Rogers: Good Sox Teams In The 30's?

[DrCrawdad]

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/media/thumbnails/columnist/2003-05/7622751.jpg
...Perhaps back in the late '30s, when there were consistently good teams on both sides of town...

For the White Sox, the 30's were good, depending on your definition of good.

WHITE SOX
1930 62-92 7th
1931 56-97 8th
1932 49-102 7th
1933 67-83 6th
1934 53-99 8th
1935 74-78 5th
1936 81-70 3th
1937 86-68 3th
1938 65-83 6th
1939 85-69 4th

According to me, that plain stinks.

The 1930's were good for the Cubs with 3 NL Pennants and three 2nd place finishes.

[gogosoxgogo]

Originally posted by DrCrawdad
1936 81-70 3th
1937 86-68 3th


?

:D:

[DrCrawdad]

Originally posted by gogosoxgogo
?

:D:

Well that's how it sounds after a few Guinness.

:gulp:

[WhiteSox = Life]

Good thing they never finished second.

:D:

[VeeckAsInWreck]

If they finished first it would sound the way Mike Tyson would say it! :smile:

[TornLabrum]

Originally posted by DrCrawdad
Well that's how it sounds after a few Guinness.

:gulp:

Pronounced threeth?

[PaleHoseGeorge]

For a reporter who Chicago's #1 news organization picked to cover the major league baseball beat, Rogers sure seems like just another guy from Texas, doesn't he?

The White Sox sucked in the 20's, 30's, and 40's. There is no way to sugar-coat it, unless your whole point was to note the success of Chicago's lovable fuzzy wuzzy team, the Cubs of the 30's. But that's not what he wrote, is it? I mean, why not note the success of "Chicago's teams" in the 50's--except that the Cubs absolutely sucked?

Damn Cubune... :angry: