PDA

View Full Version : Most Disappointing


pudge
06-11-2002, 01:00 AM
Thankfully my power was out and I couldn't watch tonight's loss... but I was struck with the thought that this 2002 team for me ranks as the third-most disappointing of all time, with the first being 1995, followed by '92...

1995: For obvious reasons - We were in first after the '94 strike, came out flatter than a five-year-old girl, looked terrible to start the season and fell into a big hole. Gene Lamont finally got the boot he deserved, but Terry Bev followed - all in all a nightmare season that eventually led to a long slide, leading up to Albert Belle and the White Flag Trade.

1992: We had a break-out season in 1990, Schu added some nice pieces in '91, and a new manager, but it didn't gell. Then he traded Sosa for Bell and signed Steve Sax. Despite all that, this team underachieved night after night. A terribly frustrating season.

2002: After winning in 2000, injuries and stupid trades hurt the club the next season, but they bounced out of a 14-29 hole and finished over .500 in 2001. They start 2002 with a questionable series in Seattle, but then go on a tear, starting 15-7. But it's all a mirage, as Kenny Lofton slows down and gets injured, the big bats disappear, Clayton and Alomar are exposed for the wastes that they are, and the Sox stumble to a second (maybe third?) place finish behind Minnesota. (For the sake of this argument I'm assuming we ain't winning the division this year, which is looking more and more likely.)

I want to hear others' most disappointing seasons and where this year ranks (1997 maybe? Although I never thought that team would do well - Doug Drabek? Danny Darwin? Please!). I'd love to hear from old-timers who can go back a bit and give us some bummers of the past...

Peace out, and here's to a damn winning streak for a change...

Nellie_Fox
06-11-2002, 01:16 AM
How about the '84 team? After going 99-63 and walking away with the division title in '83, they turn around with essentially the same club and go 74-88 the next year.

FarWestChicago
06-11-2002, 01:25 AM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
How about the '84 team? After going 99-63 and walking away with the division title in '83, they turn around with essentially the same club and go 74-88 the next year. Thanks for reminding me of that, Nellie :smile:

ISUSoxfan
06-11-2002, 01:40 AM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
How about the '84 team? After going 99-63 and walking away with the division title in '83, they turn around with essentially the same club and go 74-88 the next year.
Tony LaRussa

Nellie_Fox
06-11-2002, 01:47 AM
Originally posted by ISUSoxfan

Tony LaRussa He was the manager of both clubs. Not a LaRussa fan, I'm guessing?

ISUSoxfan
06-11-2002, 02:21 AM
Any manager could have won with the club we had in 1983, and any manager except LaRussa would have won in 1984. As far as I'm concerned, Hawk is the best GM we ever had just because he had the guts to fire LaRussa.

LaRussa cost us the 1983 playoff series with the contact play in game 4. We lost 3 games to 1, but we had Lamar Hoyt going in game 5.

Since then, LaRussa had the best team in baseball 3 years in a row in Oakland, and only won 1 World Series. The kicker was when he got swept by the underdog Reds in 1990.

After that he got worse. In 1996 with St. Louis he had a 3-1 series lead over the Braves and would have been headed to the World Series with just 1 win in the next 3 games, but dumb LaRussa pitched all of his pitchers on 3 days rest like he was trying to win all 3 games...of course he lost all 3 and the Braves went on to lose to the Yanks. If LaRussa would have just rested his pitchers 1 more day, his best two starters would have pitched on full rest, and only one of them needed to win. Instead he sent them out there tired, and they both lost.

In the 2000 playoffs LaRussa completely missmanaged when to pinch hit McGuire. First he went a whole game and never got Mac to the plate, then the next game he pinch hit him with first base open.

Last year in the playoffs LaRussa made mistakes that all the Cardinal fans I know were mad about, but I forgot what those mistakes were...he's made so many blunders in the post season that I just can't keep track anymore. At least he only cost the Sox 1 playoff series. I would really hate him if I was an A's or Cards fan.

The single worst GM move in the history of modern baseball (excluding the Cubs) was the Cardinals firing Joe Torre to bring in Tony Laussa.

Paulwny
06-11-2002, 05:38 AM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
How about the '84 team? After going 99-63 and walking away with the division title in '83, they turn around with essentially the same club and go 74-88 the next year.

They win the div. by 20gms, still a relatively young team, it looked like a 5yr run at the top and then total collapse in '84.
I'm still shaking my head in disbelief.

raul12
06-11-2002, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by ISUSoxfan
As far as I'm concerned, Hawk is the best GM we ever had just because he had the guts to fire LaRussa.

LaRussa cost us the 1983 playoff series with the contact play in game 4. We lost 3 games to 1, but we had Lamar Hoyt going in game 5.



i hope you're kidding re: hawk.....

re: 1983, you seem to forget that the orioles were a damn good team in 1983--actually finished 1 game better than the sox. to think that larussa "cost" us the 1983 series would be stretch.

the other thing about larussa--he actually got TO the playoffs...more than we can say about most of the managers we have had since then. he's gotten their with the two teams he's been with since the sox....you might want to ask the same question about gene lamont and bevington...along with all the other failures since then.

yes he's made some mistakes, but geez, he's the best manager we've had in 20 years.

hold2dibber
06-11-2002, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
How about the '84 team? After going 99-63 and walking away with the division title in '83, they turn around with essentially the same club and go 74-88 the next year.

Actually, we had the essentially the same club, PLUS, hall of famer Tom Seaver. I thought they were going to run away with it that year. Then, to add insult to injury, the Cubs won their division in '84. That was a seriously bad season.

Procol Harum
06-11-2002, 11:51 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber


Actually, we had the essentially the same club, PLUS, hall of famer Tom Seaver. I thought they were going to run away with it that year. Then, to add insult to injury, the Cubs won their division in '84. That was a seriously bad season.

Yep, the Seaver acquisition made it look like we would be unstoppable--"Best pitching staff in Major League history" I think was the damning statement that one of the Sox management goofs uttered--little did we know. To make matters worse, the team looked like they were finally starting to get it together right before the All-Star break. That must have been a momentum breaker because they went right in the dumper from there. What made it all the more frustrating was that I seem to recall that we could have won the division that year with 88-89 wins.

Other disappointing teams:

-1965: Sox had come so close the year before (98 wins, one behind Yankees), and then to tease us all the more they won 10 games in a row in May as the Yankees plummeted nto the second division--they played ok for the rest of the year but the Twins were the team that caught fire and the Sox ended up in 2nd place again (back in the days of the 10-team AL race), 8-9 games out.

-1968: The unraveling of the 1963-1967 Sox team. First under .500 Sox team in about 20 years, came as quite a shock after having established a tradition of good baseball. Also hurt because we had come so close the year before, blowing a gift-wrapped chance to win the pennant in the final week.

-1973: Injuries killed us (Bill Melton, Dick Allen, Ken Henderson) early in the year after we had given the Oakland A's of Reggie Jackson, Vida Blue, Catfish Hunter, Joe Rudi, etc., etc. a run for their money in 1972 (we had actually managed to go out to Oakland in August and win a big series and get into first place for a few days). A wasted '73 was followed by a mediocre '74 and that particular team (Wilbur Wood, Stan Bahnsen, Carlos May among the other stalwarts) faded away.

-1978: We had lost Richie Zisk and Oscar Gamble to free agency so no one really expected us to follow up the success of the '77 South Side Hit Men--but after all that excitement it was still a big let-down.


That's enough depression for now....

Nellie_Fox
06-12-2002, 02:48 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
...Then, to add insult to injury, the Cubs won their division in '84. That was a seriously bad season. I was trying not to remember that part. And, after mild interest in the Chicago media for the '83 Sox division championship, remember the absolute hysteria for the '84 Cubs? Entire front page of both papers (didn't happen for the Sox the year before.)

This thread is making me want to open a vein.

Procol Harum
06-12-2002, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by raul12


re: 1983, you seem to forget that the orioles were a damn good team in 1983--actually finished 1 game better than the sox.

Nope, Sox had a better record that year, 99-63, O's were 98-64.

http://www.baseballreference.com/teams/BAL/1983.shtml

In terms of the two teams, the general consensus at the time among the nat'l "experts" was that the Sox pitching and power gave them the edge. So much for the experts.

Procol Harum
06-12-2002, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by Procol Harum
What made it all the more frustrating was that I seem to recall that we could have won the division that year with 88-89 wins.


