PDA

View Full Version : Explanation of Corpseball please....


Jurr
05-01-2005, 02:43 PM
I've been a part of this "community" for a few years now, and every time the team has trouble scoring runs, we see the word "Corpseball" come out.
This term was affectionately (or not) coined to describe the hitting of the 2001-2004 Chicago White Sox, also known as the "feast or famine" White Sox.

Now, the other night against Detroit, the Sox had TONS of opportunities to score runs, but just couldn't get things going. When the Sox have lost this year, that's pretty much been the case. The 2001-2004 Sox used to go a number of games in a row with NO action on the bases.......just a slew of deep pop outs and grounders from guys that were trying to kill the ball every time up. We'd see inning after inning of no leadoff runners on base, no bunting, or any kind of attempt at an offense that didn't include fireworks and pinwheels.
That, as far as I knew, was CORPSEBALL.

Because the guys in 2005 went a couple of games with the inability to get the runners on base across the plate (which happens to EVERYONE from time to time), I started hearing the familiar phrase again.

For the high priests on board...what's the official ruling on this? I don't like all the grey areas with terminology.

MRKARNO
05-01-2005, 02:46 PM
Corpseball is when the Sox continually go down 1-2-3 or with maybe a walk or a single interspersed for at least 3-4 innings against bad to mediocre pitching in a bad game. See last year's getting dominated by Brian Anderson and Scott Elarton as the foremost examples of this.

Corpseball is not getting the leadoff man on in nearly every inning and never having them coming around to score like in the Friday night Kittens game. That's just bad hitting.

Jurr
05-01-2005, 02:48 PM
Corpseball is when the Sox continually go down 1-2-3 or with maybe a walk or a single interspersed for at least 3-4 innings against bad to mediocre pitching in a bad game. See last year's getting dominated by Brian Anderson and Scott Elarton as the foremost examples of this.

Corpseball is not getting the leadoff man on in nearly every inning and never having them coming around to score like in the Friday night Kittens game. That's just bad hitting.
Whooo hoooo!! I knew I wasn't crazy!

voodoochile
05-01-2005, 02:48 PM
The term has been corrupted to mean "Sox are losing". I've seen people use it when they scored 6 runs in 3 innings and are only winning 6-4.

It has lost much of the meaning. People throw it out in the 3rd inning, but in reality, it should never be used until after the 6th, IMO and then only if they have struggled to do anything offensively and looked horrible doing it (swinging at first pitches, popping up, grounding into DP's when opportunities do arise, etc.)

chisoxmike
05-01-2005, 02:51 PM
The WSI Dictionary descibes "corpseball" as:

Any lifeless losing effort by the Sox, a predominant phenomenon for over 80 years now.

So, Friday nights game was, by definition, corpseball.

Corpseball was a main stage early in the 2003 campaign. The team couldn't buy a hit to save their lives with runners in scoring position which would cost them games, and eventually the divison crown.

There was even this tag ----> :corpseball

Now, it is used every so often when the team looks lifeless as they usually do from time to time. It has become a problem with the Sox the past 5 years, the team just doesnt look like they even want to win games.

Some people on the board think the term was retired in 2004 when the team started off strong in the first half of the season. In all reality, corspeball, isn't seen as much as it used to, be every so often the team will go back to those dreadful days, like the past Friday.

Jurr
05-01-2005, 02:53 PM
Well, maybe this thread will help clear up for some of the newbies exactly what that word means. It has a DARK, DEPRESSING history.

1.)Corpseball came and saw our beloved White Sox every freakin' time they visited Oakland.

2.)Corpseball became a regular friend during that 11 game losing streak that ended the Sox chances last season.

3.)Corpseball haunted us daily in 2003 after Billy Koch surrendered a walk off homerun to the D-Rays in July. The Sox had swept the Twins and killed the Cubs, had made some big acqusitions, and then proceeded to Corpseball it all the way to 2nd place.

SOX ADDICT '73
05-01-2005, 02:56 PM
I'm relatively new to WSI, and wasn't aware of the specific past criteria for "Corpseball." I've been calling it that recently only because their frustrating inability to score against bad pitchers made me want to kill myself.

