PDA

View Full Version : Hey, older Sox fans...


1951Campbell
09-18-2003, 10:23 PM
...is the psychic damage from 2003 worse than 1967? Because I feel the most jilted now than in any year since 1980 (my first real year of baseball awareness).

TornLabrum
09-18-2003, 10:25 PM
Originally posted by 1951Campbell
...is the psychic damage from 2003 worse than 1967? Because I feel the most jilted now than in any year since 1980 (my first real year of baseball awareness).

Not really. 1967 was the absolute pits because it looked as if we might actually win something. No divisions back then. Straight to the World Series...except for the A's and Senators, that is.

duke of dorwood
09-18-2003, 10:32 PM
The 1967 team didnt hit, though-it wasnt like this team that you'd think wouldnt shut down completely like it has.

idseer
09-18-2003, 10:53 PM
i've followed them since '56 and i've never been this disappointed before. i've been calling for manuel's head for 3 years and took a lot of crap for it. well now here we are. 3 years in the toilet.
the reason it's worse than any other year to me is that i know the talent on this team was wasted. it's a crime.

Lip Man 1
09-18-2003, 10:55 PM
Not even close.

This team still had a brutal schedule and 13 games left.

The 67 Sox had FIVE GAMES TO GO. Win four and they were IN. They were playing two of the three worst teams in the league and lost ALL five.

Like Mike Andrews said in his WSI Interview the red Sox (he was with them then) looked at the White Sox schedule and said it was all over.

Lip

idseer
09-18-2003, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Not even close.

This team still had a brutal schedule and 13 games left.

The 67 Sox had FIVE GAMES TO GO. Win four and they were IN. They were playing two of the three worst teams in the league and lost ALL five.

Like Mike Andrews said in his WSI Interview the red Sox (he was with them then) looked at the White Sox schedule and said it was all over.

Lip

well i was really speaking about the 'psychic damage' to me. the thing is i was stationed in seoul korea that whole summer and baseball was way down my list of priorities. following the sox wasn't easy from there. i can see why you'd have been very disappointed but at least your disappointment was quick. this season, for me, has been constant tension the whole year knowing they were underachieving from the start.

ode to veeck
09-18-2003, 11:43 PM
67 was worse as I was young and impressionable, and easily traumatized, after 40 more years of this stuff, I only got three brain cells left and they're pretty numb at this point

Dan H
09-19-2003, 06:51 AM
I really think in the end '03 was worse, but does it make any real difference? Just listen to us. Instead of World Series memories, we are dwelling on the gross failures. Next year will make 45 years since the last World Series which was the only one since 1919. And what is worse, if this team still hasn't learned to win, will 45 years turn to 50 before we know it?

southpaw40
09-19-2003, 07:06 AM
Back in '67, before ESPN, scrolling scores and instant updates, there wasn't really any way to keep in touch with a Sox game here in SW Virginia, couldn't pick up the broadcasts here. So I can vividly remember spending the evening of the Kansas City sweep at the local newspaper office, catching the inning-by-inning update on the ticker machines (whatever they were called).
As inning after inning update was reported, I remember that sinking feeling in my stomach, until the final out in the second game. I remember thinking "how in the world could this happen"!
So, in summary, I think that '67 season has prepared me for every season since, because every year before it ends, I always end up with that sinking feeling in my stomach!

PaleHoseGeorge
09-19-2003, 08:05 AM
Not to suggest the pennant collapse of '67 wasn't comparable (or incomparable) to the '03 collapse, but this season had a eerie feeling of 1996 all over again. That's the season the Sox blew a 5-game lead for the wild-card spot in September and failed to make the playoffs. Everyone agreed the collapse was 100 percent the fault of the boob of a manager, too far in over his head for the job at hand.

Bevington kept his job one extra season. Manuel has had six seasons already and won't get another.

Paulwny
09-19-2003, 08:13 AM
1960 and 67 conditioned me for all that later followed.

davenicholson
09-19-2003, 08:22 AM
Originally posted by ode to veeck
67 was worse as I was young and impressionable, and easily traumatized, after 40 more years of this stuff, I only got three brain cells left and they're pretty numb at this point
I couldn't resist replying to a thread with this title! :smile: For me, there is no contest. In 1967, I was 10 years old, and at the peak of my baseball fandom. Gary Peters was like a god to me, and I thought of many Sox players as heroes back then. I agree with Ode, that that collapse crushed me as no other sports event ever did or ever would, although the 1971 Stanley Cup playoffs came close :(: . I was the nerdy kid who used to come in from playing baseball to watch the Sox on WGN, and kept score. You almost never hear (with good reason!) an announcer say, "That's 6-4-3 for those of you scoring at home" anymore. I lived and died for my Sox back then, and even referred to them in the first person :smile: I've since become cynical and jaded, and 1994 was the final nail in my rabid fandom coffin. I still enjoy watching and discussing the Sox (and the Blackhawks and the Bears), and enjoy it much, much more when they win. I just can't get worked up very much over the losses anymore. Sorry for the long rant.

Off topic question: How come the `67 Sox suck so badly whenever I simulate that season with Baseball Mogul 2004? I've tried both letting the computer run everything and the Tinkerer's approach, multiple times, but they always finish below .500. I guess that the real `67 Sox were quite the overachievers, huh?

jortafan
09-19-2003, 08:28 AM
Perhaps it was because I saw how incredibly awful the Sox played back in May, and during their spurt of badness just before the All-Star Game. This latest series didn't surprise me. I actually would have been shocked if they had pulled off a three-game sweep to regain ground.

I was being hopeful for this season, but already had myself braced for the worst.

I'm just wondering now how much of the "future" we traded away in prospects this year will come back to bite us in the butt. Maybe it would have been worth if if we had won something this year, instead of nothing.

Let's just hope this weekend doesn't become the time when Kansas City overtakes us for second place.

adsit
09-19-2003, 09:18 AM
I was only three then... not quite old enough. But as I started following baseball more in the Seventies, and getting my indoctrination as a Sox fan from a few older fans (sort of an oral tradition... passing down the stories of woe), I heard a lot about those "just-missed-its" of a decade earlier.

The impression I'd gotten then and have kept with me jibes with others' recollections here. The '67 Sox played a bit over their heads, created some excitement, and fell just short. The greater disappointments for those fans seemed to come earlier in the Sixties. They were following the nucleus of a team that had made it to the World Series, expectations were higher, and the Sox failed to fully realize them. Our '63-'65 stretch of second-place finishes had frustration written all over them, and seem more comparable to the '03 debacle.

Does this ring true with you (slightly) older guys?

Procol Harum
09-19-2003, 09:36 AM
I was 13 in '67 and it really was the conditioning agent that others have alluded to--that crushing blow (+ 36 years of continued failure) have steeled me to Sox failures. Heading into those five games, it's hard to portray to younger Sox whippersnappers just how "in the bag" the '67 pennant was. It was to be the salve that would ease the pain of falling short in '63-'65, and as Hal pointed out, it meant a direct ride to the World Series.

I still remember watching in horror the 2nd game of that KC doubleheader on WGN, and the picture in the following afternoon's Chicago Today (for you young'ns--that was a newspaper) showing the utterly crushed Sox players walking down the stairs from their plane (I remember Pete Ward's face in particular--he looked as if his home town had been burnt to the ground and all its inhabitants slaughtered). Even then, we had a shot but were shut out, I believe, in the Friday night game against the Senators and that was it. And then on Sunday (shades of Esteban Loiaza?) the team failed poor ol' Joe Horlen in his bid to win his 20th.

So, while this current disaster is depressing, disgusting, and distressing (we're still waiting for that World Series victory and we's gettin' old), it doesn't come near the pain and shock of '67. Generally, there are few pains like the pains of one's youth.

adsit
09-19-2003, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by Procol Harum
and the picture in the following afternoon's Chicago Today (for you young'ns--that was a newspaper)

Hey, I remember Chicago Today... it was the Cubune's afternoon tabloid and actually was a pretty progressive rag in spite of that. It was the 'hip' update to the Chicago American, which was stodgier and more Col. McCormick-like.

I also remember when the slogan for the Sun-Times was "The Bright One." So, some things do change over time.

I was thinking that if divisional play had existed before '69 (and when you think about it, it should have happened with the '62 expansions), most of those Sox teams would have made the "playoffs" in a two-division alignment. Just an indication of how good they really were.

When will we finally pay the karmic debt for 1919?

soxtalker
09-19-2003, 10:04 AM
No question for me -- 1967 was worse. I was in my mid-teens, had become a Sox fan in about 1960 (so I missed the '59 pennant), and I was devoted fan. I still remember watching that doubleheader. It was awful. No, the Sox of that era did not have the hitting of 2003, but the pitching and defense was far superior.

I just never felt in my gut that the 2003 team was going to win. Oh, I hoped for it, but we just seemed to lack that little extra that makes for championship teams.

