PDA

View Full Version : Admit It


Lip Man 1
07-29-2003, 11:25 PM
Admit it...isn't this a hell of a lot more fun then...

1994-helping to shoot themselves in the foot by supporting the labor impasse...

1996-only getting Tony Castillo at the trade deadline when the bullpen was a disaster and the Sox would blow a 4 1/2 game September Wild Card lead...

1997-White Flagging it...

2000-Ignoring a glaring need for pitching at the trade deadline and paying for it in October (and the next year) because the pitchers who remained were tired, injured and ineffective...

Do you think Sox "management" (and I use that term loosly) may have FINALLY got it?

Lip

A.T. Money
07-29-2003, 11:27 PM
Yeah, I think they got it. Now the players need to come through! If the players stink the joint up, then what can you do? Blame the curse I guess.

Either way, if the Sox keep this up, Monday's game vs KC better be a sellout.

WinningUgly!
07-29-2003, 11:30 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1

Do you think Sox "management" (and I use that term loosly) may have FINALLY got it?


I think they do finally get it. Landing Ponson would do a lot more to convince me, though. Another RHP for the pen wouldn't hurt either. :gulp:

kermittheefrog
07-29-2003, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1

2000-Ignoring a glaring need for pitching at the trade deadline and paying for it in October (and the next year) because the pitchers who remained were tired, injured and ineffective...


No way this is more fun than 2000. We were amazing in 2000 and at the deadline we got a catcher who killed the ball for guys no one can remember right now.

And if you actually remember what happened in October it was our offense that failed. Not the pitching.

doublem23
07-29-2003, 11:37 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
No way this is more fun than 2000. We were amazing in 2000 and at the deadline we got a catcher who killed the ball for guys no one can remember right now.

And if you actually remember what happened in October it was our offense that failed. Not the pitching.

I agree. 2000 was, by far, the most exciting baseball year I have experienced as a Sox fan (too young to fully remember 1993). This year has still, for the most part, sucked royally.

Speaking of "sucking" and "royally," the Royals sure do suck!

gogosoxgogo
07-29-2003, 11:42 PM
Boy Lip, this sure is great. I think the management is starting to finally understand that winning = money. Sox fans are not going to support a losing franchise. I think that sucess in the post season this year will do wonders for this franchise. If we could, say win the pennant, I wouldn't be surprised if Sox management decides to resign some of our free agents.

kermittheefrog
07-29-2003, 11:43 PM
Originally posted by doublem23
I agree. 2000 was, by far, the most exciting baseball year I have experienced as a Sox fan (too young to fully remember 1993). This year has still, for the most part, sucked royally.

Speaking of "sucking" and "royally," the Royals sure do suck!

Agreed with all points. I'm also too young to remember much about 93. I remember us clinching the division and me going to a couple playoffs games and the Sox getting destroyed. Stupid Blue Jays. I think I'll hate them forever.

WinningUgly!
07-29-2003, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
We were amazing in 2000 and at the deadline we got a catcher who killed the ball for guys no one can remember right now.


The franchise hasn't been able to recover since losing Brook Fordyce, Miguel Felix, Juan Figueroa & Jason Lakman in that deal. :D:

WhiteSox = Life
07-29-2003, 11:56 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Admit it...isn't this a hell of a lot more fun then...

1994-helping to shoot themselves in the foot by supporting the labor impasse...

1996-only getting Tony Castillo at the trade deadline when the bullpen was a disaster and the Sox would blow a 4 1/2 game September Wild Card lead...

1997-White Flagging it...

2000-Ignoring a glaring need for pitching at the trade deadline and paying for it in October (and the next year) because the pitchers who remained were tired, injured and ineffective...

Do you think Sox "management" (and I use that term loosly) may have FINALLY got it?

Lip

There's no way 2000 can be compared with the Sox "going for it" this year, especially in terms of fun.

First of all, 2000 was totally unexpected, whereas this year, we were supposed to be good. It took a while, but it's looking better.

And, most importantly, the Sox got to the playoffs in 2000, and it remains to be seen if they get there this year. 2000 already has the best story of the years aforementioned, what with the huge surprise and the trip to the playoffs (albeit short-lived).

