|
|
|
| Advertisements | |
|
|
|
|
#2
09-20-2005, 05:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I am hardly what you would consider a fan, but my mother always was so I have always cast an eye on the standings over the years just to see what is happening.
So this year, I happened to notice the White Sox are just zooming along all year in first place - they can do no wrong. And then... If mom were alive, she would just shake her head in disgust and say, "typical." The team always found a way to disappoint her just when she would get her hopes up. Still, would be nice to see them pull the rabbit out of their hat this year. But if they keep playing like they have, I think the Cubs will have a better chance of winning this year. 
|
|
#3
09-20-2005, 06:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Heh heh. Nice to see the shoe on the other foot for a change.
The Sox have the most pathetic legacy in all of sport, yet they don't even get credit for that over the Cubs and the other Sox.
|
|
#4
09-20-2005, 07:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chicago teams don't want to win, if they did the greedy owners would have to give everyone a raise. As long as they finish in the plus column on the income statement, the big wigs are all smiles. Witness two of the masters of this technique, Bill Wirtz and Wm Wrigley.
|
|
#5
09-20-2005, 08:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm really a Giants fan, but have been vaguely rooting for the Sox all year because it would be great for Chicago if they managed to progress into the playoffs. (Also because it would make Cubs fans crazy and that's always funny.) I thought this would be an easy ride on the bandwagon! A couple months ago I never figured the goddamn Sox would be upsetting me!
Stupid Sox. I'm listening to the game right now and it's tied. Argh! Never find yourself rooting for a Chicago team, my friends. It's just not healthy.
|
|
#6
09-20-2005, 08:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
As far as White Sox fans go... good luck getting them to admit to it.
|
|
#7
09-20-2005, 09:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
They've been around for 113 years and have won 2 titles. The last was 88 years ago. The famous anti-Red Sox chant was "Nineteen!! Eighteen!!" Well, for perspective the White Sox last won in 1917. They only have 9, count 'em, 9 trips to the post season ever. They've been convicted of throwing one World Series, something I'm pretty sure no one else can claim in any sport. Oh, and they have always been second fiddle in their own town. Another chance to compare them to the other miserable team, the Cubs. The Cubs in 135 years of existance, have been in 20 post-seasons. Now, I know there are other franchises that have never wone at all, but most people tend to conceed that a 88 year drought is a little more miserable than a 45 year one for a team that's only been around for as long. People might rattle off franchises like the NFL Cardinals, the MLB Indians, the NBA Clippers...but really, I'd be hard pressed to compare any of them to the Sox.
|
|
#8
09-20-2005, 09:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
As an Indians fan I hadn't even paid attention to the distance between the Sox and the Tribe. It was a given that we were out of it. I was consumed by the wildcard. One day I look down and see that we are five game out with one of the easiest remaining schedules in baseball. Not sure what happened. BTW anyone wonder how ESPN makes a decision to plop the WNBA Finals on the Deuce while the Indians and White Sox play out of the of the more exciting finishes this year? Ugh!
|
|
#9
09-20-2005, 09:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The numbers are interesting, but the patheticness of the Red Sox and Cubs was based on more than their long championship droughts. The Red Sox were known for spectacular implosions, the Cubs were known for never even getting close. They've had one or two close calls in recent years, but the Sox had some good teams in the early 90s, and compare their World Series droughts- counting this year, 46 years for the Sox and 60 for the Cubs.
Quote:
They both have sad-sack histories. Assuming the White Sox complete their historic collapse this year, I might call it a draw. In part, it raises that question "Is it better to just suck consistently, or get close once in a while?"
