PDA

View Full Version : What's your favorite historical era of baseball?


SephClone89
07-23-2010, 11:49 AM
Pretty much self-explanatory. Which era did you enjoy most at the time, prefer to read about or watch classic games from, etc?

For me, I suppose I have two.

1) Dead ball era. 1900-1920. I've just always loved this era, ever since I read "Honus and Me" and a youth book called Deadball as a kid. Since then, reading Eight Men Out and The Glory of Their Times, I have really come to appreciate this era of baseball.

2) Post-war, till about '65. Only time when I can stand the East coast bias, since the New York clubs were so dominant at the time. Ted Williams and especially Willie Mays have always been my favourite historical players. And obviously, this was a bit of a renaissance for our Sox.

LITTLE NELL
07-23-2010, 11:56 AM
Baseball's golden age, the 1950s.

TDog
07-23-2010, 04:23 PM
The era when there was the most competitive balance, or at least what people want to call competitive balance, was the decade starting in 1965. You still had the reserve clause, and you had an amateur draft. That allowed teams with scouting to draft talent (not having the Yankees and a couple other teams sign all the best players out of high school and college) and not have to worry about how much it would cost or losing players to free agency. It was more effective at establishing competitive balance than any salary cap could ever be.

The Yankees plummeted to mediocrity and worse. The A's rose from the bottom to establish a winning dynasty. It wasn't such a good time for the White Sox, which generally fielded bad teams after being much more competitive while being under the old system, although they finished in fourth place three games out in 1967 and finished 5.5 behind the A's in 1972. It also wasn't a good era for players as signing bonuses diminished for many. It probably wasn't a good era for fans either. In those days, drawing 1 million was a huge deal. The 1969 Cubs set a Chicago attendance record, drawing 1.6 million. (No Chicago team drew 2 million before the 1983 White Sox, if memory serves.)

That is the baseball I came of age with, and that is the baseball I sometimes feel nostalgic for, even to the point of cavalierly ending my sentences with prepositions. I sometimes even feel nostalgic for the 1970 White Sox. White Sox fans loved baseball back then. They knew their team wasn't going to win, but it was their team. And that made 1972 such a special season. But for the damn A's ....

doublem23
07-23-2010, 04:50 PM
Current.

FielderJones
07-23-2010, 04:54 PM
Dead-ball era. :redneck

chisoxfanatic
07-23-2010, 04:54 PM
Current.
X2

I don't think there has been an era that was as great to be a Sox fan.

FielderJones
07-23-2010, 05:15 PM
x2

i don't think there has been an era that was as great to be a sox fan.

1901 - 1906 - 1917 - 1919

khan
07-23-2010, 06:01 PM
I'd have to say current as well.

The "good old days" were never as good as others will have you believe.

Nellie_Fox
07-24-2010, 01:30 AM
X2

I don't think there has been an era that was as great to be a Sox fan.The 50's and early-mid 60's, when the Sox owned Chicago?

doublem23
07-24-2010, 01:32 AM
The 50's and early-mid 60's, when the Sox owned Chicago?

I'm sure those were some great times, but I can't believe it tops this...

http://www.312sports.com/images/stories/whitesoxwscelebration%201.jpg

Noneck
07-24-2010, 01:49 AM
I'm sure those were some great times, but I can't believe it tops this...

http://www.312sports.com/images/stories/whitesoxwscelebration%201.jpg

I believe he was referring to a era (which I agree with), not a year.

Nellie_Fox
07-24-2010, 02:04 AM
I believe he was referring to a era (which I agree with), not a year.Exactly. I wouldn't trade 2005 for anything, but the ERA is still not comparable to what the 50's to mid-60's was for the Sox as far as excitement and being the dominant team in Chicago. Most WSI posters can't even comprehend the Sox outdrawing the Cubs every year and being the big story in the papers.

JohnTucker0814
07-24-2010, 09:33 AM
There is something from each era that I would really love to go back and see...

I'd love to watch the dead ball era with Honus Wagner, Ty Cobb, etc...

I'd love the swingin' 20's with Ruth, Gehrig..

I guess if I had to choose 10 years to live in, it'd be the 50's in NY. You had 3 top quality baseball teams...

doublem23
07-24-2010, 09:45 AM
I believe he was referring to a era (which I agree with), not a year.