I sure hope the White Sox do get to the playoffs this year and go as deep as they last did in 1917, but for now, 2000 remains the best year and most fun of those you've brought up above.

jeremyb1
07-30-2003, 12:03 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
2000-Ignoring a glaring need for pitching at the trade deadline and paying for it in October (and the next year) because the pitchers who remained were tired, injured and ineffective...

i completely disagree with you on '00. how was management supposed to anticipate the breakdown in the starting pitching down the stretch? its easy to say they were overworked in hindsight but manuel has always been pretty good as far as taking it easy on his starters. none of those guys had a huge workload and despite the injuries, all three playoff games were low scoring affairs. we simply didn't hit in the playoffs which goes a long ways towards demonstrating that the playoffs and five game series in particular are largely based on luck. we won 95 games and our division, there's no where to point blame there, trading garland and kip wells (who should be our fifth starter we're looking for today) for pedro astacio wouldn't have won the white sox a world series in '00.

pudge
07-30-2003, 12:52 AM
Thanks for reminding me about '96. Man did that suck.

I actually don't think the second half of 2000 was that much fun, but I certainly think management did what they could to help. CJ and Baines were decent moves, and both of them got some hits in the play-offs, which is more than can be said for Frank Thomas. But toward the end of 2000, with the pitching injuries (dead arms for Howry, Sirotka, Parque, Baldwin, and Eldred out for good) and then getting swept 3-0 in the first round, I think that season left a bad taste in my mouth.

I will admit the hot streak in the middle of 2000 was the second-most fun I've had as a Sox fan. Most fun for me was 1990, when the Sox went from last place to second-best record in the AL (finishing second in the division to Oakland) and when they swept Oakland earlier in the season and Dave Stewart said Jack McDowell couldn't hold his jock strap. That ruled. It seemed like every game against Oakland that year was a classic.

'93 was sort of blah for me. The Sox were supposed to win the division in '91 and '92, so '93 was more of a relief. Then they released Fisk. Then they benched George Bell for Mr. K Bo Jackson. Then they unwisely pitched Alvarez third in the post-season rotation and lost to the Jays.

I think this 2003 season has huge promise. But you just never know with this team!

delben91
07-30-2003, 07:26 AM
This certainly is a lot of fun. And yes, I think Sox management has finally got it. KW is starting to break even, and even get the advantage in some of his deals <knocks on wood>.

As for better than 2000, I don't know. I had just started following the Sox in 1993, so I don't remember much about that year, other than seeing them struggle in the playoffs. 2000 was great for me though, helped by the fact that I saw the 3 games in Jacobs Field that began that awesome run against the Tribe and the Yankees. Even at parties in college, I've never had such fun getting beer poured on me than at that series in Cleveland.

Hope 2003 can be just as good...with a better ending. Either way, regardless of the end result, I'm determined to enjoy the ride. This is too much fun to worry about the "what ifs".

GO SOX!!

:gulp:

Soxfan38
07-30-2003, 07:29 AM
The season which was most fun for me was '83. The Sox just killed everybody in the second half. I listened to just about every game on the radio. My biggest dream is that the second half of '03 resemble greatly the second half in '83.

hold2dibber
07-30-2003, 08:09 AM
You guys are all completely missing Lip's point (I think). The point is that it is exciting and refreshing and largely unprecedented for the White Sox to be busting their humps to improve the team at the trade deadline. I don't really understand the Schoenweis deal, but I think the three trades so far, as a whole, have improved the team and made it significantly deeper without giving away too much (Jimenez and Ring are the only 2 I really would have liked to keep). I hope KW can add a RH reliever and/or a 5th starter. But in any event, I am excited by the fact that they're clearly trying and they (finally) seem to understand that an all out lust to win is what matters to White Sox fans.

WhiteSox = Life
07-30-2003, 08:21 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
You guys are all completely missing Lip's point (I think). The point is that it is exciting and refreshing and largely unprecedented for the White Sox to be busting their humps to improve the team at the trade deadline. I don't really understand the Schoenweis deal, but I think the three trades so far, as a whole, have improved the team and made it significantly deeper without giving away too much (Jimenez and Ring are the only 2 I really would have liked to keep). I hope KW can add a RH reliever and/or a 5th starter. But in any event, I am excited by the fact that they're clearly trying and they (finally) seem to understand that an all out lust to win is what matters to White Sox fans.