I correct myself about '84--the Sox could have won the division with 85 wins...KC won that year w/ a measly 84.

http://www.baseballreference.com/leagues/AL_1984.shtml

Typical, typical, typical.

ISUSoxfan
06-12-2002, 01:41 PM
We actually could have won the division in 1984 with 82 wins if a few more of them were against KC.

Of course watching the Cubs choke in San Diego would not have been as much fun if we were worried about our own team going up against Sparky Anderson's Tigers with Tony LaRussa calling the shots.

raul12
06-12-2002, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by Procol Harum


Nope, Sox had a better record that year, 99-63, O's were 98-64.


DOH! (do we have a homer "doh!" tag? I didn't see one, but for some reason i thought we did--maybe i'm thinking of the bart tag....)

however, for some reason i remember the o's having homefield advantage in that series.....maybe that's the hazing of the past 19 years that's skewed my memory.

RKMeibalane
06-12-2002, 03:33 PM
Baltimore did have homefield, and they won the series 3-1, back when this round was only a best of five series.

ISUSoxfan
06-12-2002, 05:35 PM
Home field alternated between divisions back then. It had nothing to do with record. KC had home field in 1984 even though Detroit had a much better record.

Procol Harum
06-12-2002, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by RKMeibalane
Baltimore did have homefield, and they won the series 3-1, back when this round was only a best of five series.

Nope, Sox had homefield. We split the first two games in Baltimore and then lost the two games in Chicago. If the Dybber incident hadn't occurred and the Sox could have eeked out a victory, the final game was slated for the next day--Sunday night actually--with Dewey LaMarr Hoyt on the mound. Ohhhhh, it's still painful to think about.

Nellie_Fox
06-13-2002, 02:16 AM
Originally posted by Procol Harum


Nope, Sox had homefield. We split the first two games in Baltimore and then lost the two games in Chicago. If the Dybber incident hadn't occurred and the Sox could have eeked out a victory, the final game was slated for the next day--Sunday night actually--with Dewey LaMarr Hoyt on the mound. Ohhhhh, it's still painful to think about. In the best of five format, if the first two were in Baltimore and the second two in Chicago, game five would have gone back to Baltimore, thus Baltimore had home field. And yes, back then they just alternated years for home field.

PaleHoseGeorge
06-13-2002, 02:23 AM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
In the best of five format, if the first two were in Baltimore and the second two in Chicago, game five would have gone back to Baltimore, thus Baltimore had home field. And yes, back then they just alternated years for home field.

I know the NBA plays a 2-2-1 format for their five-game series, and that's a lot fairer than a 2-3 format. However, it was a 2-3 that baseball was using in the early-80's.

You may recall the 1984 Lovable Losers winning the first two games of the NLCS at Wrigley, then cackling about how they only needed one victory in San Diego. They lost three straight!

You knew I couldn't pass up a chance to take a shot at the Flubbies, didn't you?

:)

pudge
06-13-2002, 02:25 AM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
In the best of five format, if the first two were in Baltimore and the second two in Chicago, game five would have gone back to Baltimore, thus Baltimore had home field. And yes, back then they just alternated years for home field.

Nellie, I don't think that's correct, because in '84 the Cubs played the first two at Wrigley, then lost 3 in a row IN San Diego, which means back then the best of 5 went 2-3.

Nellie_Fox
06-13-2002, 02:31 AM
I guess you guys must be right, but damn, 2-3 is sure no home field advantage. I suppose that since they were alternating years rather than going by best record, they figured that was the closest they could come to no home field advantage at all.

ISUSoxfan
06-13-2002, 04:00 AM
Now that it has been brought up, the 2-3 format does ring a bell. That is how they did it, and it was alternating. And as I recall, it was the NL East's turn to host the series in 1984, but the Urinal was not complete yet. They still needed lights and a flushing device, so San Diego got the 3 home games. The Cub infield was not complete either, because their first baseman had one ball between his legs in game 5.

Procol Harum
06-13-2002, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
I guess you guys must be right, but damn, 2-3 is sure no home field advantage. I suppose that since they were alternating years rather than going by best record, they figured that was the closest they could come to no home field advantage at all.

Nellie, ol' Procol might not be able to remember the name of the guy he met and talked to for half an hour this morning, but he can remember details about baseball series played pert near 20 years ago. All part of being a gaffer. :)