Yeah, I get that, but of the current era or the 50s/60s, only 1 has a World Title. Even without it, I'd probably still take the current era, but that really seals it.

doublem23
07-24-2010, 09:46 AM
Exactly. I wouldn't trade 2005 for anything, but the ERA is still not comparable to what the 50's to mid-60's was for the Sox as far as excitement and being the dominant team in Chicago. Most WSI posters can't even comprehend the Sox outdrawing the Cubs every year and being the big story in the papers.

Woo! 1961 Chicago Attendance Champs!

No offense... But I don't care.

Noneck
07-24-2010, 09:54 AM
Woo! 1961 Chicago Attendance Champs!

No offense... But I don't care.

No offense to you but I think you had to be there to understand what we are talking about. The Sox being THE Chicago sports team was something very special. It was a lot more than just setting an attendance record.

doublem23
07-24-2010, 09:57 AM
No offense to you but I think you had to be there to understand what we are talking about. The Sox being THE Chicago sports team was something very special. It was a lot more than just setting an attendance record.

So you're basically telling me you'd rather have been a Cub fan in 2005 than a Sox fan.

I'm sure being "the" Chicago team would be awesome (something I have not experienced in my life... and I'm almost 27), but I'll take on-field success 8 days a week, thank you very much.

Noneck
07-24-2010, 10:03 AM
So you're basically telling me you'd rather have been a Cub fan in 2005 than a Sox fan.

I'm sure being "the" Chicago team would be awesome (something I have not experienced in my life... and I'm almost 27), but I'll take on-field success 8 days a week, thank you very much.

Cubs Fan? comeon:scratch:

The Sox did have have on field success 7 days a week, they were a dominate team but never got the ultimate goal.

LITTLE NELL
07-24-2010, 10:37 AM
No offense to you but I think you had to be there to understand what we are talking about. The Sox being THE Chicago sports team was something very special. It was a lot more than just setting an attendance record.

Right on Noneck, you just can't forget 17 straight winning seasons which included some of the best pitching, fielding and fundamentally sound baseball I've witnessed. We contended just about every year and Comiskey was the place to be while the Cubs were considered a joke as the only thing they sold was sunshine at beautiful (ugh) Wrigley Field.

doublem23
07-24-2010, 03:47 PM
The Sox did have have on field success 7 days a week, they were a dominate team but never got the ultimate goal.

I don't doubt those were great years, I'm just taking the current era. World Series really clinches it.

Brian26
07-24-2010, 03:57 PM
So you're basically telling me you'd rather have been a Cub fan in 2005 than a Sox fan.

Noneck never said that.

Brian26
07-24-2010, 03:59 PM
Cubs Fan? comeon:scratch:

The Sox did have have on field success 7 days a week, they were a dominate team but never got the ultimate goal.

They were a hell of a team that's only real problem was that they played in the American League with the Yankees. Between '47 and '64, the Yankees won the pennant 15 out of 18 years.

white sox bill
07-24-2010, 04:00 PM
Exactly. I wouldn't trade 2005 for anything, but the ERA is still not comparable to what the 50's to mid-60's was for the Sox as far as excitement and being the dominant team in Chicago. Most WSI posters can't even comprehend the Sox outdrawing the Cubs every year and being the big story in the papers.

Ive always wondered why my Dad who died many yrs ago, was a Sox fan. This may explain it, he was raised in the Buffalo NY area and after serving in the Army, he moved to Illinois to attend Elmhurst College. This was in the early 50's and I now assume he became influenced by the Sox craze back then

gogosox675
07-24-2010, 09:32 PM
I've only lived through the '90s and the current era of baseball, but I think that baseball is definitely better than it was ten years ago and better than it ever has been. Better athletes, better stadiums, it really is a great time to be a White Sox fan and a baseball fan in general.

doublem23
07-24-2010, 11:20 PM
Noneck never said that.

The argument is whether or not the current era (that includes a World title) is "better" than the 50s-60s Sox era (no World title, but they were the kings of Chicago baseball).

I'm sorry, that's the exact same response I get from Cub fans when I throw a "2005, ****er" in their face. "Oh yeah, well, everyone knows we're Chicago's team!"

doublem23
07-24-2010, 11:22 PM
I've only lived through the '90s and the current era of baseball, but I think that baseball is definitely better than it was ten years ago and better than it ever has been. Better athletes, better stadiums, it really is a great time to be a White Sox fan and a baseball fan in general.

Yes. I do understand why some of our older posters will wax poetically about the eras of their childhood, I'm sure in 2050 I'll be talking about how the '90s were the **** and everything else sucks, but by just about any measurable comparison basically says the current era is the Golden Age of Baseball.