I think we've honestly realized that point.

However, Kenny could acquire the best talent he can trade for, but if the Sox don't get to the playoffs, and deep therein, these trades don't mean jack for next year, unless most of the acquired players are resigned.

Our point is this year is shaping up to be exciting, but until there are actually results, they can't compare to the seasons the Sox got to the playoffs, despite their exits.

That be elucidated (sorta), I'm sure no White Sox fan on these boards would be upset in the least if this season were to become the most exciting season any of us have ever seen.

:smile:

daveb816
07-30-2003, 09:10 AM
Great post, but '96 Sox had a 4.5 wild card lead in mid-August. It was just a game or 2 lead by 9/1.

Procol Harum
07-30-2003, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by daveb816
Great post, but '96 Sox had a 4.5 wild card lead in mid-August. It was just a game or 2 lead by 9/1.

I'd be interested in more details on '96--I was wondering why what happened that year didn't ring any bells or whether my Alzheimer's was really kicking in--then I remembered that I was out of the country for most of September and by the time I got back....my Packers were en route to a Super Bowl victory :D: . At any rate, more enlightenment on the '96 Sox season would be of interest.

gosox41
07-30-2003, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Admit it...isn't this a hell of a lot more fun then...

1994-helping to shoot themselves in the foot by supporting the labor impasse...

1996-only getting Tony Castillo at the trade deadline when the bullpen was a disaster and the Sox would blow a 4 1/2 game September Wild Card lead...

1997-White Flagging it...

2000-Ignoring a glaring need for pitching at the trade deadline and paying for it in October (and the next year) because the pitchers who remained were tired, injured and ineffective...

Do you think Sox "management" (and I use that term loosly) may have FINALLY got it?

Lip

I think KW is slowly getting it. Maybe he sees the writing on the wall and knows he's done if the team doesn't go to the playoffs.

JM fails to get it with his misuse of the bullpen and line up.

Anyone notice that this team is starting to hit now that JM is using basically 2 line ups (one for lefties and one for righties?) He only seems to be platooning the catching position which is fine. The rest of the line up needs to be set. It only took the fans to boo him mercilessly, the media to give him a lot of crap in the papers, Rich White and Jose Valentin to cal him out in the papers, and 3 1/2 years to finally get some sort of clue.

Bob

jabrch
07-30-2003, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by SoxDemon
Either way, if the Sox keep this up, Monday's game vs KC better be a sellout.


That's for dang sure....Monday vs Kansas City should play to a completely packed house. I'll be there.

gosox41
07-30-2003, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by gogosoxgogo
Boy Lip, this sure is great. I think the management is starting to finally understand that winning = money. .

"Interesting theory. I wish to subscribe to your newsletter."
-Homer Simpson to Lisa after she explained a basic concept to him.

Bob

WhiteSox = Life
07-30-2003, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
"Interesting theory. I wish to subscribe to your newsletter."
-Homer Simpson to Lisa after she explained a basic concept to him.

Bob

Ah bup bup bup.

Sorry, but I'm gonna have to correct this.

Bart Simpson: I think sharing is overrated too. And helping others. And what's all this crap I've been hearing about tolerance?
Homer Simpson: Your ideas are intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. But I think I'll go on the retreat anyway.

My work here is done.

Life-Style

Lip Man 1
07-30-2003, 11:17 AM
Hold:

Thanks...you got my point correctly. (I can't believe how young some of the folks are on this site. Don't remember 93? Don't remember 90? Don't remember 83? Hell you couldn't possibly understand 77 or 72 then!)

Procol:

Some bad memories from 1996.

On June 10th the Sox were 40-21 tied for first place. They were killing the ball offensively and Sports Illustrated had just come out with a story that the Indians were going to be in a fight for the division.

The Sox would end the season eight games over .500! despite having three guys drive in over 100 RBI's (Thomas, Ventura, Tartabull) and having another (Baines) with 95!