|
|
#10
09-20-2005, 10:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The Sox play in a shitty part of town that for many years in the 70s and 80s was simply too dangerous to be in after hours. It's not great now, though it's a little better. Daley (who's from that part of town) insists on preventing issuing liquor licenses for the vicinity immediately surrounding the park, and stubbornly refuses to allow the neighborhood he grew up in become less "neighborhoody" than it is. As a result of these policies, and the poor economic situation on the whole, the area around the ballpark is barren. Therefore, there's very little in the way of environment to enjoy surrounding the park. The Cubs however have famously thrived in a neighborhood which is a festive and commercial boon. As a result city newcomers and non-baseball fans can find reasons to enjoy being close to the Cubs. After many decades of this people grow to enjoy the concept of Wrigleyville. Add in the fact that the Cubs have maintained a beautiful, historic ballpark, while the Sox leveled theirs after years of neglect. That tends to ruin alot of the nostalgia that makes baseball so vital. The Cubs get all the casual undecided fans. That is self-propogating. The Sox can't blame the media, or the econimics of the city for their failures. They are reaping the results of the Comiskey family's mistakes. If you compare Comiskey and Wrigley, Wrigley looks like Steinbrenner. For all the heat the Tribune Company takes, they make every other sports franchise ownership's in the city look embarassing.
|
|
#11
09-20-2005, 10:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
You make some good points there.
Quote:
 I agree, though. The fact that they had the good sense to dump Sosa should be proof enough.
|
|
#12
09-20-2005, 11:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
One of my more disappointing realizations was that Sosa was a total douchebag. I figured it out right around '96. '98 was fun, and I was ready to give him another chance when became a more complete player, but that turned out to be the anomoly.
Mind you, I don't feel this way because I'm sad to lose a hero, or because I wanted the Cubs to have another legendary fan fave in the hall. I was sad and disappointed because I wasn't able to wholeheartedly respond to any Brock-for-Broglio comments with a snappy Sosa-for-Bell zinger. I mean it just doesn't quite do it.
|
|
#13
09-20-2005, 11:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yeah... after '98, he started to lose me with all of his celebration crap. Then the injuries started piling up and I got a chance to see up-close that he'd earned a reputation for hitting meaningless homers.
|
|
#14
09-20-2005, 11:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I'll take the kitschy celebrations and the pre-game sprints, as long as you perform when it counts. He didn't. OK, back to Sox bashing.....
|
|
#15
09-21-2005, 08:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#16
09-21-2005, 09:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Has far less to do with all that Comiskey-v-Wrigley nonsense. Cub fans of today couldn't tell you who Wrigley was if they had a mouthful. It's the superstation, the Harry Caray phenomenon and all the razzmatazz bullshit promotionalism that the Tribune Conglomerate foists upon the world. The Cubs, as was pointed out, get all the borderline fans who don't care about baseball, but want to root for the Cubbies. Many, many Cub fans (the bus wife included) are serious die hards, but most of the rooting you see in parks around the country are people with no more tie to Chicago than the Himalayas. And since when did Wrigley Field become 'well maintained"? That place is a dump with troughs for urinals that look like the streets of Port Au Prince, dark corners, slippery, grease coated pedestrian ramps, no decent parking and the upper deck is coming down piece by piece. It's a hovel covered with sentimentality. Until the sheep (watch out forHal Briston) stop coming to watch a second rate product at the tune of 3 million a year, the Tribune has no reason to care about the shape the park is in, or the team on the field.
|
|
#18
09-21-2005, 09:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#20
09-21-2005, 10:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
But while it's easy to blame the Sox, the fact is that much of the credit for closing the gap has to go to the Indians. In that same period, they have gone 33-12, a record of .733. And now, of their remianing 11 games, they have four against the White Sox, three against the improved-but-still-bad Tampa Bay Devil Rays, and four against the absolutely woeful Kansas City Royals. If i heard correctly on ESPN the other night, if Cleveland do beat Chicago in the AL Central, it will be the first time in Major League history a team has overcome a 15-game deficit to win a division title. I've never had any particular beef witrh the White Sox, but every time i hear those godawful commentators of theirs, i just fiund myself prayiong for a White Sox loss.
|
|
#22
09-21-2005, 10:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#23
09-21-2005, 10:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Look to the Manager. When you publicly castigate your players almost daily, performance will drop.
Additionally, much of the pitching staff was pitching better than history would have expected. They have come back to earth. On Worst team ever: Red Sox (Who I hate as only a Yankee fan can hate) are off the list. The team with the most losses all time and only 1 WS victory is the Phillies. Of any of the 16 old teams they have the lowest all time winning percentage and accumulating losses since 1883 they actually have more losses than the Cubs and every other team in the history of the world. (No other team has the games played except the original NL teams) Philadelphia Phillies (1890 - 1942,1945 - 2004) - 1 World Championship, 5 Pennants, and 9 Playoff Appearances Philadelphia Blue Jays (1943, 1944) Philadelphia Quakers (1883 - 1889) Thank you to Excel and Baseball Reference Aggregate record 8591-9805 0.467 They are within stiking range of 10000 losses now. The WhiteSox are attempting a collaspe to rival the 51 Dodgers, 78 Red Sox and 63 or 64 Phillies {I can't remember the Year, it does seem to be as famous as the other 2}
|
|
#24
09-21-2005, 10:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#26
09-21-2005, 11:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
And it was 1964. Friggin' Mauch.
|
|
#27
09-21-2005, 11:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#28
09-21-2005, 11:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
LOL Thanks on the 1964 part. I couldn't verify. You're right. Phillie fan are very good at not being loud feel sorry for me matyr like certain New England Fans were known to me. Silent sufferers.
|
|
#29
09-21-2005, 12:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
In Chicago, a lot of good points were made regarding the park and neighborhood (i.e. liquor). Wrigley, despite its many failings (the homoerotic/turkish bath style urinals don't help) has ivy and nostalgia. Comiskey is a fusion of old style retro parks and modern day parks. As in food, imo, fusion in architecture (well, baseball stadiums) don't mix. There really isn't much to do before, during, or after the game. With the media giant WGN broadcasting games all over the world, it's no wonder everyone identifies Chicago with the Cubs over the White Sox. To the OP: the Sox have been seriously lacking in the lumber department all year. They are seriously lacking it now. Pitching, while still great, can't win every game. There isn't that much depth, either, not like the Tribe, in either hitting or pitching. Over the course of 162 games, pitchers become hittable and batters become tired.
|
|
#30
09-21-2005, 01:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Regarding Cubs dominance in Chicago, even when attendance was similar in the 1970's and early 1980's, the Cubs had way more fans. They just didn't start filling up the park until the North Side re-gentrified and a lot of people started living close to the ballpark. The Cubs were more aggressive in getting their games onto radio and television, throughout the Midwest, in the early days of both media, and they benefited from the more affluent (and, in days of segregated baseball, whiter) population that lived on the North Side in the early 1900's and fanned out into the suburbs and passed the Cubbies on (like a genetic disease) to their children.
|
|
#32
09-21-2005, 02:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Not WORK SAFE (I don't know why) http://images.google.com/images?svnu...rinals+Wrigley
|
|
#33
09-21-2005, 04:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#34
09-21-2005, 05:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Yankee stadium has a definate shortage of bathrooms as does Shea. The old Veterans stadium actually smelled like a bathroom. I like Wrigley alot. I was only there twice. The troughs were fine but different.
|
|
#35
09-21-2005, 06:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I knew that, probably should have quoted the earlier poster.
|
|
#36
09-21-2005, 06:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Yeah, it's in a bad neighborhood. But in terms of the stadium itself, it's superior in every way. Wrigley has ivy; Comiskey doesn't smell like piss, has better ballpark food, and just looks terrific. It's a really nice park. As to the current pennant race, Sox fans should bear in mind that even if the Indians streak to the end and win the division, the Sox would likely still make the playoffs. They're four games ahead of the Yankees, who have had to get hot just to get that close. There's not that much time left; even 6-6 the rest of the way means New York has to go 11-1 to pass them. Plus they're 3.5 ahead of Cleveland and Boston. They'd have to collapse even worse than the current slump AND have Boston, New York, and Cleveland all play really well to miss the playoffs. I know it's possible, but it's really, really unlikely, much unlikelier than I think people realize - I'd say the odds of Chicago missing the playoffs are like one in a hundred, tops.
|
|
#37
09-21-2005, 06:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
[hijack]I've been going to Wrigley since I was 7 (which was in 1969 - how's that for a formative experience?) So I'm used to the troughs. I'm also been in my share of clubs, bars and concert venues where women got tired of long bathroom lines and invaded the men's john. No big deal. Hell, certain trendy spots have gone unisex. But it was seriously weird to see women in the Wrigley johns earlier this month. Not at a game, of course. At Wrigley's first ever concert. (Good concert. Although I'm still not much of a Buffet fan, he knows how to put on a show.) [/hijack]
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
