PDA

View Full Version : Who are the last 3 American League teams to win a World Series?


sunofgold
08-06-2013, 05:48 PM
Yankees, Red Sox, and WHITE SOX. Not bad company.

If the goal is to win World Series championships, we aren't doing too bad. Hopefully we will be the next AL team to win a World Series and it will be soon. Well not this year. Lol.

And since the AL Central was created in 1994, we are the only team to represent the AL central and win the World Series.

thomas35forever
08-06-2013, 07:18 PM
:whocares

The name of the game is what have you done for me lately. Not a good answer to that question right now.

sullythered
08-06-2013, 07:56 PM
:whocares

The name of the game is what have you done for me lately. Not a good answer to that question right now.

The World Series Championship is all that matters, so the Sox have done more "lately" than 80% of the teams in baseball.

DumpJerry
08-06-2013, 07:57 PM
Damn, the NL has been on roll.....:angry:

kittle42
08-06-2013, 08:18 PM
Great - the 2005 Championship carried me through a few seasons, but it's been crap since then.

DSpivack
08-06-2013, 08:21 PM
The World Series Championship is all that matters, so the Sox have done more "lately" than 80% of the teams in baseball.

So if only NL teams won the WS for the next 20 years and the Sox didn't do jack **** in that time, you'll be happy?

Red Barchetta
08-06-2013, 09:54 PM
Great - the 2005 Championship carried me through a few seasons, but it's been crap since then.

It carried me through the playoff loss to the Rays in 2008. I stopped comparing at that time and I expected more for the SOX organization to turn it around or at least move forward.

kittle42
08-06-2013, 09:56 PM
It carried me through the playoff loss to the Rays in 2008. I stopped comparing at that time and I expected more for the SOX organization to turn it around or at least move forward.

Same here. The post-2008 slide has pretty much ended the good will.

Bobby Thigpen
08-06-2013, 10:49 PM
I long for the days when people were willing to give appendages for just one world series...

WhiteSox5187
08-06-2013, 10:53 PM
I long for the days when people were willing to give appendages for just one world series...

Hey I still have plenty of appendages I would be willing to give for two, three, four, five, six, seven, etc.

HomeFish
08-06-2013, 11:54 PM
The White Sox have won one more World Series in my lifetime than I was expecting, and I'm only 27. If you asked me in 2004 if I would be happy with them winning only one title in my lifetime, I would have said yes.

In other cities, only two playoff appearances in the last decade would be grounds for a riot, but this is Chicago.

TaylorStSox
08-07-2013, 01:38 AM
Same here. The post-2008 slide has pretty much ended the good will.

Good will? The Sox don't owe me a damn thing. I love baseball. I love following a certain team. Goodwill? Get over yourself.

Zakath
08-07-2013, 05:58 AM
Damn, the NL has been on roll.....:angry:

5 of the last 7. Have to go back to the late '70's/early '80's to find a string that good for the NL before this (6 of 8, starting with the Reds in 1975 and ending with the Cardinals in 1982, only interrupted by the Yankees' two wins over the Dodgers in '77 and '78).

kittle42
08-07-2013, 08:29 AM
Good will? The Sox don't owe me a damn thing. I love baseball. I love following a certain team. Goodwill? Get over yourself.

GMAB. Why must so much be read into my posts lately? Swing and a miss.

What I *meant,* as a fan, I was willing to be content enough with some down seasons, and to be uptone in 2008 before the playoff collapse, without a a care, because 2005 was a very recent memory. Now, while I will always love the Sox and in fact have probably followed the rest of baseball more closely than ever because of the Sox' poor season, I got disinterested in attending games and have less interest in watching on TV or listening on the radio. I'll be sure to spell out my complete thought pattern next time, as my comment certainly did not call for this type of reaction assuming that I thought the Sox owed me a thing. Of course, I am a season ticket holder, so some might argue those of us who hold STs are indeed owed something, but I recognize it is my choice to hang onto those to see an entertainment product. But much like a movie you drop $18 on and it sucks, I wish the product were better.

cards press box
08-07-2013, 09:25 AM
Yankees, Red Sox, and WHITE SOX. Not bad company.