Just when things were going very well the bullpen fell apart. It would go on to end the year with the most blown saves in a single season in baseball history (since broken by the Orioles)

The Sox would lose 10 of 11 in June (including three extra inning games)

The Sox would lose 9 of 11in July (including dropping four games where they took a lead into the 7th inning or later as well as three extra inning games!)

At the trade deadline, as was pointed out, they still had a decent lead in the Wild Card race and did BASICALLY NOTHING. (Tony Castillo) This caused both Tony Phillips and Roberto Hernandez to rip the front office in The Sporting News.

The Sox blew the Wild Card in September going 12-13 for the month getting "eliminated" with a loss to the Twins on the 28th.

I've always felt that if the Sox made the playoffs they would NOT have gone out and signed Albert Belle and there never would have been a "White Flag Trade."


Thoughts on 2000:

If anybody thinks the Sox didn't need pitching they obviously don't remember Cal Eldred walking off the mound in mid July against the Cardinals holding his right arm. They don't remember James Baldwin missing a month (mid August - mid September) with a "mysterious" arm injury and they don't remember the Sox scrambling to find pitchers to the point where they actually took a flyer on Ken Hill because that was the best they could do. (or more to the point, the best they WOULD do!)

I thought Charles Johnson was a great pickup but they needed more then that and didn't do squat! Then they compounded the problem by NOT resigning Johnson because his agent was Scott Boras.

2000 was a "fluke" pure and simple.

This team if they get to the playoffs (not a certain thing) has the talent and the experience to actually win a game (maybe two).

In a short series they could be dangerous against whomever they face although ultimately they will get beat because they still don't have the talent overall that New York, Boston and Seattle do. (What a surprise ALL those teams have monster payrolls!!!!!)

Lip

Hullett_Fan
07-30-2003, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Thoughts on 2000:

If anybody thinks the Sox didn't need pitching they obviously don't remember Cal Eldred walking off the mound in mid July against the Cardinals holding his right arm. They don't remember James Baldwin missing a month (mid August - mid September) with a "mysterious" arm injury and they don't remember the Sox scrambling to find pitchers to the point where they actually took a flyer on Ken Hill because that was the best they could do. (or more to the point, the best they WOULD do!)

2000 was a "fluke" pure and simple.

This team if they get to the playoffs (not a certain thing) has the talent and the experience to actually win a game (maybe two).

Lip

Right on Lip! I'm old enough to remember 2000 ( :D: ) and as I watched the playoffs on TV (and in person for Game 2) I remember expecting them to lose the series and be lucky to win one game. My thinking was the pitching wouldn't hold up...but it turns out the offense was the problem. Frank, Maggs, etc. were no-shows.

That worries me a bit about this year (assuming make the playoffs). Everett hasn't turned it on, will Thomas show up?, will Konerko still be in his groove?, will Crede crumble under the pressure?

BUT...the acquisitions of Alomar and Colon, plus having so many players on the roster that experienced the choke in 2000 makes me more optimistic about our chances in the 2003 postseason (again, assuming we make it).

hold2dibber
07-30-2003, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Some bad memories from 1996.

On June 10th the Sox were 40-21 tied for first place. They were killing the ball offensively and Sports Illustrated had just come out with a story that the Indians were going to be in a fight for the division.

The Sox would end the season eight games over .500! despite having three guys drive in over 100 RBI's (Thomas, Ventura, Tartabull) and having another (Baines) with 95!

Just when things were going very well the bullpen fell apart. It would go on to end the year with the most blown saves in a single season in baseball history (since broken by the Orioles)

The Sox would lose 10 of 11 in June (including three extra inning games)

The Sox would lose 9 of 11in July (including dropping four games where they took a lead into the 7th inning or later as well as three extra inning games!)

At the trade deadline, as was pointed out, they still had a decent lead in the Wild Card race and did BASICALLY NOTHING. (Tony Castillo) This caused both Tony Phillips and Roberto Hernandez to rip the front office in The Sporting News.

The Sox blew the Wild Card in September going 12-13 for the month getting "eliminated" with a loss to the Twins on the 28th.

I've always felt that if the Sox made the playoffs they would NOT have gone out and signed Albert Belle and there never would have been a "White Flag Trade."