Noneck
07-24-2010, 11:48 PM
The argument is whether or not the current era (that includes a World title) is "better" than the 50s-60s Sox era (no World title, but they were the kings of Chicago baseball).

I'm sorry, that's the exact same response I get from Cub fans when I throw a "2005, ****er" in their face. "Oh yeah, well, everyone knows we're Chicago's team!"

Maybe the problem here is what we consider eras, which was the question. Not only were the Sox Chicagos team but they were the most competitive team the Sox had during baseballs modern day era. That period of time consisted of over 10 years.

You will never get me to say that when the Sox had their best yearly team during the modern day era, that era was better than the one I speak of.

The Cubs argument doesn't hold water because they never had a competitive period over a 10 year period as the Sox did in the 50's and 60's.

It is quite sad if you think my argument is similar to a cubs fan argument.

Nellie_Fox
07-25-2010, 01:59 AM
It's simply not the same. The Cubs fans base their argument on popularity that is unearned. The Cubs have not been better than the Sox consistently during the past couple of decades. They are more popular only because they are more popular.

The Sox in the 50's and 60's earned the popularity by good baseball on the field.

Konerkoholic
07-25-2010, 05:12 AM
You guys are bring too nice to doublem; that Cubs argument was ridiculous. I don't think Noneck was saying the 50s and 60s were great because the Sox were popular, he was saying the Sox were popular because the 50s and 60s were great. The team was exciting and I can only assume there was a great atmosphere in the park and around the city during baseball season. I do envy you guys for being around to witness that era. My baseball fandom started in 1998, which means the only eras I've seen have been Steroid and Post-Steroid. Yes, my team won a championship during the current era, but that's irrelevant to the question. The question refers to the quality and enjoyment of baseball as a whole, not the success of one team within the game.

cub killer
07-25-2010, 05:33 AM
I'd love to go back to the Negro League era, and watch players such as Josh Gibson or Leroy "Satchel" Paige in action.

FarWestChicago
07-25-2010, 07:23 AM
My baseball fandom started in 1998, which means the only eras I've seen have been Steroid and Post-Steroid.When did the Post-Steroid era start? :scratch:

doublem23
07-25-2010, 10:25 AM
Yes, my team won a championship during the current era, but that's irrelevant to the question. The question refers to the quality and enjoyment of baseball as a whole, not the success of one team within the game.

Even with removing the Sox's success in 2005, the current era is the best in baseball history; best players, best stadiums, best owners, etc.

SI1020
07-25-2010, 10:37 AM
Yes. I do understand why some of our older posters will wax poetically about the eras of their childhood, I'm sure in 2050 I'll be talking about how the '90s were the **** and everything else sucks, but by just about any measurable comparison basically says the current era is the Golden Age of Baseball. I know I'm going to come across as the old fart curmudgeon. Probably even more so as you seem like a very judgemental person, but this is not the Golden Age of anything.

TommyJohn
07-25-2010, 01:03 PM
I would say the 1920's and 1950's-60's. Those were two great eras in which baseball was going through great change.

Konerkoholic
07-25-2010, 02:53 PM
When did the Post-Steroid era start? :scratch:

Well, hopefully declining power numbers is an indication that this era is starting.

Konerkoholic
07-25-2010, 03:05 PM
Even with removing the Sox's success in 2005, the current era is the best in baseball history; best players, best stadiums, best owners, etc.

Best stadiums? Is that based on amenities, or appearance? Seems like every new stadium tries to recapture the look of the old stadiums and comes up a bit short. Personally, I don't think parks get more beautiful than Shibe Park or Old Comiskey. Best players? Overall the level of talent is greater now than ever, but which players can we be sure didn't roid up to achieve their feats? The players of the current era are tainted for that reason. Throw in loud music during every break in action, the high cost of attending games, and the enormous video scoreboards, and I would say the current era is not the greatest ever.

doublem23
07-25-2010, 09:57 PM
I know I'm going to come across as the old fart curmudgeon. Probably even more so as you seem like a very judgemental person, but this is not the Golden Age of anything.

OK, that's cool, I disgaree.

doublem23
07-25-2010, 10:06 PM
Best stadiums? Is that based on amenities, or appearance? Seems like every new stadium tries to recapture the look of the old stadiums and comes up a bit short. Personally, I don't think parks get more beautiful than Shibe Park or Old Comiskey. Best players? Overall the level of talent is greater now than ever, but which players can we be sure didn't roid up to achieve their feats? The players of the current era are tainted for that reason. Throw in loud music during every break in action, the high cost of attending games, and the enormous video scoreboards, and I would say the current era is not the greatest ever.

The new parks do try to recreate some of the old magic... Except with amenities like good food options and quality indoor plumbing. I mean, I'm sure those places were good, the new ones are just better. Those of us in Chicago have a great opportunity to see this first hand. For all the old-timey charms of Wrigley Field, I personally enjoy the experience at the Cell more; better sight lines, better food, better bathrooms, better seat organization, etc.

I can't argue steroids, they are a dark mark on this era, but I think baseball has done a good job addressing the problem and doing all they can to curb their abuse. That said, anabolic steroids date back to the 1940s, so there's really no way to accurately say when steroid abuse in baseball started. The 1990s? 1980s? 70s? 60s? Who knows?

Ticket prices are just a byproduct of the unprecedented popularity of the game. Prices are higher than ever, and baseball keeps breaking league attendance records every year. Obviously someone is paying for those tickets, I'm sorry that it's no longer affordable for a family of 4 to go to the ballpark every weekend, but that allows for a greater number of families to go.

Paulwny
07-26-2010, 12:19 PM
Many posters have left the track. The original question was, "the favorite historical era of baseball", not the favorite era of the sox.

doublem23
07-26-2010, 12:21 PM
Many posters have left the track. The original question was, "the favorite historical era of baseball", not the favorite era of the sox.

The Sox success in the 90s and 00s also strongly influences why I prefer the current era.

BleacherBandit
07-26-2010, 12:33 PM
While I agree that this era is probably the best for White Sox fans I don't agree that it's the best era for fans in general.

Beer costs $7.75?
Hot dogs cost $3.50?
Parking costs ~$22.00?

Tickets in the bleachers cost $35.00?

Take me back to the days when it cost $2 to enter a game.

doublem23
07-26-2010, 01:03 PM
While I agree that this era is probably the best for White Sox fans I don't agree that it's the best era for fans in general.

Beer costs $7.75?
Hot dogs cost $3.50?
Parking costs ~$22.00?

Tickets in the bleachers cost $35.00?

Take me back to the days when it cost $2 to enter a game.

Well, A) people keep paying so it's hard to fault anyone other than the fans for the drastic increases in prices, but B) the last time an average baseball ticket coss $2 (let alone bleachers, generally some of the lower priced tickets in the park), the average American was making a shade over $4,000 per year (which translates to $153 and change per paycheck on a standard bi-weekly pay cycle).

BleacherBandit
07-26-2010, 01:17 PM
Well, A) people keep paying so it's hard to fault anyone other than the fans for the drastic increases in prices, but B) the last time an average baseball ticket coss $2 (let alone bleachers, generally some of the lower priced tickets in the park), the average American was making a shade over $4,000 per year (which translates to $153 and change per paycheck on a standard bi-weekly pay cycle).

I acknowledge this but sometimes I become jealous of the Marlins or Twins whose ticket prices aren't as pricey as the Sox. And yet they still maintain an acceptable level of competitiveness.

I'm also pretty sure that fifty years ago baseball games were more accessible to John Q. Public than they are today. Irregardless, it's always stated that teams were lucky to break one-million in attendance.

It was inevitable that the expanding tide of commercialization that is quintessentially American would reach the American pastime, but I'm sorry, I feel like I'm going to vomit when I see someone enjoying a glass of merlot at a ballgame.

SephClone89
07-26-2010, 01:39 PM
It was inevitable that the expanding tide of commercialization that is quintessentially American would reach the American pastime, but I'm sorry, I feel like I'm going to vomit when I see someone enjoying a glass of merlot at a ballgame.

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

:cool:

Noneck
07-26-2010, 01:39 PM
Well, A) people keep paying so it's hard to fault anyone other than the fans for the drastic increases in prices, but B) the last time an average baseball ticket coss $2 (let alone bleachers, generally some of the lower priced tickets in the park), the average American was making a shade over $4,000 per year (which translates to $153 and change per paycheck on a standard bi-weekly pay cycle).

Back in the 60's a family of 4 could go to a Sunday Double Header ( at least 5 hours of entertainment) for under 10 bucks. That included free street parking close by and food brought into the park (a picnic basket), not a granola bar in your pocket.

My family was not affluent but was able to go every Sunday the Sox were at home. I doubt any non affluent family can do that now, with wages adjusted for inflation.

doublem23
07-26-2010, 01:49 PM
Back in the 60's a family of 4 could go to a Sunday Double Header ( at least 5 hours of entertainment) for under 10 bucks. That included free street parking close by and food brought into the park (a picnic basket), not a granola bar in your pocket.

My family was not affluent but was able to go every Sunday the Sox were at home. I doubt any non affluent family can do that now, with wages adjusted for inflation.

And yet, in the 60s, the Sox routinley barely topped 1,000,000 in yearly attendance, and were usually one of the better draws in the AL. So again, the increases are more a result of the increased popularity of the game than they are with greed, corporitization, etc.

The simple reality is there are more families who want to go to Sunday baseball games now, so the prices have to be higher to give everyone a chance to go. I'm sure it's nice that you were able to go every weekend the Sox were in town, but nowadays you have millions of more people going to see the Sox with only a couple more days to fill those seats (taking into account double headers).

Plus, you have to at least agree that the in-home way to watch baseball is much, much better now. Every game available on TV in sparkling HDTV. So what you lose at the park, you gain at home.

Noneck
07-26-2010, 02:30 PM
And yet, in the 60s, the Sox routinley barely topped 1,000,000 in yearly attendance, and were usually one of the better draws in the AL. So again, the increases are more a result of the increased popularity of the game than they are with greed, corporitization, etc.

The simple reality is there are more families who want to go to Sunday baseball games now, so the prices have to be higher to give everyone a chance to go. I'm sure it's nice that you were able to go every weekend the Sox were in town, but nowadays you have millions of more people going to see the Sox with only a couple more days to fill those seats (taking into account double headers).

Plus, you have to at least agree that the in-home way to watch baseball is much, much better now. Every game available on TV in sparkling HDTV. So what you lose at the park, you gain at home.

The size of the park is a factor also. Comiskey held a lot more people than US Cellular field. Could prices be reduced if the stadium was larger?

I know that TV's are so much better now but if I had the greatest large screen HDTV in the 60's and watched that instead of going to games, I dont think I would be the fan of the game that I am today. There is nothing like being in the park for a ball game, no matter where your seats are.

doublem23
07-26-2010, 02:44 PM
The size of the park is a factor also. Comiskey held a lot more people than US Cellular field. Could prices be reduced if the stadium was larger?

I know that TV's are so much better now but if I had the greatest large screen HDTV in the 60's and watched that instead of going to games, I dont think I would be the fan of the game that I am today. There is nothing like being in the park for a ball game, no matter where your seats are.

Likely, but that is the one area where the business side of the game comes into play, it's no coincidence that the latest round of "improvements" to the park chopped a couple thousands seats out. Less demand = higher prices.

Don't get me wrong, if I had a time machine, going back to the 50s and catching a game at Old Comiskey would be extremely high on my "To Do List." I would have loved to seen The Baseball Palace of the World in its heyday. I just think for a lot of other reasons, the game is as good, if not better than it ever was; the players are better, there are more fans than ever, the game is more accessible than ever, the parks are better than ever, etc. JMO.

FielderJones
07-26-2010, 03:17 PM
Don't get me wrong, if I had a time machine, going back to the 50s and catching a game at Old Comiskey would be extremely high on my "To Do List."

Don't forget to bring your jacket, tie, and hat (http://snaggingbaseballs.mlblogs.com/october_3_1959.jpg). :D:

Nellie_Fox
07-27-2010, 01:27 AM
Likely, but that is the one area where the business side of the game comes into play, it's no coincidence that the latest round of "improvements" to the park chopped a couple thousands seats out. Less demand = higher prices.I assume you meant "less supply = higher prices." Less demand would lower prices.

I stopped paying the insane beer prices several years ago.

gogosox675
07-27-2010, 09:55 AM
I think it says a lot about the game that we've only had one franchise relocate since 1972. It's almost dizzying to think about how many NFL, NBA, and NHL franchises have moved since then. Maybe this era of baseball hasn't been the best for teams like the Royals or the Brewers, but at least the fans have shown enough interest to keep coming to the games. This era is the best in baseball history not only because of the stability (no team moved from 1902-52), it's great because even the losing teams have at least decent fan support.

TornLabrum
07-27-2010, 02:40 PM
Too many baseball franchises move, Congress starts bringing up their anti-trust exemption. The other leagues don't have to worry about that.