PDA

View Full Version : Worst Sox Season Poll***


HomerCoach
05-18-2004, 03:21 PM
Place a vote.

Sorry 32ndandwallace, I like to see the numbers.

HomerCoach
05-18-2004, 03:31 PM
Sorry if I missed your worst year. Actually, it's quite sad we have this many years in the poll.

Hangar18
05-18-2004, 03:36 PM
I think this needs to be re-worked.............
Worst years of the REINSDORF era ........

Foulke You
05-18-2004, 03:42 PM
Why would 2000 even be a choice? That was a great year, we won 95 games. I know we didn't go anywhere in the post season but it was a memorable year for the Sox.

Btw, 1994 hands down. A White Sox World Series thrown away because of players union and baseball owner greed. A gaping wound for Sox fans that hasn't healed for some.

HomerCoach
05-18-2004, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by Foulke You
Why would 2000 even be a choice? That was a great year, we won 95 games. I know we didn't go anywhere in the post season but it was a memorable year for the Sox.

Btw, 1994 hands down. A White Sox World Series thrown away because of players union and baseball owner greed. A gaping wound for Sox fans that hasn't healed for some.


2000?-because the guy making the poll is a MORON. Sorry

1994- has my vote , I was 15 and braggin all over the place.

SoxFan78
05-18-2004, 03:52 PM
1994 all the way. Correct me if Im wrong, but didnt Big Frank have 30+ homeruns at the break and there was talk about him threating the single season home run record? I think Ken Griffey Jr. and Matt Williams were also chasing.

soxtalker
05-18-2004, 04:01 PM
I voted for '70. I don't think that any of the teams listed (maybe '76) come anywhere close. But this has to be better defined. If the question is what was the most disappointing season -- then '94 might make sense, though things sure looked good coming out of spring training in '84. But the biggest problem with a survey like this is that we only work from our personal memories. I've been a fan since the 60's. Someone younger won't even know how bad things were in 1970. There probably isn't a member of this board who knows how things were in the 20's, 30's, and 40's -- and those were truly bleak times for Sox fans.

ma_deuce
05-18-2004, 04:24 PM
http://www.foursport.ca/godfather.jpg

"I know it was you, 1994. You broke my heart. You broke my heart..."

pudge
05-18-2004, 05:15 PM
The 1994 nonsense cracks me up. That Sox team was yet again playing under their potential and the up-and-coming Cleveand team (which would win over 100 games the next season) was ONE GAME BEHIND the Sox when the strike hit.

I'm not saying we wouldn't have won the division, I'm just saying it's far, far, far from the lock Sox fans like to remember it being.

32nd&Wallace
05-18-2004, 05:56 PM
I'm new here...so it was hard for me to start a poll...But good idea!

JRIG
05-18-2004, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by pudge
The 1994 nonsense cracks me up. That Sox team was yet again playing under their potential and the up-and-coming Cleveand team (which would win over 100 games the next season) was ONE GAME BEHIND the Sox when the strike hit.

I'm not saying we wouldn't have won the division, I'm just saying it's far, far, far from the lock Sox fans like to remember it being.

Plus, talent-wise, Montreal almost certainly had the best team in baseball that year.

32nd&Wallace
05-18-2004, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by ma_deuce
http://www.foursport.ca/godfather.jpg

"I know it was you, 1994. You broke my heart. You broke my heart..."

I agree...a lot of people forget that the Yankees had a much better record in 1994. Its kind of the same thinking like how in 1983 if we had won Game 4, Hoyt would have pitched, we would have won the Series, beaten the Phillies...../

samram
05-18-2004, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by pudge
The 1994 nonsense cracks me up. That Sox team was yet again playing under their potential and the up-and-coming Cleveand team (which would win over 100 games the next season) was ONE GAME BEHIND the Sox when the strike hit.

I'm not saying we wouldn't have won the division, I'm just saying it's far, far, far from the lock Sox fans like to remember it being.

Yeah they were one game back, but I think Cleveland had a six or seven game lead in late July, and the Sox came back to take the lead. Plus, McDowell and Fernandez were just getting going in late July, early August- they were 1 and 2 in pitcher of the month for July I think. Their all-star pitchers were their 3 and 4 guys. I don't know if they would have done anything in the post-season either, but they were really good that year.

maurice
05-18-2004, 06:53 PM
Frank's numbers in 1994 were exceptional, even for him: 34 2B, 38 HR, 106 Runs, 101 RBI, 109 BB, .353 AVE, .487 OBP, .729 SLG, 1.216 OPS (!) in only 113 games.

That projects out to something like 48 2B, 53 HR, 148 Runs, 141 RBI, 153 BB over a full season.

Nick@Nite
05-18-2004, 06:56 PM
1919

samram
05-18-2004, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by maurice
Frank's numbers in 1994 were exceptional, even for him: 34 2B, 38 HR, 106 Runs, 101 RBI, 109 BB, .353 AVE, .487 OBP, .729 SLG, 1.216 OPS (!) in only 113 games.

That projects out to something like 48 2B, 53 HR, 148 Runs, 141 RBI, 153 BB over a full season.

And Julio Franco had 20 HR and 98 RBI, which projected to about 28 and 130, not a bad 1-2 punch.

HomerCoach
05-18-2004, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by 32nd&Wallace
I agree...a lot of people forget that the Yankees had a much better record in 1994.

Yankees had 70 wins and the Sox had 67 wins at the time of the strike.

voodoochile
05-18-2004, 07:47 PM
When I first read the title of this thread, I thought you were asking which poll has been the worst of this Sox Season...

HomerCoach
05-18-2004, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
When I first read the title of this thread, I thought you were asking which poll has been the worst of this Sox Season...

Feel free to change the title. I'll take no offense...:whiner:

voodoochile
05-18-2004, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by HomerCoach
Feel free to change the title. I'll take no offense...:whiner:

No, no. I was just joking...

I was actually trying to figure out which one was the worst and then I clicked the thread open and saw I was mistaken...

Hangar18
05-18-2004, 08:26 PM
Wow, I see everyone agrees the 1994 Season was the most Disappointing. I wonder how Jerry Feels knowing that he will go down infamously in History for Causing the Single Most Disappointing Season for SOX Fans.

1951Campbell
05-18-2004, 08:32 PM
If you only went by posts here at WSI, you would always think whatever the current season happens to be is the worst.

samram
05-18-2004, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
Wow, I see everyone agrees the 1994 Season was the most Disappointing. I wonder how Jerry Feels knowing that he will go down infamously in History for Causing the Single Most Disappointing Season for SOX Fans.

Most disappointing, yes. But it wasn't the worst. I loved that season up until the strike. Maybe because I was only 15 or 16, I just cared about the game, and didn't care about the other stuff even though I knew it was coming. I have never felt as good about a team's chances as I did about that team's. There was an all-star caliber pitcher on the mound almost every night and the offense was teriffic. 1995 sucked because the team was so different and completely unprepared for a season. Instead they prepared for a scrub team with Oil Can Boyd and Pete Rose, Jr. :(:

Daver
05-18-2004, 08:42 PM
1919.

The franchise will never lose that black eye.

nasox
05-18-2004, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by Daver
1919.

The franchise will never lose that black eye.

We can never lose it, but we can cover it up............with another black eye (94, dybas, ligue, drillrods) :D:

voodoochile
05-18-2004, 08:52 PM
Originally posted by Daver
1919.

The franchise will never lose that black eye.

By that standard, 1997 has to be considered top two, IMO. The WFT not only has to be considered just as bad, IMO. Maybe worse because this time it was management giving up.

In addition this move had a disaterous affect on the fan base, effectively finishing the decimation begun by the long string of PR blunders JR inflicted on the team and the fans since he bought the team.

Daver
05-18-2004, 08:59 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
By that standard, 1997 has to be considered top two, IMO. The WFT not only has to be considered just as bad, IMO. Maybe worse because this time it was management giving up.

In addition this move had a disaterous affect on the fan base, effectively finishing the decimation begun by the long string of PR blunders JR inflicted on the team and the fans since he bought the team.

I don't see the logic in comparing management making a trade to a group of players being paid by organized crime to throw a world series.

voodoochile
05-18-2004, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by Daver
I don't see the logic in comparing management making a trade to a group of players being paid by organized crime to throw a world series.

Maybe it is the fact that it is much more recent and had a bigger impact on the current state of the team's attendance woes.

No one today refuses to go to USCF because of 1919, or at least not many people. Sure maybe there are 4th generation fans who were raised as fans of the lovable losers because of what happened 84+ years ago, but 1997 absolutely killed the fanbase.

Daver
05-18-2004, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Maybe it is the fact that it is much more recent and had a bigger impact on the current state of the team's attendance woes.

No one today refuses to go to USCF because of 1919, or at least not many people. Sure maybe there are 4th generation fans who were raised as fans of the lovable losers because of what happened 84+ years ago, but 1997 absolutely killed the fanbase.

I can see your point,but when all is said and done,the 1919 White Sox are the only team to have ever accepted cash to throw a World Series,and that will always be in their history. The blackeye I was referring to had more to do with history than the fanbase.

voodoochile
05-18-2004, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by Daver
I can see your point,but when all is said and done,the 1919 White Sox are the only team to have ever accepted cash to throw a World Series,and that will always be in their history. The blackeye I was referring to had more to do with history than the fanbase.

I agree with that perspective too. I guess I was just looking at it a different way. Of course along that vein, 1997 was no picnic. It made the team the laughing stock of the league, coined a new catch phrase for making deadline trades when a team is still in it and in genral ruined the Sox reputation on a number of levels.

WFT, the Sox and Reinsy will forever be linked and I personally feel it will go down as one of the worst moves from a PR perspective in the history of professional sports.

OEO Magglio
05-18-2004, 09:38 PM
Well last year absolutely destroyed me because I thought if the sox made the playoffs they could have done some damage with the pitchers they were going to throw out there. By reading this thread though 1970 seemed pretty awful.

Railsplitter
05-18-2004, 09:50 PM
1970. Coming on the heels of the Cubs and 1969, it had to be worst, losing a record high 106 games. The 1932 Sox were worse in terms of winning percentage, but actually finished ahead of Boston.

MikeW
05-18-2004, 10:03 PM
I chose the 1970 season because I lived through it. The team had a few guys who could hit but this team was quoted in 'Newsweek' as being a bunch of fat,lazy slobs. You talk about attendence issues now, how about crowds of 700? The total home attendence was around 400.000. And this coming on the heels of the miserable 1968 and 1969 seasons, where the Sox played home games in Milwaukee and there was a lot of talk of the team moving there. Not a good time at all.

Lip Man 1
05-18-2004, 10:20 PM
1970 it is... that was God awful and so was 1968 and 1969 (you can look it up...)

A few points about 1994.

Cleveland NEVER had a six or seven game lead on the Sox.

Two, the Sox had beaten the Yanks more times that season then the other way around (I think it was 4-3...) and

three the assumption is valid that the Sox did not have a cake walk into the series however it would have been very tough for anybody to beat the pitching staff they had, enough times in a short series.

They had an excellent chance.

Lip

Railsplitter
05-19-2004, 08:02 AM
... the five worst Sox seasons, based on winning percentage


1. 1932 .325 (49-102)
2. 1948 .336 (51-101)
3. 1970 .346 (56-106)
4. 1934 .349 (53-99)
5. 1950 .390 (60-94)

Apparently, they were a little lax on making up rainouts back in the day.

Before you ask, the top five


1. 1917 .679 (100-54)
2. 1919 .629 (88-52)
3. 1920 .623 (96-58)
4. 1906 .616 (93-58)
5. 1983 .611 (99-63)

1918 and 1919 had short schedules

DSpivack
05-19-2004, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by Daver
I can see your point,but when all is said and done,the 1919 White Sox are the only team to have ever accepted cash to throw a World Series,and that will always be in their history. The blackeye I was referring to had more to do with history than the fanbase.

They're the only team that has been caught doing so. There are others.

Greg1983
05-19-2004, 10:59 AM
Not sure if this is appropos of anything, but I've got the Ken Burns "Baseball" documentary on DVD. It was a gift a couple of years ago. I think it makes an interesting point about how devastating 1919 was, and why it is singularly important in the history of the franchise even if no one really remembers or thinks they care anymore.

Naturally, I've paid very close attention to how much coverage the White Sox received in the documentary. There is a nice little feature of the 1906 Hitless Wonders, then a very long feature on the Black Sox (and as I recall, absolutely no mention that the Sox won the Series in 1917), and that's it.

Nothing about the 1917 team. Nothing about the Go-Go Sox of the 50's/60's. Nothing about the South Side Hitmen. At one point, when discussing owners' attempts to drive attendance in the 70's, it mentions owners using "exploding scoreboards, disco demolitions, even players wearing shorts," but it never attributes any of this distinctly White Sox silliness to the team, to Bill Veeck, or Comiskey. It doesn't even have any photos or video from these escapades.

At the very end of the last DVD in the set, there is some extraordinary footage of old Comiskey being demolished that brings tears to my eyes. There is also some talk of Carlton Fisk getting screwed by the owners in the collusion scandal of the 80's.

In short, using the Burns documentary as a guide, the only things about the Sox that merit attention post-1919 are shady business practices and tearing down an old ballpark.

I'm not saying Burns is some absolute authority, but if you remove yourself from either the Totally Biased world of WSI or the totally biased world of the Cubune and Chicago media, you get the sense that the only historically significant thing about this team was the Black Sox. It's sad to think that this is how neutral observers/casual fans view our ballclub.

I think the Black Sox remain a huge stain on our franchise, and until we start winning something again, it will remain so. Ask any old Schmoe on the street of another city what he knows about the history of the White Sox: if he has an answer at all, it would probably be "Isn't that the team that threw the World Series?"