If the goal is to win World Series championships, we aren't doing too bad. Hopefully we will be the next AL team to win a World Series and it will be soon. Well not this year. Lol.

And since the AL Central was created in 1994, we are the only team to represent the AL central and win the World Series.

And the last AL team before the Sox, Red Sox and Yankees to win a Series? The Angels in 2002. And how far does one have to go to find another AL team to win a Series? Twenty years since Toronto won in 1993.

Perhaps we should view the Sox' championship in 2005 in the context that it was a significant accomplishment. Can the Sox get back there? With the pitching they have, I think they can, provided that Rick Hahn can make the right moves. I like what I saw from Hahn at the trade deadline and I look forward to more moves.

TDog
08-07-2013, 10:14 AM
So if only NL teams won the WS for the next 20 years and the Sox didn't do jack **** in that time, you'll be happy?

If you wanted to be happy and follow baseball, you wouldn't be following the Whtie Sox. Or any team in the AL Central. Or West. Or most of the teams in the East. Or most of the teams in the National League. The Giants won the World Series in 2012 as well as 2010, and their 2013 is as bad as the Whtie Sox 2013, and not just relative to expectation.

If you want to be happy, you don't follow a baseball team.

If you are frestrated now because the thrill of the White Sox winning the World Series is old at still less than a decade, imagine what it was like in the 1970s when this season was the norm and my father wasn't born since the White Sox last won the World Series.

Hitmen77
08-07-2013, 10:32 AM
And since the AL Central was created in 1994, we are the only team to represent the AL central and win the World Series.

I have no love for the Tigers, but I wouldn't mind them winning the WS this year (since the Sox are totally out of the running anyway) so that people can stop pointing to 2005 as vindication of how competitive the Sox have been since the AL Central was formed.

In almost 20 years of a 5-team division plus a wild card available, the Sox have made a playoffs a grand total of 3 times. It's been 5 years since we made the playoffs and it's looking at this point like that drought will extend to at least 7 years.

Thank God for the 2005 White Sox and i'm glad i'll always have that season in my memories. But i'd rather not be like Bears fans clinging to a sole Super Bowl win for the next quarter century.

And the last AL team before the Sox, Red Sox and Yankees to win a Series? The Angels in 2002. And how far does one have to go to find another AL team to win a Series? Twenty years since Toronto won in 1993.

Perhaps we should view the Sox' championship in 2005 in the context that it was a significant accomplishment. Can the Sox get back there? With the pitching they have, I think they can, provided that Rick Hahn can make the right moves. I like what I saw from Hahn at the trade deadline and I look forward to more moves.

The only AL teams to win the WS in the last 20 years are from NY, Chicago, LA, and Boston? Wow! Big markets rule in the AL.

asindc
08-07-2013, 10:56 AM
I believe that if the Sox had made the playoffs at least 2 more times since 2005 that the general mood about the direction of the franchise would be much different, even with this disastrous season being part of the picture. That is really what has been missing... sustained success. Being the only original 16 franchise that hasn't made back-to-back postseason appearances is a drag, to say the least. Having said that, the OP's point is valid. Let's not pretend that the Sox have been the absolute dregs of the AL in the past 10-15 years. Lot's of work to be done, no doubt, but not cause for the depths of despair, either.

voodoochile
08-07-2013, 10:59 AM
Damn, the NL has been on roll.....:angry:

Yeah winning 5/8 is a huge statistical correlation...

It's also 5/9 since the Red Sox won in 2004 also. The NL has won the last 3 two of them by the Giants. Prior to that the AL had won 12/19 with 5 of those by the Yankees...

captain54
08-07-2013, 11:10 AM
I
In almost 20 years of a 5-team division plus a wild card available, the Sox have made a playoffs a grand total of 3 times. It's been 5 years since we made the playoffs


We can all jump for joy that 05 happened, but as a big market team in a weak division, making the playoffs a mere three times under the current playoff structure is weak.

asindc
08-07-2013, 11:32 AM
We can all jump for joy that 05 happened, but as a big market team in a weak division, making the playoffs a mere three times under the current playoff structure is weak.

