PDA

View Full Version : Espn & the sox


sneuert
04-08-2009, 11:34 AM
Has anyone else ever noticed how ESPN always tends to refer to the Red Sox as the SOX in headlines on espn.com?

Last night I was on espn.com looking to see if Thome's homer made the headlines but all I saw was "Pedroia, Beckett lift Sox by Rays". I knew it wasn't the White Sox but my eyes immediately went to the story as the word SOX was in the headline. While I will be the first to admit Red Sox fans out number White Sox fans 10-1 I find it to be extremely biased on ESPN’s part.

ESPN is a news organization and should not assume everyone is thinking Red Sox when they see the words Sox. As both teams wins and losses count the same they should stick to the facts and not report based on their obvious east coast bias/more popular fan base.

I was so ticked that I wrote to espn.com basically stating what I did above. This morning the headline was changed to “Pedroia, Beckett lift BoSox by Rays”.

Not that this is really a big issue but if people see ESPN continually refer to the SOX as the Red Sox just click on the link at the bottom of their website and send them an email.

Maybe I am petty but I am sick of all the Red Sox love over the past couple years. All they are is the American league version of the cubs (minus the championship drought).

Rocky Soprano
04-08-2009, 11:35 AM
Don't watch ESPN, problem solved.

esbrechtel
04-08-2009, 11:38 AM
he wasn't watching...he was using their website...

I think calling them the Bosox shouldn't be that big of a deal. But I don't think calling them the sox should upset us too much :dunno:

Maybe we should be the Sox and they should be the Saux :redneck (Half teal)

RedHeadPaleHoser
04-08-2009, 11:39 AM
First off, welcome aboard.

Second - ignore it. It won't go away and getting your blood pressure up over it doesn't help.

Third - they'll talk about then White Sox when they have to. If they ignore the White Sox, and the White Sox do well, then all the better. ESPN does not verify or nullify anything the White Sox do.

asindc
04-08-2009, 11:49 AM
First off, welcome aboard.

Second - ignore it. It won't go away and getting your blood pressure up over it doesn't help.

Third - they'll talk about then White Sox when they have to. If they ignore the White Sox, and the White Sox do well, then all the better. ESPN does not verify or nullify anything the White Sox do.

True, but the OP has point, journalistically speaking. It is lazy and too vague to refer to either the Sox or Boston as simply "the Sox" without proper context. If someone is inclined to bring this to any news organization's attention, I'm certainly not going to discourage them.

jdm2662
04-08-2009, 11:51 AM
ESPN has been garabge for years. They were only useful for NFL coverage, but even that got crappy. The NFL Network takes care of that problem. If you want Sox highlights, either watch Comcast Sports net or go to MLB.com.

ChiSoxFan81
04-08-2009, 11:52 AM
Well, besides the fact that simply "Sox" should refer only to the Chicago ballclub, would it really kill them to add "Red" or "Bo" in front of it to clarify? Like the other day I was wondering why the Blue Jackets' abbreviation was CBJ and not COL, but then I thought of Colorado. They shouldn't refer to either Sox without the color or at least Bo/Chi.

chisox77
04-08-2009, 12:32 PM
This only brushes the subject - but I always like it when national sports professionals called our Sox the "chisox" - I love that to this day - it says it all, and is the reason why it provides the base of my nickname here on WSI.

:cool:

I want Mags back
04-08-2009, 12:38 PM
This only brushes the subject - but I always like it when national sports professionals called our Sox the "chisox" - I love that to this day - it says it all, and is the reason why it provides the base of my nickname here on WSI.

:cool:

I despise the term "Chisox". We are the Sox, plain and simple. Been that way since 1904

We wear SOX on our hats and most jerseys. Boston has a B on there hat, and has NEVER had just SOX on their uniforms.

