15,000 empty seats in their building, and your crazy dream is starting to lose a little steam don't you think?

"This is the exact reason to do what has been suggested. If you look out in LF tonight there are 3 sections in a row with about 20% occupancy. Why they don't see fit to close 2 of those sections and put everybody in one section doesn't make sense. It makes fiscal sense to use 1 usher instead of 3. With all do respect, your whole opinion is based on what you like to experience at a game and has got nothing to do with the actual concept."

I would imagine it's easier for an usher to watch 3 sections that are 15% full then 1 full section. When the sections are empty there is noone worried about someone sitting in 'their' seats. There are fewer arguments, fewer beers spilt on people and fewer problems. Throw in the fact that if you start to force people to sit together when there is plenty of room to spread out you are going to turn people off to coming to your building. The first time an usher makes me sit in a full section when the building is 60% empty is one of the last times I go there. I'm sure I'm not the only one that feels that way. Your fiscal sense of using fewer ushers works in textbooks - there are few 'real' companies that are so cost conscious that they are going to worry about paying an extra half dozen ushers $10/hour. Top line revenue drives earnings - not penny pinching.



Stellers Jay - Thursday, April 21 2005 @ 10:24 PM EDT (#113187) #
Relax Jim, I merely introduced an idea that has worked for another sport franchise. I made NO comment about changing the pricing structure of the tickets. In fact, I had earlier suggested that giving away $2 tickets is cheapening the product and is not a good idea. I also made note that I am not familiar with the seating chart and how the levels are differentiated. When I suggested closing the 4th and 5th decks it was merely as an image and to get down to a reasonable number of seats to use per game around 25000-30000. I'm sure there is a better way to get to that number than closing the entire 4th and 5th decks as you have so calmly indicated. I can only speak of the Lions as they are the only franchise that has done this that I have a working knowledge of the sitation. The Lions have definetely not lowered their ticket prices in the last 2 years that they have been using the policy. They have gone up as demand for tickets has increased.

"Now when there is finally a game that 45k people want to see you won't sell them tickets? What do you think the Toronto media is going to do to a franchise that is stupid enough to turn away 15k fans. Throw in the fact that no way in hell it would happen in 10k years - no legitimate major league franchise is going to turn away fans when they have 15,000 empty seats in their building, and your crazy dream is starting to lose a little steam don't you think?"

This isn't how the system worked in Vancouver. Bob Ackles (president of the team) was very clear in all discussions that the upper deck of BC Place would only be opened when there were less than 5000 tickets available a full week before the next home game. Now obviously this isn't a policy that could be transfered to the Bluejays considering they play games so close together, but a variation of this "trigger" policy could be useful. The game I was at that they were turning people away, I would guarantee that no more than 500 people were left out. Hence I understand the decision to not open the upper bowl because it wouldn't have covered the costs of staffing the level.

As for turning 15000 fans away, other than opening night when was the last time the jays had any where near 45000 people in the stands? The Yankees are the biggest draw the Jays have and they drew 20000 and change last night. Anyways it's a mute point because if there were that kind of extra demand for tickets they would easily meet the clubs "trigger" policy and the extra seats would be opened up.

I'll stop talking about it now. It was merely a suggestion as to what another sports franchise has done to improve its fanbase. I'm sorry I ruffled so many feathers, I thought I was sharing something interesting.
kpataky - Friday, April 22 2005 @ 12:11 AM EDT (#113210) #
Sorry guys, the lineup they posted on the scoreboard that I could see from my room inside the Dome obviously was changed by game time by both clubs. How could they do that? ;-)
Jim - Friday, April 22 2005 @ 08:21 AM EDT (#113220) #
"As for turning 15000 fans away, other than opening night when was the last time the jays had any where near 45000 people in the stands? The Yankees are the biggest draw the Jays have and they drew 20000 and change last night. Anyways it's a mute point because if there were that kind of extra demand for tickets they would easily meet the clubs "trigger" policy and the extra seats would be opened up. "

Doesn't this defeat the entire purpose then? If people know they aren't going to be turned away then there is no artificial demand.
Yankees 11, Blue Jays 2 | 89 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.