It is weak, but Texas and Toronto have larger media markets, Detroit's is about the same as the Sox. There are only three teams in the AL that have had significantly better postseason success under the current playoff structure: Boston (which does not have to share its 6-state media market with any other team), LAAAAA, and NYY. That is, unless you consider three more postseason appearances, including one more AL pennant, with no WS titles (Texas) significantly better.

Hitmen77
08-07-2013, 11:53 AM
I believe that if the Sox had made the playoffs at least 2 more times since 2005 that the general mood about the direction of the franchise would be much different, even with this disastrous season being part of the picture. That is really what has been missing... sustained success. Being the only original 16 franchise that hasn't made back-to-back postseason appearances is a drag, to say the least. Having said that, the OP's point is valid. Let's not pretend that the Sox have been the absolute dregs of the AL in the past 10-15 years. Lot's of work to be done, no doubt, but not cause for the depths of despair, either.

Agreed. Look at the Angels. They made their one and only WS appearance with their 2002 championship. That was 11 years ago. But, they followed that up with 5 more division titles and they're generally seen as one of the more successful AL teams over the last 15 years or so.

It's not just about the general mood of the franchise either. I think the team would have had more sustained attendance success if they had managed a few more playoff appearances.

It is weak, but Texas and Toronto have larger media markets, Detroit's is about the same as the Sox. There are only three teams in the AL that have had significantly better postseason success under the current playoff structure: Boston (which does not have to share its 6-state media market with any other team), LAAAAA, and NYY. That is, unless you consider three more postseason appearances, including one more AL pennant, with no WS titles (Texas) significantly better.

It depends on how you define postseason success. WS championships? Pennants? Or perhaps just making the postseason. Of course, WS titles trump all. We'll all take one of those as opposed to 5 division titles and no WS win. But, if we're looking at which teams can repeatedly make the playoffs, the Sox don't compare that well to other teams. The Indians had their turn at dominating the AL Central. The Twins had 6 division titles since 2002. Now it looks like it's the Tigers' turn to own the division. Back to back division titles, 2 pennants, and it looks like they're on their way to another playoff appearance. WS wins are what it's all about, but you need to make the playoffs first and the Sox have had trouble doing that.

JB98
08-07-2013, 12:28 PM
I have no love for the Tigers, but I wouldn't mind them winning the WS this year (since the Sox are totally out of the running anyway) so that people can stop pointing to 2005 as vindication of how competitive the Sox have been since the AL Central was formed.

In almost 20 years of a 5-team division plus a wild card available, the Sox have made a playoffs a grand total of 3 times. It's been 5 years since we made the playoffs and it's looking at this point like that drought will extend to at least 7 years.

Thank God for the 2005 White Sox and i'm glad i'll always have that season in my memories. But i'd rather not be like Bears fans clinging to a sole Super Bowl win for the next quarter century.



The only AL teams to win the WS in the last 20 years are from NY, Chicago, LA, and Boston? Wow! Big markets rule in the AL.

This.

You know why the damn 1985 Bears are still so celebrated in Chicago? Because that organization hasn't won **** since. I don't want the White Sox to go down that road.

Everyone should cherish the memories of 2005, but it is disappointing the Sox failed to sustain the momentum that championship created. Basically, in years since, the Sox have fielded decent-to-good teams in even-numbered years and bad-to-poor teams in odd-numbered years. It's been a bit of a strange pattern.

SI1020
08-07-2013, 12:57 PM
It is weak, but Texas and Toronto have larger media markets, Detroit's is about the same as the Sox. There are only three teams in the AL that have had significantly better postseason success under the current playoff structure: Boston (which does not have to share its 6-state media market with any other team), LAAAAA, and NYY. That is, unless you consider three more postseason appearances, including one more AL pennant, with no WS titles (Texas) significantly better.


http://www.proadvance.com/topmediamarkets.html

http://www.stationindex.com/tv/tv-markets

http://www.arbitron.com/home/mm001050.asp

http://www.tvjobs.com/cgi-bin/markets/market2.cgi

Sorry no data on Canadian markets but I doubt Toronto is close to Chicago in size.

asindc
08-07-2013, 01:52 PM
http://www.proadvance.com/topmediamarkets.html

http://www.stationindex.com/tv/tv-markets

http://www.arbitron.com/home/mm001050.asp

http://www.tvjobs.com/cgi-bin/markets/market2.cgi

Sorry no data on Canadian markets but I doubt Toronto is close to Chicago in size.