'96 was absolutely brutal. In some ways even more frustrating to me than in '97, because I had more faith in the team in '96 than in '97 (the '96 collapse fueling my distrust of the team in '97). Bad, bad memories.


I thought Charles Johnson was a great pickup but they needed more then that and didn't do squat! Then they compounded the problem by NOT resigning Johnson because his agent was Scott Boras.

I wanted the Sox to re-sign CJ as well, but in retrospect, thank God they didn't. I believe he signed with the Marlins for 5 years, $35 million. And he's been pretty much a disaster ever since. Signing him would really, really crippled the team for years.

TornLabrum
07-30-2003, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by Procol Harum
I'd be interested in more details on '96--I was wondering why what happened that year didn't ring any bells or whether my Alzheimer's was really kicking in--then I remembered that I was out of the country for most of September and by the time I got back....my Packers were en route to a Super Bowl victory :D: . At any rate, more enlightenment on the '96 Sox season would be of interest.

For those of you who have forgotten, that was the year that Boomer burned out the arms of the bullpen, one pitcher at a time.

maurice
07-30-2003, 01:00 PM
Adding pitching would not have helped the Sox in 2000. The pitching obviously was good enough. What they needed was run-production from their vaunted offense during the playoffs. Frank's late-season/playoff slump was not helpful in this respect. The real "fluke" season was 2001, given the rash of injuries, many of which were caused by Sox mis-management during 2000.

Lip Man 1
07-30-2003, 04:56 PM
One other point about 1996 and the comparisons to this season are stunning.

In 1996 the Sox had the best four man rotation in the division (Alvarez 15 wins, Baldwin 11, Fernandez 16, Tapani 13)

This year the Sox have the best four man rotation in the division.

In 1996 the Sox had major troubles finding a 5th starter (They used Luis Andujar, Jason Bere, Mike Bertotti, M. Freeman, Joe Magrane, Scott Ruffcorn and Mike Sirotka) Those pitchers combined to have a record of 4-11 in 26 starts

This year mercifully, the Sox haven't had to try to use the same number of 5th starters but the results have been poor as well.

In 1996 the Sox blew the Wild Card and finished three games behind the Orioles.

This year????? Obviously the Wild Card is out, it's win the division or nothing.

Contrary to what some posters have been implying the 5th starter is JUST as important as your top guys! The games all count for the same thing regardless of weather your #1 or #5 guy is throwing.

Granted the 5th starter doesn't get as many turns but if you have an awful record in that slot it can cost you dearly. If the Sox 5th starters in 96 were 8-7 for example, they make the playoffs!

It DOES matter. so again I ask the question, are you willing to risk a potential spot in October over three or four starts?

Fix the problem!

Lip

Randar68
07-30-2003, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Granted the 5th starter doesn't get as many turns but if you have an awful record in that slot it can cost you dearly. If the Sox 5th starters in 96 were 8-7 for example, they make the playoffs!

It DOES matter. so again I ask the question, are you willing to risk a potential spot in October over three or four starts?

Fix the problem!

Lip

No, I'm not willing to trade anything of value in regards to the future for those 3 starts, when we could throw anybody out there and still have a chance to win at least 2 of those games.

It isn't like we are going to forfiet unless we get a 5th starter other than Wright.

hold2dibber
07-30-2003, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by WhiteSox = Life
Our point is this year is shaping up to be exciting, but until there are actually results, they can't compare to the seasons the Sox got to the playoffs, despite their exits.

Not that it really matters, but I don't think Lip was suggesting that this year was more exciting than '00 as a whole, but instead that it sure is nice to have the team making deals to improve at the deadline instead of making deals to dump payroll or instead of simply standing pat as post season chances slip away. I think everyone can agree on that point.

Lip Man 1
07-30-2003, 10:56 PM
Hold:

You are correct sir!

Lip

doublem23
07-30-2003, 11:25 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1

Thanks...you got my point correctly. (I can't believe how young some of the folks are on this site. Don't remember 93? Don't remember 90? Don't remember 83? Hell you couldn't possibly understand 77 or 72 then!)


I remember 1993, just not that much. Don't remember 1990, couldn't tell you much about 1983 because I wasn't born for a good 130-140 games of the year and my folks hadn't even met by '77 and '72.