Sox
04-08-2009, 01:13 PM
Not differentiating between the Red Sox, and the White Sox, is nothing more than a case of lazy journalism that seems to so rampant today.

aryzner
04-08-2009, 01:19 PM
I despise the term "Chisox". We are the Sox, plain and simple. Been that way since 1904

We wear SOX on our hats and most jerseys. Boston has a B on there hat, and has NEVER had just SOX on their uniforms.
I was just going to ask the question about whether or not Boston has even ever worn just the word "SOX" on their jerseys like the White Sox have.

Railsplitter
04-08-2009, 01:24 PM
1902: Chicago Whte Sox, Boston Pilgrims. 'Nuff said.

bigdommer
04-08-2009, 01:29 PM
I used to be bothered by the assumption of "Sox" being for Boston, but I am sure that Oklahoma State fans hate when "OSU" is used to refer to Ohio State. I am from the region and most people don't realize that I am closer to the Sears Tower than a farm just because I am from "Indiana."

Rooting for the other "Sox" is great on the East coast outside of Boston. When I wear a hat or jersey or mention my "Sox," random people are relieved that I am not another annoying Boston fan.

Eddo144
04-08-2009, 01:34 PM
I despise the term "Chisox". We are the Sox, plain and simple. Been that way since 1904

We wear SOX on our hats and most jerseys. Boston has a B on there hat, and has NEVER had just SOX on their uniforms.
It's the "White Sox", plain and simple. If you're going to take offense when the Red Sox are referred to as the "Sox" because it's ambiguous, then you'd better take offense when the White Sox are as well.

Thome25
04-08-2009, 01:48 PM
I despise the term "Chisox". We are the Sox, plain and simple. Been that way since 1904

We wear SOX on our hats and most jerseys. Boston has a B on there hat, and has NEVER had just SOX on their uniforms.


The White Sox were "The Sox" before 1904.....the Red Sox did not adopt the very similar name until 1907.....before that they were called "Pilgrims", "Americans", and "Bean Eaters".

So if anyone deserves to simply be called "The Sox" it's our beloved Chicago ballclub because we had the name first.....we were also the first ones to put the word "Sox" on our uniforms.

It pisses me off when ESPN refers to the Red Sawx as "The Sox". I know they're based in New England but, do they have to blatantly act like Boston is the center of the sports universe? They should know that there is a team on the southside of Chicago that was called "The Sox" years before the Boston Baseball Club was.

Sox
04-08-2009, 02:37 PM
Well that's what you get when ESPN's headquarters are located in Bristol,Conn. I guess much like the king and queen of Spain felt about Christopher Columbus's expedition to the new world, that anything past Bristol, and you fall off the face of the earth. You might say that the ESPN broadcasters are part of the flat earth society.

RockyMtnSoxFan
04-08-2009, 02:48 PM
I despise the term "Chisox". We are the Sox, plain and simple. Been that way since 1904

We wear SOX on our hats and most jerseys. Boston has a B on there hat, and has NEVER had just SOX on their uniforms.

+1

The hats say it all.

FoulTerritory
04-08-2009, 02:50 PM
Yeah. This is all very much a chicken egg discussion. Growing up in the late 70's and 80's, I never thought of Boston more or less than any other team. And I certainly never even conceived of the NY / Bos rivalry to be something worthy of being followed anywhere out side of Bos and NY.

ESPN can now claim that they give so much coverage to the Red Sox due to them having so many fans, but in reality, the ESPN phenomenon seems to have had an immense impact in terms of creating many of those fans.

In a sense, I think ESPN has written their own self-fullfilling narrative: "If we continuously tell people that the Red Sox are the best story in sports, eventually they will start believing it, and then we will be bound to the continuing perpetuation of that narrative."

ChiSoxFan81
04-08-2009, 02:52 PM
Yeah. This is all very much a chicken egg discussion. Growing up in the late 70's and 80's, I never thought of Boston more or less than any other team. And I certainly never even conceived of the NY / Bos rivalry to be something worthy of being followed anywhere out side of Bos and NY.