Why are you excluding the remaining part of Michigan or the northern half of Texas (let alone much of Oklahoma)? For that matter, why would you exclusde the remaining part of Ontario, let alone the rest of western Canada?

doublem23
08-07-2013, 02:16 PM
Why are you excluding the remaining part of Michigan or the northern half of Texas (let alone much of Oklahoma)? For that matter, why would you exclusde the remaining part of Ontario, let alone the rest of western Canada?

Probably because none of those places are important

TheVulture
08-07-2013, 03:05 PM
This.

You know why the damn 1985 Bears are still so celebrated in Chicago? Because that organization hasn't won **** since.


Even if the Bears had won a Superbowl since, the '85 team would still be celebrated. That was one of the best teams evah lead by one of the most beloved football players to ever put on a uniform and a legendary defense. Even a Packer fan would admit this (except maybe the beloved football player part.)

SI1020
08-07-2013, 03:35 PM
Why are you excluding the remaining part of Michigan or the northern half of Texas (let alone much of Oklahoma)? For that matter, why would you exclusde the remaining part of Ontario, let alone the rest of western Canada? You obviously define a market differently than I do, and differently than the organizations that track this sort of thing. I guess if you're going to go with media outlets that cover each team I sort of see your point. Like if some station in Enid, Oklahoma is carrying the Rangers or something like that. To me Chicago is the third largest metro area and media market in the US. One of a small number that could actually support 2 MLB teams. I don't think a second team would work in Dallas-Fort Worth right now. As for Toronto, no matter how you slice and dice that one I don't see your point.

voodoochile
08-07-2013, 03:36 PM
Even if the Bears had won a Superbowl since, the '85 team would still be celebrated. That was one of the best teams evah lead by one of the most beloved football players to ever put on a uniform and a legendary defense. Even a Packer fan would admit this (except maybe the beloved football player part.)

They may not love the Fridge but after he flattened their LB on MNF they damned well have to respect him.

Oh did you mean Sweetness? Yeah same thing. Sort of like I feel about Favre. Can't stand him but I damned well have to respect how he wrecked my team year after year after year...

TheVulture
08-07-2013, 03:42 PM
As for Toronto, no matter how you slice and dice that one I don't see your point.

The greater Toronto area is more than six and a half million, that would definitely put it in the top quarter or so of ML markets population wise. Considering Toronto is the major city of Canada, and the Jays its only team, it could be feasible the media market for the Jays is comparable. The Sox have a lot more competition. For example, in northern Indiana you will probably find as many Cubs, Tigers and Reds fans as Sox fans, not to mention the ubiquitous Red Sox and Yankees fans.

TheVulture
08-07-2013, 03:43 PM
They may not love the Fridge but after he flattened their LB on MNF they damned well have to respect him.

Oh did you mean Sweetness? Yeah same thing. Sort of like I feel about Favre. Can't stand him but I damned well have to respect how he wrecked my team year after year after year...

LMAO, yes I was talking about Sweetness, but the Fridge was lovable too. I had a lifesize poster of him in my room when I was a kid.

SI1020
08-07-2013, 07:27 PM
The greater Toronto area is more than six and a half million, that would definitely put it in the top quarter or so of ML markets population wise. Considering Toronto is the major city of Canada, and the Jays its only team, it could be feasible the media market for the Jays is comparable. The Sox have a lot more competition. For example, in northern Indiana you will probably find as many Cubs, Tigers and Reds fans as Sox fans, not to mention the ubiquitous Red Sox and Yankees fans. Chicago is the third biggest metro area and media market in the US. It is bigger by a large margin than Dallas, Detroit and Toronto. That's all I'm saying. I had my demographics argument here a while back. Don't want another.

asindc
08-08-2013, 08:06 AM
Why are you excluding the remaining part of Michigan or the northern half of Texas (let alone much of Oklahoma)? For that matter, why would you exclusde the remaining part of Ontario, let alone the rest of western Canada?

Probably because none of those places are important

They are important to advertisers, which is the point of the matter.