Do we need another tag then? What do you call it when a team keeps getting the leadoff man on, or loading the bases with less than two outs, and then discovers new and creative ways to not score runs?

STUPID BALL?

BearSox
05-01-2005, 03:08 PM
What do you call it when a team keeps getting the leadoff man on, or loading the bases with less than two outs, and then discovers new and creative ways to not score runs?

STUPID BALL?

Stupidball :tongue: I like!

Another could be Woodball, because Wood can get a lot of strike outs and has a strong arm but when it comes to doing stuff to win the games he just cant.

doublem23
05-01-2005, 04:04 PM
I would definitely classify Friday and Saturday as corpseball. It is not just the Sox going down 1-2-3, it is their complete inability to get runs in, even if the chances present themselves. Going down 1-2-3 is just ****y hitting/good pitching, stranding runners all game long is corpseball.

PaleHoseGeorge
05-01-2005, 04:47 PM
What is corpseball? I'm surprised nobody has stated the obvious.

"Corpseball" is a cliche, the first and by far the biggest cliche this website has ever spawned. Like all cliches, it has lost virtually all of its meaning. It's like Forrest Gump saying, "Stupid is as stupid does." No value whatsoever. People with weak intellect use cliches all the time, just like Forrest.

Maybe 3-4 years ago "corpseball" had some shred of meaning left to it, but it is definitely meaningless today. Like all cliches it should be avoided to express one's self as your audience can't help but think you're a bit clueless for having used a meaningless cliche.

Using the term "corpseball" makes you sound dumb.

jabrch
05-01-2005, 05:11 PM
The term has been corrupted to mean "Sox are losing". I've seen people use it when they scored 6 runs in 3 innings and are only winning 6-4.


Great post Jim. I totally agree. Corpseball today has littel true meaning compared to what was called Corpseball originally.

Fake Chet Lemon
05-01-2005, 08:38 PM
I'm relatively new to WSI,


How in the world did you get 724 posts since January? Even more impressive, you always have good stuff. You never post for the sake of posting. Back to our regularly scheduled thread......

Brian26
05-01-2005, 08:44 PM
What is corpseball? I'm surprised nobody has stated the obvious.

"Corpseball" is a cliche, the first and by far the biggest cliche this website has ever spawned. Like all cliches, it has lost virtually all of its meaning. It's like Forrest Gump saying, "Stupid is as stupid does." No value whatsoever. People with weak intellect use cliches all the time, just like Forrest.

Maybe 3-4 years ago "corpseball" had some shred of meaning left to it, but it is definitely meaningless today. Like all cliches it should be avoided to express one's self as your audience can't help but think you're a bit clueless for having used a meaningless cliche.

Using the term "corpseball" makes you sound dumb.

To me, the origin of corpseball goes back to 2001 and early 2002, when the Sox would almost always go into a funk against unknown pitchers just called up from Triple A. Whenever we got a rally going, it seemed like Mags or PK would GIDP, or Royce Clayton would be there to strikeout while trying to hit a 500-ft homerun. Maybe corpseball started in the 2000 playoffs. Nothing this year has been even remotely close to corpseball.

Rocklive99
05-01-2005, 10:25 PM
Yep around 2001 or 02, I always had it associated with defense too. It was mostly used for offense, but there were games in Oakland or Minny where they looked so bad that it looked like they didn't care, weren't trying, no enthusiam/dead

SOX ADDICT '73
05-01-2005, 10:39 PM
How in the world did you get 724 posts since January? Even more impressive, you always have good stuff. You never post for the sake of posting. Back to our regularly scheduled thread......
My user name should say it all...I have a sickness...or a Sox-ness, I guess. :redneck

Also, it helps to participate in pretty much every game thread this season (mostly because my fingers aren't nimble enough to keep up with the guys in the chat room).

Thanks for the compliment, Dave. BTW, any reply from Uncle John ("Hey C.C.!") regarding the Milwaukee game? :wink: