PDA

View Full Version : Another nice thing about making the playoffs this year...


asindc
10-07-2008, 04:16 PM
One of the things I like about the current management is that they seem to make a commitment to compete every year. I have been rooting for the Sox since the 1960s, and not since those great Sox teams that always came up just short of the damn Yanks have I felt like the Sox were poised to be perennial contenders. Just check out this historical trend since 1919:

1919- AL Pennant winners

1959- AL Pennant winners: 40-year gap between playoff appearances

1983- AL West champions: 24-year gap

1993- AL West champions: 10-year gap

2000- AL Central champions: 7-year gap

2005- World Series champions: 5-year gap

2008- AL Central champions: 3-year gap.


I remember wondering through the 80s and 90s why can't the Sox be contenders more years than not, if not every year. That's also why 1994 was such a bitter disapointment for me, since I thought that team was better than the 1993 team and thus had a better chance to go to the World Series.

Does this guarantee that the trend will continue? Of course not. But it does reflect, IMO, a change in attitude in team management. I had questioned Reinsdorf's commitment to winning before this decade, but I credit him, KW, Ozzie, and others for developing a more winning culture with this franchise in recent years. Here's to the continued commitment...:gulp::gulp:

ChiSoxFan81
10-07-2008, 04:25 PM
One of the things I like about the current management is that they seem to make a commitment to compete every year. I have been rooting for the Sox since the 1960s, and not since those great Sox teams that always came up just short of the damn Yanks have I felt like the Sox were poised to be perennial contenders. Just check out this historical trend since 1919:

1919- AL Pennant winners

1959- AL Pennant winners: 40-year gap between playoff appearances

1983- AL West champions: 24-year gap

1993- AL West champions: 10-year gap

2000- AL Central champions: 7-year gap

2005- World Series champions: 5-year gap

2008- AL Central champions: 3-year gap.


I remember wondering through the 80s and 90s why can't the Sox be contenders more years than not, if not every year. That's also why 1994 was such a bitter disapointment for me, since I thought that team was better than the 1993 team and thus had a better chance to go to the World Series.

Does this guarantee that the trend will continue? Of course not. But it does reflect, IMO, a change in attitude in team management. I had questioned Reinsdorf's commitment to winning before this decade, but I credit him, KW, Ozzie, and others for developing a more winning culture with this franchise in recent years. Here's to the continued commitment...:gulp::gulp:


I know what you're saying. It seems we've entered a "golden age" of sorts with the Sox, which is kind of sad considering how long the franchise has been around. Three playoff appearances in this decade, and it isn't even over yet! These are the kinds of things I'd never thought I'd see growing up, so I am happy that they have been competitive, and they seem focused on staying that way whenever possible (sometimes you just have to rebuild). However, your example of the decreasing eras of drought between playoffs is probably more a byproduct of the 3-division format than anything. Don't get me wrong, the Sox have had some very good teams lately, and we've always entered as a division champ rather than a wild card. But obviously, it's easier to make the playoffs when 4 teams get in than when only 1 or 2 do. I guess you could counter by saying there are more teams around now, which is true. At any rate, our recent success is reason to be proud, and we can only hope the Sox continue to remain competitive.

asindc
10-07-2008, 04:29 PM
However, your example of the decreasing eras of drought between playoffs is probably more a byproduct of the 3-division format than anything. Don't get me wrong, the Sox have had some very good teams lately, and we've always entered as a division champ rather than a wild card. But obviously, it's easier to make the playoffs when 4 teams get in than when only 1 or 2 do. I guess you could counter by saying there are more teams around now, which is true. At any rate, our recent success is reason to be proud, and we can only hope the Sox continue to remain competitive.

Yes, I thought about that. However, this year and 1993 are the only years the Sox did not enter that playoffs with the best record in the AL. And in 1993, they were only one game worse than Toronto.