You obviously define a market differently than I do, and differently than the organizations that track this sort of thing. I guess if you're going to go with media outlets that cover each team I sort of see your point. Like if some station in Enid, Oklahoma is carrying the Rangers or something like that. To me Chicago is the third largest metro area and media market in the US. One of a small number that could actually support 2 MLB teams. I don't think a second team would work in Dallas-Fort Worth right now. As for Toronto, no matter how you slice and dice that one I don't see your point.

I define a franchise's media market the way MLB does, which is by counting all the TV homes that could potentially tune in to a local broadcast and by counting the total number that actually do so. That means when the Tulsa and OKC metro areas tune into Rangers' broadcasts exclusively, or when the Hamilton, Calgary, Winnepeg, Edmonton, and Vancouver metro areas tune into Blue Jays' broadcasts exclusively, MLB (and advertisers) definitely count them. And that's not even counting the millions of people watching from other areas of Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, or the rest of Canada west of Ottawa. Total number of people watching is what matters, not the population of a team's base metro area. It is why the Rangers were able to get a much more lucrative TV deal than the Sox.

Simply put: Sox play in a much bigger metro area than Rangers, Blue Jays, and Tigers. The Rangers, Blue Jays, and Tigers play in media markets that are larger or at the very least is just as large (about 98% of the state of Michigan plus northwest Ohio) as the Sox's.

SI1020
08-08-2013, 08:58 AM
I define a franchise's media market the way MLB does, which is by counting all the TV homes that could potentially tune in to a local broadcast and by counting the total number that actually do so. That means when the Tulsa and OKC metro areas tune into Rangers' broadcasts exclusively, or when the Hamilton, Calgary, Winnepeg, Edmonton, and Vancouver metro areas tune into Blue Jays' broadcasts exclusively, MLB (and advertisers) definitely count them. And that's not even counting the millions of people watching from other areas of Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, or the rest of Canada west of Ottawa. Total number of people watching is what matters, not the population of a team's base metro area. It is why the Rangers were able to get a much more lucrative TV deal than the Sox.

Simply put: Sox play in a much bigger metro area than Rangers, Blue Jays, and Tigers. The Rangers, Blue Jays, and Tigers play in media markets that are larger or at the very least is just as large (about 98% of the state of Michigan plus northwest Ohio) as the Sox's. I figured we were in a sense doing an apples and oranges thing. I understand and appreciate your perspective. Regarding the bolded, I could be wrong but I don't think that being a very distant second in a two team market helps the Sox any. Another thing to consider, is that despite geography population movements blur the geographical lines of fandom. Atlanta is big enough to have three professional teams survive despite having many residents who aren't from Georgia, or even the south. The Rays have struggled in part due to the fact that so many of the residents in their area are from points north and have retained their original fan allegiances. The Steelers hardly ever have a real road game due to the 4 decade long diaspora of SW PA residents in search of employment. Ex Pittsburghers are everywhere. I'll quit rambling now. Thanks for a positive discussion.

sullythered
08-08-2013, 08:51 PM
So if only NL teams won the WS for the next 20 years and the Sox didn't do jack **** in that time, you'll be happy?

No. I said they have outperformed 80% of the whole MLB, championship wise.

sunofgold
10-22-2013, 10:35 PM
We are still in the top 3. And we have done well in the year following Red Sox World Series wins.

palehozenychicty
10-22-2013, 11:12 PM
And the last AL team before the Sox, Red Sox and Yankees to win a Series? The Angels in 2002. And how far does one have to go to find another AL team to win a Series? Twenty years since Toronto won in 1993.

Perhaps we should view the Sox' championship in 2005 in the context that it was a significant accomplishment. Can the Sox get back there? With the pitching they have, I think they can, provided that Rick Hahn can make the right moves. I like what I saw from Hahn at the trade deadline and I look forward to more moves.

The franchise has figured out how to scout pitching and find it from various sources. It's the diamond where they have struggled lately. They need to find more talent for the diamond. Then they will win another title.

Detroit, for all of Illitch's commitment, hasn't been able to get it done. Fielder is already looking like a mistake. Cabrera was hurt this postseason. He's a brilliant hitter. But for how long? The pen is terrible. They have been for awhile.

Jackson swings at air. Verlander and Scherzer are good, but can they pay Scherzer? Can he do it again?

I wouldn't be surprised if the Sox got another title before the Cubs or Tigers. That would be sweet revenge.

TommyJohn
10-23-2013, 05:50 PM
I long for the days when people were willing to give appendages for just one world series...

Or 10 straight 100 loss seasons!

pudge
10-24-2013, 12:48 AM
Even if the Bears had won a Superbowl since, the '85 team would still be celebrated. That was one of the best teams evah lead by one of the most beloved football players to ever put on a uniform and a legendary defense. Even a Packer fan would admit this (except maybe the beloved football player part.)

That's just not true. That's like the saying the '91 Bulls are as celebrated as the '85 Bears. They are not because the Bulls won many titles.

gobears1987
10-24-2013, 09:42 AM
This subject made me think that they really need to take down that 2005 World Champions banner on the outside of the park that you see on the Dan Ryan. It makes us look pathetic.

spawn
10-24-2013, 09:54 AM
This subject made me think that they really need to take down that 2005 World Champions banner on the outside of the park that you see on the Dan Ryan. It makes us look pathetic.

This post is ridiculous. What does the banner outside of Wrigley say? Or Pittsburgh? Kansas City? Cleveland? I've been a Sox fan since 1977. Do I want them to win more titles? Absolutely. Am I supposed to feel ashamed at the one WS title they've won since I've been a fan? Absolutely not.

kittle42
10-24-2013, 09:55 AM
This subject made me think that they really need to take down that 2005 World Champions banner on the outside of the park that you see on the Dan Ryan. It makes us look pathetic.

It should have been down 3-5 years ago.

asindc
10-24-2013, 11:12 AM
This subject made me think that they really need to take down that 2005 World Champions banner on the outside of the park that you see on the Dan Ryan. It makes us look pathetic.

This post is ridiculous. What does the banner outside of Wrigley say? Or Pittsburgh? Kansas City? Cleveland? I've been a Sox fan since 1977. Do I want them to win more titles? Absolutely. Am I supposed to feel ashamed at the one WS title they've won since I've been a fan? Absolutely not.

I agree with Spawn. Why should I give a ****? Seriously? As Spawn points out, at least 20 other teams would love to have that banner hanging outside their park. Heck, Sox fans don't have to go far to find other fans who are envious. Just drive to the Northside, or to Wisconsin, or to Michigan. I still celebrate 2005 and I am still critical of ownership and management for not sustaining that success. Since the two are far from being mutually exclusive, I'm not going to choose one or the other.

DSpivack
10-24-2013, 01:17 PM
I agree with Spawn. Why should I give a ****? Seriously? As Spawn points out, at least 20 other teams would love to have that banner hanging outside their park. Heck, Sox fans don't have to go far to find other fans who are envious. Just drive to the Northside, or to Wisconsin, or to Michigan. I still celebrate 2005 and I am still critical of ownership and management for not sustaining that success. Since the two are far from being mutually exclusive, I'm not going to choose one or the other.
They shouldn't take down the banner. They should just add a new year to it. :shrug:

sunofgold
10-16-2014, 12:29 AM
Are the Royals going to be the next AL team to win a World Series? stay tuned.

I hope not. I want jake and the giants to win another one. Keep the White Sox as the only AL Central team with a World Series banner after the new divisions were created.

Maybe though we should feel good about ourselves. We are the last team to win a game against the royals.

I am emailing Lorde now to write a song called White Sox.

kufram
10-17-2014, 12:07 PM
People who have lost patience with the lack of a WS title since 2005 and suggest that the banner celebrating it be taken down might want to reflect on the patience it took from a multitude of fans that had to wait UNTIL 2005 to celebrate.

If all it took was money and a good organization then only 3 or 4 teams would ever win it.

"What have you done for me lately" is a horrible philosophy, and that is from somebody who will never stop feeling good whenever I think of that team and what they accomplished after it could have slipped away so late in the season.

Does that mean I've been happy for the last few years? No, but I appreciate the difficulty of the task.

Chez
10-17-2014, 01:48 PM
This subject made me think that they really need to take down that 2005 World Champions banner on the outside of the park that you see on the Dan Ryan. It makes us look pathetic.