ESPN can now claim that they give so much coverage to the Red Sox due to them having so many fans, but in reality, the ESPN phenomenon seems to have had an immense impact in terms of creating many of those fans.

In a sense, I think ESPN has written their own self-fullfilling narrative: "If we continuously tell people that the Red Sox are the best story in sports, eventually they will start believing it, and then we will be bound to the continuing perpetuation of that narrative."

It worked for the Trib

I want Mags back
04-08-2009, 03:01 PM
The White Sox were "The Sox" before 1904.....the Red Sox did not adopt the very similar name until 1907.....before that they were called "Pilgrims", "Americans", and "Bean Eaters".


No, they weren't. I know Wiki isnt the most reliable info source, but take it for what it's worth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Sox
Name
Chicago White Sox (1904–present)
(Chicago) White Stockings (1900-1903)
*From 1900 to 1903, the official name did not contain the city name of Chicago, although it was based there

St. Paul Saints (1895-1899)
Sioux City Cornhuskers (1894)

After acquiring a number of stars from the older league, including pitcher and manager Clark Griffith, the White Stockings also captured the AL's first major-league pennant the next year, in 1901. Headline editors at the Chicago Tribune sports department immediately began shortening the name to "White Sox," and the team officially adopted the shorter name in 1904.

LITTLE NELL
04-08-2009, 03:06 PM
I tell all my Red Sox fans down here that if it was'nt for Charles Comiskey and the Sox there would be no Boston Red Sox. That shuts them up.

Thome25
04-08-2009, 04:08 PM
No, they weren't. I know Wiki isnt the most reliable info source, but take it for what it's worth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Sox

You know that Wikipedia is user written and not the most accurate source of information right?

The word "Sox" was merely an abbreviation of the word "Stockings" so that it would fit better into newspaper columns and later, their uniforms.

They never officially adopted the word "Sox".......it was thrown on them as a matter of convienence.

My source was "baseball Uniforms of the 20th Century" by Mark Okkonen. Mr. Okkonen did extensive research on the history of teams' names and their uniforms. The drawings of faceless mannequins that you see with examples of throwback uniforms on them are his.

By your definition, the White Sox didn't become the "Sox" until 1911 when they acknowledged the word on their uniform for the first time.

Stockings and Sox were one and the same. It's simply an abbreviation. Saying "Stockings" and "Sox" aren't the same name is like saying "Mountain" and "Mt." aren't the same. Either way, it's the same thing only abbreviated. The White Sox were the White Stockings since their inception and therefore had the name since 1900 not 1904:

The White Sox shortened the name partly to disclaim an association with the earlier National League Chicago White Stockings (now known as the Cubs.) but, more likely it was done to economize on space in newspaper accounts of the games.

The Red Stockings or Red Sox adopted the name in 1907 the season before that they were known as the "Nationals":

The Abbreviated SOX spelling followed the precedent of of the Chicago White Sox.

Eddo144
04-08-2009, 04:15 PM
I tell all my Red Sox fans down here that if it was'nt for Charles Comiskey and the Sox there would be no Boston Red Sox. That shuts them up.
And if it wasn't for the Cubs originally having the name "White Stockings", there would be no Chicago White Sox.

Seriously, this argument is ridiculous. There are two teams with "Sox" in their names. Regardless of which team used the name first, both use it now, so how about we just try and use "Red Sox" and "White Sox" when it's not clear which one is being referred to.

Thome25
04-08-2009, 04:23 PM
And if it wasn't for the Cubs originally having the name "White Stockings", there would be no Chicago White Sox.

Seriously, this argument is ridiculous. There are two teams with "Sox" in their names. Regardless of which team used the name first, both use it now, so how about we just try and use "Red Sox" and "White Sox" when it's not clear which one is being referred to.

Sounds good to me, it's ridiculous for a national media outlet to refer to one team or the other as "The Sox" when the audience could be made up of both teams fans.

Local outlets are fine because there's no confusion who they're talking about.

chisoxfanatic
04-08-2009, 04:26 PM
Why not go to CNN Sportsline or another site to get your news. Boycott ESPN and ESPN.com if you're that pissed. For viewing, the MLB Network does a great job in covering each team.

Thome25
04-08-2009, 04:33 PM
Why not go to CNN Sportsline or another site to get your news. Boycott ESPN and ESPN.com if you're that pissed. For viewing, the MLB Network does a great job in covering each team.


That's the best idea yet.

BubblingCalderon
04-08-2009, 09:22 PM
Maybe they could invent a diacritic symbol to place on top of the O in sox to show that its pronounced in a boston accent. I suggest a bean.

I want Mags back
04-08-2009, 11:14 PM
You know that Wikipedia is user written and not the most accurate source of information right?


no ****, but I'd like to see a link to ur info, because 1904 is what I have always understood it to be.

Stockings is absolutely not the same as Sox, IMO.

I want Mags back
04-08-2009, 11:17 PM
By your definition, the White Sox didn't become the "Sox" until 1911 when they acknowledged the word on their uniform for the first time.


thats not true at all. By my def. they became the White Sox when they officially changed the name in 1904. And even if it wasn't "official," that's when its assumed to be.

DaveFeelsRight
04-08-2009, 11:22 PM
i usually see BoSox and ChiSox

Thome25
04-09-2009, 09:55 AM
no ****, but I'd like to see a link to ur info, because 1904 is what I have always understood it to be.

Stockings is absolutely not the same as Sox, IMO.

I don't have a link......I had the book sitting right in front of me. We'll have to agree to disagree because obviously you don't know an abbreviation when you see one.

St. Louis= SAINT Louis

Mt.= Mountain

Ave.= Avenue

Cal= Calorie

Mr. = Mister

USA = United States Of America

VS = Versus

SOX = Stockings

Again, the word SOX was an abbreviation of the word Stockings to save space in newspaper columns and on their uniforms/caps. The names are one and the same IMO.

doublem23
04-09-2009, 11:02 AM
SOX = Stockings

Again, the word SOX was an abbreviation of the word Stockings to save space in newspaper columns and on their uniforms/caps. The names are one and the same IMO.

It's a bit different, though, because White Sox is a proper noun, that's what the team actually calls itself. As has already been mentioned, people sometimes refer to the Chicago White Sox as the "Chisox." Does that mean Chisox is the official name for the team? No. "Sox" may have first come along as a way for printers to save ink (that's the urban legend), but there ultimately had to be a time when they officially changed the name from Chicago White Stockings (the original) to Chicago White Sox (their current official name). USA, Mt., St. are all commonly understood abbreviations. Maybe in the early 1900's Sox and Stockings were commonly interchanged, but I wouldn't say that's the same any longer.

seventyseven
04-09-2009, 11:32 AM
ESPN is a news organization

This is debatable.

Sox
04-09-2009, 11:35 AM
And if it wasn't for the Cubs originally having the name "White Stockings", there would be no Chicago White Sox.

Seriously, this argument is ridiculous. There are two teams with "Sox" in their names. Regardless of which team used the name first, both use it now, so how about we just try and use "Red Sox" and "White Sox" when it's not clear which one is being referred to.

Thank you that was my point exactly.:smile:

Sox
04-09-2009, 11:37 AM
This is debatable.

I would have to agree that ESPN is not exactly "fair and balanced.":wink:

palehozenychicty
04-09-2009, 11:38 AM
I despise the term "Chisox". We are the Sox, plain and simple. Been that way since 1904

We wear SOX on our hats and most jerseys. Boston has a B on there hat, and has NEVER had just SOX on their uniforms.


Thank you. Chisox just sounds wrong.

Shoeless
04-09-2009, 09:56 PM
We're the Sox. They're the "sawks"

Frankfan4life
04-09-2009, 10:24 PM
I don't have a link......I had the book sitting right in front of me. We'll have to agree to disagree because obviously you don't know an abbreviation when you see one.

St. Louis= SAINT Louis

Mt.= Mountain

Ave.= Avenue

Cal= Calorie

Mr. = Mister

USA = United States Of America

VS = Versus

SOX = Stockings

Again, the word SOX was an abbreviation of the word Stockings to save space in newspaper columns and on their uniforms/caps. The names are one and the same IMO.Here's two you missed:

Mets = Metropolitans
A's = Athletics

I might add that stockings used to be the popular term for socks back in the day.

dakuda
04-09-2009, 10:41 PM
To jump in with the chisox portion of the discussion:

When not on my computer at home (where I have a bookmark), I have used chisox.com as the URL for the official website for years. I actually cannot recall ever typing whitesox.com, ever.

russ99
04-10-2009, 12:24 AM
ESPN thinks there's more than one MLB team in Chicago? That would be a change.

And yes, the Cubs were called the "White Stockings" in the American Association well before the AL and NL existed. So we can't lay claim on that. And as I recall they played on the South Side too.

But I must admit that I absolutely love it when Hawk calls the Red Sox the Carmines. :D:

IlliniSox4Life
04-10-2009, 03:51 AM
So if Sox and Stockings are one in the same, that would mean we are still the Chicago White Stockings, wouldn't it?

....


Yeah, they are different.

Thome25
04-10-2009, 08:43 AM
Here's two you missed:

Mets = Metropolitans
A's = Athletics

I might add that stockings used to be the popular term for socks back in the day.

How about these?

Nats=Nationals

M's= Mariners

O's= Orioles

Phils= Phillies

Dbacks= Diamondbacks

Yanks= Yankees

'Stros= Astros

Abbreviating MLB teams names is nothing new......the White Stockings simply abbreviated their name down to White Sox.

Nobody calls the Mets the Metropolitans anymore just like no one calls the White Sox the White Stockings anymore.

asindc
04-10-2009, 08:51 AM
How about these?

Nats=Nationals

M's= Mariners

O's= Orioles

Phils= Phillies

Dbacks= Diamondbacks

Yanks= Yankees

'Stros= Astros

Abbreviating MLB teams names is nothing new......the White Stockings simply abbreviated their name down to White Sox.

Nobody calls the Mets the Metropolitans anymore just like no one calls the White Sox the White Stockings anymore.

Technically, the Mets have never been the "Metropolitans." The formal name has always been the Mets. Metropolitans is just simply implied and understood as the long form.

PKalltheway
04-10-2009, 09:03 AM
How about these?

Nats=Nationals

M's= Mariners

O's= Orioles

Phils= Phillies

Dbacks= Diamondbacks

Yanks= Yankees

'Stros= Astros

Abbreviating MLB teams names is nothing new......the White Stockings simply abbreviated their name down to White Sox.

Nobody calls the Mets the Metropolitans anymore just like no one calls the White Sox the White Stockings anymore.
I agree that abbreviating team names is nothing new. You could probably add the Reds to that list as well. Reds was/is basically an abbreviation for "Redlegs" or "Red Stockings," or in short, "Red Sox."

WhiteSoxJunkie
04-10-2009, 05:39 PM
Chicago was the Sox before Boston was. But then again the current White Sox stole their name from the former White Stockings, who are now the Cubs.

Frankfan4life
04-11-2009, 02:21 AM
Technically, the Mets have never been the "Metropolitans." The formal name has always been the Mets. Metropolitans is just simply implied and understood as the long form.You are correct. The Mets have always been known as the Mets but according to the Mets MLB website, Mets is a nickname.

http://newyork.mets.mlb.com/nym/history/timeline1.jsp

I want Mags back
04-11-2009, 10:39 AM
You are correct. The Mets have always been known as the Mets but according to the Mets MLB website, Mets is a nickname.

http://newyork.mets.mlb.com/nym/history/timeline1.jsp

Nickname means the team name in sports