As for the short series, I don't see any reason why this team can't beat anyone in the American League. Pitching is there. Hitting is there. Anything can happen. Raise of hands at how many believed the Angels would be the ones celebrating?

Case rested.

Go Sox!

IronFisk
07-31-2003, 12:16 AM
Far and away 1983 was the most exciting Sox year ever. No, I was not there in 1959, but I can't imagine it being as intense. You see, it was unexpected, and don't forget, Chicago hadn't won CRAP in baseball since 1959, or any type of championship since the 63 Bears (unless you are a soccer fan and count the 1981 Sting). Their run was HUGE! They were nearly .500 at all-star break, and then went out and WON EVERY FREAKIN SERIES until the playoffs. LaMarr Hoyt was brilliant! The city went NUTS! Absolutely FREAKIN NUTS! ENTIRE sportscasts were done at the park during game nights! There was simply nothing else like it - which of course made the playoff outcome INCREDIBLY heartbreaking! But hey, we can at least rest easy knowing the flubbies bit it EVEN WORSE the following year...THANK YOU STEVE GARVEY!!!

:gulp: here's to you Steve, where ever you are!

TornLabrum
07-31-2003, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by IronFisk
Far and away 1983 was the most exciting Sox year ever. No, I was not there in 1959, but I can't imagine it being as intense. You see, it was unexpected, and don't forget, Chicago hadn't won CRAP in baseball since 1959, or any type of championship since the 63 Bears (unless you are a soccer fan and count the 1981 Sting). Their run was HUGE! They were nearly .500 at all-star break, and then went out and WON EVERY FREAKIN SERIES until the playoffs. LaMarr Hoyt was brilliant! The city went NUTS! Absolutely FREAKIN NUTS! ENTIRE sportscasts were done at the park during game nights! There was simply nothing else like it - which of course made the playoff outcome INCREDIBLY heartbreaking! But hey, we can at least rest easy knowing the flubbies bit it EVEN WORSE the following year...THANK YOU STEVE GARVEY!!!

:gulp: here's to you Steve, where ever you are!

You obviously don't remember all the one run games in 1959, so you couldn't know how it was. '83 was a 20-game cakewalk where the Sox just dominated after the All-Star break. '59 was street fight with the Indians until mid-September.

Procol Harum
07-31-2003, 09:26 AM
Muchas gracias, Lip, for the outstanding insights into the '96 debacle. I reeeaaallly must have been busy that year--or perhaps it was an extended abduction by aliens. Actually, besides the busy angle, I think I was still so peeved from the '94 strike and the Sox' failure to do anything to ready themselves for the '95 season (unlike the Injuns) that I was emotionally on the shelf. The '97 season is much clearer in my mind--which is an unfortunate thing, actually. :(:

At any rate, I have a good handle on '63, '64, '65, '66, '67, '72,
'73, '74, '77, '81, '82, '84, '85, '90, '91, '92.....

Lip Man 1
07-31-2003, 10:56 AM
In connection with the 20th anniversary celebration of the 1983 club in September, yours truly is putting together another little historic audio column for the site that should bring back (or create) memories fro Sox fans.

Lip

IronFisk
07-31-2003, 11:31 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
You obviously don't remember all the one run games in 1959, so you couldn't know how it was. '83 was a 20-game cakewalk where the Sox just dominated after the All-Star break. '59 was street fight with the Indians until mid-September.

Of course Tom, the media coverage was a tad more sedate in 1959 than 1983.

JJAustin69
07-31-2003, 11:36 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
In connection with the 20th anniversary celebration of the 1983 club in September, yours truly is putting together another little historic audio column for the site that should bring back (or create) memories fro Sox fans.

Lip Excellent. '83 is the year that turned Chicago on its ear. No talk of Cubs town back then. White Sox were the first team in Chicago to draw 2 million in two consecutive years 83-84. I am telling you guys, this city is ripe for the taking baseball wise. The silent majority are White Sox fans. In 93, I can remember driving to Comiskey down the Dan Ryan to the clinching game against the Mariners and people were flying white socks out of their car windows everywhere. The excitement that the White Sox generate when they win is unbelievable.