Blasphemy! Why shouldn't we have a reminder of that season. Is it pathetic to feel great about an accomplishment that occurred nearly 10 seasons ago? I don't think so. Do I hope for more banners and wish we had others since 2005? Absolutely. But I feel great every time I pass by that banner -- a LONG way from pathetic. Maybe that makes me pathetic.

WhiffleBall
10-17-2014, 01:58 PM
Blasphemy! Why shouldn't we have a reminder of that season. Is it pathetic to feel great about an accomplishment that occurred nearly 10 seasons ago? I don't think so. Do I hope for more banners and wish we had others since 2005? Absolutely. But I feel great every time I pass by that banner -- a LONG way from pathetic. Maybe that makes me pathetic.


I know this thread is old but they replaced the large WS banner with one for Frank's induction into the HOF. That was then replaced with a Konerko farewell banner. I think it will be changed out much more often hopefully with a fresh WS banner soon!

Domeshot17
10-17-2014, 03:09 PM
I know this thread is old but they replaced the large WS banner with one for Frank's induction into the HOF. That was then replaced with a Konerko farewell banner. I think it will be changed out much more often hopefully with a fresh WS banner soon!

This year actually has me thinking, we failed so badly after 2005. Look at how the Cardinals, the Giants, those teams consistently put themselves in the position to get back. We had that, we had the financial windfall that came from it, the big payroll, the packed houses, the season tickets. And we went out and built 80 win teams, haven't won a playoff game since.

It was a great season, but being unable to build momentum after that is a failure of big proportions.

Chez
10-17-2014, 03:13 PM
I know this thread is old but they replaced the large WS banner with one for Frank's induction into the HOF. That was then replaced with a Konerko farewell banner. I think it will be changed out much more often hopefully with a fresh WS banner soon!


Oops. Didn't realize that I was responding to a year old post. I saw October and didn't bother looking at the year. Sorry.

MarksBrokenFoot
10-17-2014, 04:56 PM
This year actually has me thinking, we failed so badly after 2005. Look at how the Cardinals, the Giants, those teams consistently put themselves in the position to get back. We had that, we had the financial windfall that came from it, the big payroll, the packed houses, the season tickets. And we went out and built 80 win teams, haven't won a playoff game since.

It was a great season, but being unable to build momentum after that is a failure of big proportions.

Hey now, that's not true! We have a playoff win since the series!

ChicagoG19
10-17-2014, 08:16 PM
And the last AL team before the Sox, Red Sox and Yankees to win a Series? The Angels in 2002. And how far does one have to go to find another AL team to win a Series? Twenty years since Toronto won in 1993.

Perhaps we should view the Sox' championship in 2005 in the context that it was a significant accomplishment. Can the Sox get back there? With the pitching they have, I think they can, provided that Rick Hahn can make the right moves. I like what I saw from Hahn at the trade deadline and I look forward to more moves.


We have no idea what Rick Hahn has up his sleeve for this winter. He should have more money to play with and we have another high draft pick. Hopefully things pan out and with a extra wild card spot, the playoffs are much more attainable.

PushinWeight
10-18-2014, 12:22 PM
Just don't take another 80+ year break in between winning titles Sox. I don't think I can live that long...

No playoffs by 2017 and you could deem the '10 decade as one of the worst in team history.

TDog
10-18-2014, 03:22 PM
The impression I got from this thread when I first saw it was that if I'm a baseball fan who has a team, in most cases, following that team is going to be frustrating. Being a baseball fan is pretty much about dealing with losing. Lamenting that it is unacceptable that your team is losing might be a natural reaction, but it's pretty much what you signed up for when you decided to become a White Sox fan or a Cubs fan or even an A's fan, an Angels fan or a Dodgers fan lately. Unless you decide annually that your team is going to be the team that is skilled enough in the ways of baseball to earn your support, baseball, as one baseball commissioner once famously said, was designed to break your heart. And even then.

This summer, while sitting in traffic, I heard a caller call into the Giants flagship radio station screaming about how the Giants GM needed to be fired. Sure his team had won two championships since 2010, but everyone knows they weren't the best team either time they won the World Series. It's always something.