SpringfldFan
09-19-2003, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Not even close.


The 67 Sox had FIVE GAMES TO GO. Win four and they were IN. They were playing two of the three worst teams in the league and lost ALL five.


Lip


Uhh, I can't help saying it, but doesn't this '67 Sox scenario look an awful lot like the Twins' scenario right now?

Oops, no, I won't go there :o:

harwar
09-19-2003, 11:08 AM
When i was young these things were much easier to take.I'm almost 50 and i can barley ****ing stand this **** any longer.
Once again they really had me goin.I thought with our pitching,improved D,and great offense that we'd be great in the playoffs.But NO here we go again .. total collapse.
I'm so sick of this crap that i'm not even sure if i want to follow baseball(which i dearly love) any longer.
Maybe i'll move to Norway.

Paulwny
09-19-2003, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by adsit
The greater disappointments for those fans seemed to come earlier in the Sixties. They were following the nucleus of a team that had made it to the World Series, expectations were higher, and the Sox failed to fully realize them. Our '63-'65 stretch of second-place finishes had frustration written all over them, and seem more comparable to the '03 debacle.

Does this ring true with you (slightly) older guys?

Prior to the start of the 59 season most "experts" picked the sox to finish 4 to 6 in an 8 team div. Veeck also felt that without any real power hitters the sox wouldn't compete.
For the 60 season he acquied the power hitters that would win another pennant, Minoso, Gene Freese and Roy Sievers. It all looked good on paper, the sox finished 3rd.

KingXerxes
09-19-2003, 01:55 PM
This year is in no way as big a disaster as 1967 - and then what subsequently followed. After letting the pennant get away in '67, this team went into about a three or four year nosedive, and it was during this nosedive that the Cubs jumped up in popularity in this city.

ode to veeck
09-19-2003, 02:10 PM
although the 1971 Stanley Cup playoffs came close

that one REALLY sucked, still remember Brent Mushmouth on channel 2 relaying the news (since the game wasn't broadcast)

davenicholson
09-19-2003, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by ode to veeck
that one REALLY sucked, still remember Brent Mushmouth on channel 2 relaying the news (since the game wasn't broadcast)
My Dad had the big UHF antenna that was motor-driven so that it could face any direction. We lived in NW Indiana, and I remember watching part of that fiasco from a South Bend feed, since even then Blackhawk ownership was blacking out local broadcasts of home games. It was almost like having cable! I still have flashbacks of seeing Tony "O" letting the Pocket Rocket's shot in from the blue line and Ken Dryden standing on his head the entire series. :(:

Dick Allen
09-19-2003, 02:58 PM
Actually, it was Jacques Lemaire who put in that shot from center ice. The Hawks had the Stanley Cup in their hip pockets and then two fluke goals gave all the momentum back to Montreal. Anybody who was a true Chicago sports fan knew that, with the score tied 2-2 going into the 3rd pd, the Hawks had no chance. Just the way we've been conditioned. I saw Tony O at an autograph show 20 years later. He was too nice a guy for me to bring up that goal to him. I saw that game on closed circuit at the Pickwick Theater in Park Ridge. The Wirtzes blacked out the game. What a group of owners this town has.

TornLabrum
09-19-2003, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
1960 and 67 conditioned me for all that later followed.

Don't forget '64 when they lost to the Yankees by one freakin' game.

Paulwny
09-19-2003, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Don't forget '64 when they lost to the Yankees by one freakin' game.

WOW, yea I actually did forget, what the hell was I doing that year?

We won the last 9 games of the season but the yankmees won their last 10 and we end up one game back.
Now that I look at it 64 was worse then 67.

TornLabrum
09-19-2003, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
WOW, yea I actually did forget, what the hell was I doing that year?

We won the last 9 games of the season but the yankmees won their last 10 and we end up one game back.
Now that I look at it 64 was worse then 67.

And as I remember it, the Sox were swept by the Yankees in a very critical series in June or thereabouts, which ended up making all the difference in the world.

Lip Man 1
09-19-2003, 11:07 PM
In fact the Sox lost their first 11 games head to head against the Yankees that season many of them gut wrenching one run losses.

Lip

TornLabrum
09-20-2003, 07:58 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
In fact the Sox lost their first 11 games head to head against the Yankees that season many of them gut wrenching one run losses.

Lip

That's right...it was worse than I remembered!

PaleHoseGeorge
09-20-2003, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
That's right...it was worse than I remembered!

By Sox standards, the 1967 season gets a lot of attention because it was so obviously the end of the go-go era, the "one that got away" storyline. This of course is nothing compared to the mythical stature Flubbie fans have created around their 1969 Lovable Losers, the most over-hyped 92-win-8-games-back-also-rans in this city's history.

Who can deny the '64 Sox were a better team than the '67 Sox? They finished closer to reaching paydirt than the '67 team, too. I guess I have a greater appreciation of how mythology builds up the heroic nature of baseball campaigns. The '64 Sox certainly deserve more attention than they've received.

I think WSI needs a thorough examination of this subject. :smile:

TornLabrum
09-20-2003, 09:02 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
By Sox standards, the 1967 season gets a lot of attention because it was so obviously the end of the go-go era, the "one that got away" storyline. This of course is nothing compared to the mythical stature Flubbie fans have created around their 1969 Lovable Losers, the most over-hyped 92-win-8-games-back-also-rans in this city's history.

Who can deny the '64 Sox were a better team than the '67 Sox? They finished closer to reaching paydirt than the '67 team, too. I guess I have a greater appreciation of how mythology builds up the heroic nature of baseball campaigns. The '64 Sox certainly deserve more attention than they've received.

I think WSI needs a thorough examination of this subject. :smile:

Well, it ain't coming from me. I'm dedicating my life to getting Gen. Disarray fired.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-20-2003, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Well, it ain't coming from me. I'm dedicating my life to getting Gen. Disarray fired.

I'm too young. I can't remember a thing about any of the go-go teams. LBJ and Spiro Agnew looked like the same graying middle-aged politician to me. :smile:

Maybe Lip would be interested?

Procol Harum
09-20-2003, 11:27 AM
I look back to the '64 team as the embodiment of my childhood "Boys of Summer." I agree with George that they deserve more attention, certainly on this site. One of my criticisms of David Halberstam's otherwise excellent book October 1964 is that he paid so much attention to the National League race that year (and, to be sure it wasa classic--the Phillies last week collapse) and gave very little space to the AL race.

That season was very disappointing, to be sure, I even once had some of the '64 Sox World Series tikkees they printed up just in case (Pete Ward and Milo Hamilton brought them out to our Little League banquet that winter). However, we had lost so many early games to New York and were so far behind them--and remember, these were the Yankees "before the Fall" who always won and were just finishing up that incredible run of 14 AL pennants in 16 years--that the fact of our almost catching them was invigorating in and of itself. Remember also that we finished just one game ahead of the Orioles so we were dueling with them as well. If anything it imparted a feeling that surely '65 would be our year--and early on it did indeed seem that way until the stinkin' Twins :angry: pulled an incredible year out of their heinies.

At any rate, while '64 was very tough, it lacked that sense of having been given a golden opportunity to seize destiny by the horns that characterized '67, coming as it did on the earlier disappointments for the Sox.

Lip Man 1
09-20-2003, 03:03 PM
Gang:

Right now I'm in the middle of a historical audio interactive piece on the Sox in the 70's (The So - So Seventies), I've also got Jerry Koosman to interview next Wednesday.

1964 / 1967 will have to wait a few months.

But may I suggest going into the WSI Interview archive and read the interviews that I did with J.C. Martin, Gary Peters and Jim Landis.

I specifically ask these fine players about 1964 and 1967.

It'll give you some additional info on this subject for right now.

Lip

thezeker
09-20-2003, 10:07 PM
Although I was young I still remember both of those years.

First 64. In those days we were so conditioned to the Yankees winning every yerar it did not seem like that big a deal. If I remember right it was not quite as close as that one game sounds. I think we were eliminated with quite a few games to go and we kept on winning. The Yankees also lost there last few and although we were only 1 game out I do not remember the suspense that you hear when people talk about it today!

67 was different. We could not hit a lick but our pitching was out of sight. We really did not deserve to be there but it was ours for the picking. I think this was the year we started a choking tradition that carries on to today! If I'm not mistaking that doubleheader we lost with Horlen & Peters was on TV. We never had a chance.

This year although I was really crushed after the Twin series, in the back of my mind I expected it. I found a new respect for Ken Williams with the moves he made but the team seems tragically flawed. It was a rudderless ship. Although Manuel deserves at least half the blame the players deserve the other half! They expect to win but don't do the things they need to do to TO WIN!

Some of these guys need to be moved. We got a lot of guys who really don't mind losing. Everitt saw it. We all see it

1951Campbell
09-21-2003, 12:38 AM
I'm really surprised by the amount and depth of angst here. I think my dad, Sox fan since the mid-Fifties or so, really supressed a lot of this shizzit. Because I never really heard such angst over 1967, or 1964 for that matter, from him. He ruminated more about '77, '83 , & '94.

I'm both pleasantly surprised and quite saddened by this thread. I'm 28, and I thought the Dibber in '83, coming close in '90, 92-93 ALCS stuff, the '94 strike, White Flag, 2000 and now 2003 was quite painful enough. Now it seems we see ourselves, as Sox fans, as more star-crossed than even the Red Sox. But thank God we aren't as self-aggrandizing about it.

It seems we're destined to wander through the desert of pro sports teams who never win...yet we don't get any psychic satisfaction from it, unlike Flubs and Red Sox fans. Alas.

TornLabrum
09-21-2003, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by 1951Campbell
I'm really surprised by the amount and depth of angst here. I think my dad, Sox fan since the mid-Fifties or so, really supressed a lot of this shizzit. Because I never really heard such angst over 1967, or 1964 for that matter, from him. He ruminated more about '77, '83 , & '94.

I'm both pleasantly surprised and quite saddened by this thread. I'm 28, and I thought the Dibber in '83, coming close in '90, 92-93 ALCS stuff, the '94 strike, White Flag, 2000 and now 2003 was quite painful enough. Now it seems we see ourselves, as Sox fans, as more star-crossed than even the Red Sox. But thank God we aren't as self-aggrandizing about it.

It seems we're destined to wander through the desert of pro sports teams who never win...yet we don't get any psychic satisfaction from it, unlike Flubs and Red Sox fans. Alas.

You're starting to get the general idea of what being a Sox fan is really all about.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-21-2003, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
You're starting to get the general idea of what being a Sox fan is really all about.

Hmm... mmm...

The WSI Manifesto (http://whitesoxinteractive.com/Columnists/Bova/Welcome.htm)

TornLabrum
09-21-2003, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Hmm... mmm...

The WSI Manifesto (http://whitesoxinteractive.com/Columnists/Bova/Welcome.htm)

The operative part of the Manifesto in this case is that we care about winning. I know I want to win desperately. That's why this ownership and the field manager are giving me fits.

We all know that the only reason Kenny Williams got the green light to deal for Alomar and Everett is that the Mets and Rangers are paying all but the MLB minimum salary to them.

We also know that Jerry Manuel's constant tinkering until the All-Star break kept us from being at least five (and probably more like ten) games ahead going into the home series this month against the Twins.

A regular on the AOL Sox board uses a phrase to sum up the way this club is run: "cheap, timid, and stupid." What more can anyone add to that?

Tragg
09-21-2003, 02:31 PM
I was 10 in 1967, and I was just devastated - I'm not devastated today. Mostly because of maturity.
Yet, that year, we led the practically the entire year, and, like this year, lost it because we couldn't beat the worst teams in the league - the senators and athletics (this year, we did beat the tigers, but we really shouldn't have lost more than 3 games to them; that year, we lost the seasonal series to those 2 teams).

So, 1967 was worse for me.

Dick Allen
09-21-2003, 07:42 PM
I don't know why, but for some reason, I wasn't devastated in 1967, maybe because it was such a weak hitting team. I know pitching is the name of the game, but this was a REALLY weak hitting team. It just didn't seem like they belonged. This, and also because we're just conditioned as Chicago sports fans.

Procol Harum
09-21-2003, 10:59 PM
Originally posted by Tragg
I was 10 in 1967, and I was just devastated - I'm not devastated today. Mostly because of maturity.
Yet, that year, we led the practically the entire year, and, like this year, lost it because we couldn't beat the worst teams in the league - the senators and athletics (this year, we did beat the tigers, but we really shouldn't have lost more than 3 games to them; that year, we lost the seasonal series to those 2 teams).

So, 1967 was worse for me.


Actually, what made '67 so galling was that we had beaten the A's and Senators' brains in all year and then choked those final five games. I seem to remember that going into that dh in KC we were something like 28-3 against those teams.

TommyJohn
09-22-2003, 12:55 AM
Originally posted by Procol Harum
Actually, what made '67 so galling was that we had beaten the A's and Senators' brains in all year and then choked those final five games. I seem to remember that going into that dh in KC we were something like 28-3 against those teams.

Actually, no believe it or not. Going into those final five games
the Sox were 8-8 against KC and 8-7 against Washington. They
wound up 8-10 against both for the season.