LITTLE NELL
10-07-2008, 04:59 PM
The organization has made a commitment to winning and threw out the small market mentality that we had after the strike.
As far as a golden age, we had one from 1951 to 1967. 17 straight winning seasons with 5 or 6 seasons with over 90 wins but it was those Damn Yankees.

EuroSox35
10-07-2008, 10:03 PM
The funny thing is that you can see people looking at this decade in the future and say something like 'Wow, that must have been a great time to be a Sox fan!', and that was definitely true in 05, but still, 01-04 very disappointing, we know about 06-07, and after 05, going further in the playoffs is kind of necessary to not have this 'blah' feeling that I'm feeling right now

Kenny had a great quote in a live interview in Minny after acquiring Griffey, he was sitting there looking at their division flags and said 'a lot of these should have been ours', it's true, we gave some of those away. It was nice to get the division, and it felt awesome at the time, but I still want more

JB98
10-07-2008, 10:09 PM
The funny thing is that you can see people looking at this decade in the future and say something like 'Wow, that must have been a great time to be a Sox fan!', and that was definitely true in 05, but still, 01-04 very disappointing, we know about 06-07, and after 05, going further in the playoffs is kind of necessary to not have this 'blah' feeling that I'm feeling right now

Kenny had a great quote in a live interview in Minny after acquiring Griffey, he was sitting there looking at their division flags and said 'a lot of these should have been ours', it's true, we gave some of those away. It was nice to get the division, and it felt awesome at the time, but I still want more

We've given away two division titles this decade, 2003 and 2006.

We should probably have five playoff appearances this decade, not three.

Lip Man 1
10-07-2008, 10:47 PM
Chisox 81:

The "golden age" was 51-67. One pennant (59) two near misses (64 and 67), seven seasons with 90 or more wins, 17 consecutive winning seasons (3rd longest in MLB history), nationally known players and a time when the White Sox played second fiddle to no one in the Chicago area or for that matter the upper Midwest.

Lip

aryzner
10-07-2008, 11:51 PM
I really believe the Sox will repeat as AL Central champions in 2009 and go even further into the playoffs. I like the way the young players are headed and I just think that next year will be a real good one.

guillensdisciple
10-08-2008, 12:06 AM
I still believe the Sox are one of the more succesful franchises in baseball over the past decade regardless of how many playoff appearances we have made.

SoxSpeed22
10-08-2008, 12:08 AM
If there's one thing that 2006 taught us is not to take a playoff spot for granted. We never had all areas of the game come together for us. I am also happy about the job that KW has been doing since he became the GM. He has taken a few lumps along the way, but is succeeding. There is a new commitment to winning above everything else.
I am confident that Kenny and Ozzie will field a team that will be very competitive and the Sox will contend again next year.

Edit: I'm past 4,000 posts, w00t!
:bandance:

asindc
10-08-2008, 10:07 AM
We've given away two division titles this decade, 2003 and 2006.

We should probably have five playoff appearances this decade, not three.

I agree, and I think that underscores the change in attitude of the current management. 2006 was the first year since 1965(!) that the Sox had back-to-back 90-win seasons (I think 1994 would have been another... see my original post). I think we can agree that only injuries prevented this season from being the 3rd 90-win season in the past 4 years.

Management's recent approach to the 2003 and 2006 disapointments has not been, "oh well, what are you going to do." Quite the opposite. They were pissed about it, and decided to aggressively make changes. Those changes resulted in 2005 and 2008. Let's compare the 3 most recent 5-year periods that began after a playoff appearance the previous year:

1983- 1 winning season, no playoff appearances, and an overall losing record;

1993- 2 winning seasons, no playoff appearances (1994... again, what might have been), and an overall winning record;

2000- 4 winning seasons (the 5th season was .500), 1 World Series title, and overall winning record.

I don't think there is any question that current management, including Jerry Reinsdorf, is wholly committed to winning. Previous management might have been more constrained financially, especially in the 1970s, but winning tends to break that cycle of "can't win because we don't have the financial resources but we can't get the financial resources because we don't win." Just look at this year's Tampa team. As I am fond of saying, winning cures all.

kitekrazy
10-08-2008, 12:07 PM
I still believe the Sox are one of the more succesful franchises in baseball over the past decade regardless of how many playoff appearances we have made.

At least without spending $$$. How hard would it be to be the GM of the Yankees or Red Sox?

soltrain21
10-08-2008, 12:13 PM
At least without spending $$$. How hard would it be to be the GM of the Yankees or Red Sox?

We spend a pretty good amount of money...

Ziggy S
10-08-2008, 03:19 PM
At least without spending $$$. How hard would it be to be the GM of the Yankees or Red Sox?

The Yankees and Red Sox make more broadcast, gate, advertising, memorabillia, etc revenue than most of the other teams in MLB combined. They spend the money because they haul in a lot of it and what did a two hundred plus million dollar payroll get the Yankees this year?

TDog
10-08-2008, 03:43 PM
... Let's compare the 3 most recent 5-year periods that began after a playoff appearance the previous year:

1983- 1 winning season, no playoff appearances, and an overall losing record;

1993- 2 winning seasons, no playoff appearances (1994... again, what might have been), and an overall winning record;

2000- 4 winning seasons (the 5th season was .500), 1 World Series title, and overall winning record. ....

I won't disagree with your premise that the current White Sox management is dedicated to winning. But what happened after the 1983 season does not constitute the opposite. The Sox were prohihitive favorites to repeat in 1984. They were regarded by many as having the best starting rotation in the league, and they added Tom Seaver. They floundered, developed some talent and came back with a strong young team.

In 1994, the Sox returned a competitive team that may have finished second to the Indians but probably would have made the postseason. After the strike, the Indians continued their surge and the Sox fell flat. The Sox later picked up Albert Belle but lost Robin Ventura to injury.

This decacde, this century, the White Sox have been more successful in being competitive. Injuries devestated the team in 2004 (as they did in 1973). It is to the credit of the team and management that injuries didn't devestate the 2008 Whtie Sox.

The

asindc
10-08-2008, 04:27 PM
I won't disagree with your premise that the current White Sox management is dedicated to winning. But what happened after the 1983 season does not constitute the opposite. The Sox were prohihitive favorites to repeat in 1984. They were regarded by many as having the best starting rotation in the league, and they added Tom Seaver. They floundered, developed some talent and came back with a strong young team.

In 1994, the Sox returned a competitive team that may have finished second to the Indians but probably would have made the postseason. After the strike, the Indians continued their surge and the Sox fell flat. The Sox later picked up Albert Belle but lost Robin Ventura to injury.

This decacde, this century, the White Sox have been more successful in being competitive. Injuries devestated the team in 2004 (as they did in 1973). It is to the credit of the team and management that injuries didn't devestate the 2008 Whtie Sox.

The

I think you are right in noting that management in the period after the 1983 playoff appearance did not exactly adopt a cavalier attitude towards winning. I did not intend to imply that. My posts here, rather, are meant to illustrate the aggressiveness of current management, and not necessarily in comparison to previous management, and that the current trend is promising.

Another point I am making here is that this period of success we are presently enjoying as Sox fans has been all too seldom seen in the past, for whatever reason. Only the 1917-1920 period compares, IMO. As I noted before, in some cases, previous management was more financially constrained than current management. And for what it's worth, 1994 stands as the single most frustrating season for me as a Sox fan for the reasons I stated earlier and you state above.

Lip Man 1
10-08-2008, 08:17 PM
Injuries probably cost the Sox postseason appearances twice in the 1950's (injuries to Dick Donovan and Sherm Lollar) in 1963 (injuries to Joe Cunningham and Johnny Buzhardt), 1973 (the Sox used the DL an amazing 35 times!), 2001 (remember the nightmare of having no one to pitch because of all the off season surgeries?) and 2004 (injuries to Ordonez and Thomas.)

Lip