I was a White Sox fan in 1968 and have continued to be a White Sox fan since. Sports-wise, it's really all I've ever been, although I've liked local National League teams in places I've lived that weren't Chicagoland. This is despite the fact that being a White Sox fan is like being hit in the head with a hammer. You can really appreciate how good it feels when the pounding stops.

DSpivack
10-18-2014, 05:14 PM
The impression I got from this thread when I first saw it was that if I'm a baseball fan who has a team, in most cases, following that team is going to be frustrating. Being a baseball fan is pretty much about dealing with losing. Lamenting that it is unacceptable that your team is losing might be a natural reaction, but it's pretty much what you signed up for when you decided to become a White Sox fan or a Cubs fan or even an A's fan, an Angels fan or a Dodgers fan lately. Unless you decide annually that your team is going to be the team that is skilled enough in the ways of baseball to earn your support, baseball, as one baseball commissioner once famously said, was designed to break your heart. And even then.

This summer, while sitting in traffic, I heard a caller call into the Giants flagship radio station screaming about how the Giants GM needed to be fired. Sure his team had won two championships since 2010, but everyone knows they weren't the best team either time they won the World Series. It's always something.

I was a White Sox fan in 1968 and have continued to be a White Sox fan since. Sports-wise, it's really all I've ever been, although I've liked local National League teams in places I've lived that weren't Chicagoland. This is despite the fact that being a White Sox fan is like being hit in the head with a hammer. You can really appreciate how good it feels when the pounding stops.
I feel lucky to have grown up as a Sox fan when I have, from the early 90s on. More winning teams than not, seldom any truly bad teams, and the last two seasons are the only ones with consecutive records well below .500.

LITTLE NELL
10-18-2014, 07:36 PM
I feel lucky to have grown up as a Sox fan when I have, from the early 90s on. More winning teams than not, seldom any truly bad teams, and the last two seasons are the only ones with consecutive records well below .500.

I started following them in the early 50s and never saw a losing season until 1968, only the Cubs were losers back then and it was a White Sox town.

thomas35forever
10-19-2014, 04:02 PM
Hey now, that's not true! We have a playoff win since the series!
Yes, and it was a very satisfying one after our season was overshadowed in Chicago by the Cubbie lovefest that was going on. There was all this talk about how "It's Gonna Happen". Then, we won the Blackout Game, the Cubs got swept and less than 24 hours after that, we beat the Rays in Game 3. In a way, we had the final say in Chicago baseball that year.

Foulke You
10-21-2014, 01:56 PM
Yes, and it was a very satisfying one after our season was overshadowed in Chicago by the Cubbie lovefest that was going on. There was all this talk about how "It's Gonna Happen". Then, we won the Blackout Game, the Cubs got swept and less than 24 hours after that, we beat the Rays in Game 3. In a way, we had the final say in Chicago baseball that year.
2008 was a fun year. I loved how the Sox crashed the Cubs party that year. The media and fans spoke of a Cubs World Series as if it was a forgone conclusion. That playoff series against the Rays could have gone quite different if it weren't for two things.

1) Carlos Quentin's wrist breaking was a huge blow for the Sox. They likely wouldn't have needed Game 163 if he had stayed healthy and not hit his wrist on that bat and then they would have been able to set their rotation for the ALDS. Also, the Sox offense would have been far more potent in a postseason series with Quentin hitting 3rd as he was having an MVP season.

2) The Sox used their three best pitchers just to get to the playoffs that year and win the blackout game. (Buehrle, Floyd, Danks) Ozzie was faced with a choice to use either Javier Vazquez who had a history of not showing up in big games and lost 5 starts in a row in September of '08 or go with a rookie in Clayton Richard. The correct choice was to use Clayton Richard since the Rays struggled against lefties that year and Vazquez was just terrible down the stretch. However, Ozzie went with the veteran "Little Game" Javier Vazquez and he got tattooed by the Rays after being staked to an early lead. This decision likely cost us Game 1. Clayton Richard came on in relief but it was too little too late. Could have been a different series if we took the first game in Tampa.

sunofgold
10-22-2014, 12:15 AM
You should expect to at least one World Series every 30 years. If you have gone 30 years without one you should be disappointed and/or angry. Thus don't be upset unless the season ends in 2035 and we have 't picked up another title