PDA

View Full Version : SOX Break Record - ESPN.com has no story


Goose
05-04-2005, 06:00 PM
Looking at the espn.com site this afternoon, I did not see 1 article on the record that the SOX broke last night regarding the 25-games-with-the-lead (although, to my surprise, there were WOOD On The DL, Yankees - What Can We Do to Save This Team, etc. articles). Is it in one of their "IN" (subscribers) articles? Does anyone here subscriber? I don't expect a lot of you would...I don't want to give that tabloid any of my money either, but if that no-good-Cubfan uncle of yours bought you an "IN" subscription and you saw a piece, can you post it?

Johnny Mostil
05-04-2005, 06:04 PM
I didn't know this record even existed until the Sox started closing in on it . . .

MUScholar21
05-04-2005, 06:05 PM
I just checked and there wasn't anything on the White Sox. However, I did find this:

:boston "The best part of the White Sox this year is that the more I say 'Sox,' the more it gives me an opportunity to deftly change the conversation to talk about Boston. Curt Schilling's minor league rehab start in Pawtucket...."

Hitmen77
05-04-2005, 06:06 PM
Looking at the espn.com site this afternoon, I did not see 1 article on the record that the SOX broke last night regarding the 25-games-with-the-lead (although, to my surprise, there were WOOD On The DL, Yankees - What Can We Do to Save This Team, etc. articles). Is it in one of their "IN" (subscribers) articles? Does anyone here subscriber? I don't expect a lot of you would...I don't want to give that tabloid any of my money either, but if that no-good-Cubfan uncle of yours bought you an "IN" subscription and you saw a piece, can you post it?

I've always wanted to to this! :D:

:tealpolice:

jortafan
05-04-2005, 06:14 PM
For what it's worth, the White Sox and their new record were the lead story on the baseball portion of the ESPN web site Wednesday in the morning hours. All that stuff you cite is what replaced it for the afternoon.

daveeym
05-04-2005, 10:52 PM
For what it's worth, the White Sox and their new record were the lead story on the baseball portion of the ESPN web site Wednesday in the morning hours. All that stuff you cite is what replaced it for the afternoon. And regardless, it's a great record and all, but it really is an obscure and modern day stat geek made up record. In 1983 if they had this start I highly doubt that the record would ever have been mentioned.

Flames24Rulz
05-04-2005, 10:53 PM
I just checked and there wasn't anything on the White Sox. However, I did find this:

:boston "The best part of the White Sox this year is that the more I say 'Sox,' the more it gives me an opportunity to deftly change the conversation to talk about Boston. Curt Schilling's minor league rehab start in Pawtucket...."

lol!!! That was hilarious :)

SoxWillWin
05-04-2005, 11:56 PM
Here is an Email that I sent to ESPN recently.

Dear baseball "experts",

Why is it that the Team with the best record in baseball gets absolutely no mention on Baseball Tonight??? Why do I have to sit through an hour of "why the yankees suck and what can they do about it". I do realize that all of your highly paid "experts" picked the White Sox to finish fourth or worse in the central division, and your writers do not want to make them look like idiots, but it's time for ALL of them to swallow thier pride and admit that maybe they were wrong about this team. Of course you could just find new and creative ways to avoid making your "experts" look like complete morons by ignoring the White Sox. Just like the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, and Twins the White Sox have fans all over the country and with coverage that you refuse to give the best team in baseball the credibility of your highly paid reporting teams goes right down the toilet. I no longer care what Peter Gammons, John Kruk, Stewart Scott, and the rest of them have to say about baseball, they obviously are not the type of men to admit when they are wrong. I would thank you for taking the time to read this, but since I'm not a Yankee or Red Sox fan I'm sure it will be deleted from your inbox in the next ten seconds.

GO WHITE SOX!!!!

Dan Boguslawski

Norberto7
05-05-2005, 12:21 AM
Dan Boguslawski

That's a good red-blooded White Sox fan name right there.

Anyways, what's the deal with people complaining about the media "not admitting their mistakes"? Did they say, "After 27 games, the White Sox will be 12-15?" Nah, they said the Twins or Indians or whomever would win the division. As far as you or I or they know, they may end up to be right.

If they made a prediciton, why the heck should they change it after 27 games? I don't care if they predicted the Royals and Devil Rays World Series even though they're in the same league, I would have even less respect for them if they changed it 15% of the way through the season.

Say the shoe was on the other foot, and the Sox were the general pick to win the division, and the Twins got off to a hot start. If all the "experts" switched their pick to Minnesota then, I can only imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth that would occur. It works both ways.

SoxWillWin
05-05-2005, 12:47 AM
That's a good red-blooded White Sox fan name right there. First off Thank You :D:


Anyways, what's the deal with people complaining about the media "not admitting their mistakes"? Did they say, "After 27 games, the White Sox will be 12-15?" Nah, they said the Twins or Indians or whomever would win the division. As far as you or I or they know, they may end up to be right.
Yes they may indeed turn out to be right that someone else wins the division, but my grievance wasn't the prediction. It's not what they said 2 months ago, It's what they're FAILING to say now. I'm not asking for a revamp of preseason predictions, just a little coverage of the BEST team in baseball. HERE AND NOW.

If they made a prediciton, why the heck should they change it after 27 games? I don't care if they predicted the Royals and Devil Rays World Series even though they're in the same league, I would have even less respect for them if they changed it 15% of the way through the season.

Okay you say why should they change it after only 27 games. I don't know. But then again why shouldn't they?????? And using the "well the twins have won the last three years" or the "sox are going to run into a slump" excuses don't hold water. Truth is there is NO WAY to tell either way so I'd at least like to see some respect for this team.
Say the shoe was on the other foot, and the Sox were the general pick to win the division, and the Twins got off to a hot start. If all the "experts" switched their pick to Minnesota then, I can only imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth that would occur. It works both ways.
Yes it does work both ways, and I'm just as entitled to wail and gnash my teeth as the next guy, except I wouldn't. I will happily admit when I'm wrong.....it's a little word called HONOR.

LuvSox
05-05-2005, 12:48 AM
Yes, the Sox broke the record, but when ESPN shows highlights there are only 12 people in the crowd. I'm down with "The Sox Marketing department sucks so bad they can't sell tickets" argument, but as far as ratings go do you think they've hit a gold mine when they talk about the White Sox? As far as they know the Sox don't have a fan base. Money is first to these people.

MUsoxfan
05-05-2005, 12:50 AM
Yes, the Sox broke the record, but when ESPN shows highlights there are only 12 people in the crowd. I'm down with "The Sox Marketing department sucks so bad they can't sell tickets" argument, but as far as ratings go do you think they've hit a gold mine when they talk about the White Sox? As far as they know the Sox don't have a fan base. Money is first to these people.

It's their job to report the news. The news is that the Sox have the best record in baseball. If they can't to that, they're not a legit organization.

LuvSox
05-05-2005, 12:53 AM
It's their job to report the news. The news is that the Sox have the best record in baseball. If they can't to that, they're not a legit organization.

We've known that for years. Do the Cubs ring a bell? How often are the ****ty Cubs on ESPN Classic. How often are Kerry Wood's injuries in the web site? It's all about ratings folks.

kojak
05-05-2005, 12:55 AM
I dunno, I think that we should just enjoy this ride and to heck with the national media.

If your enjoyment of this historic season is to be predicated on how many national props we get, you are in for a miserable time. And this is NOT a season to be miserable...

balke
05-05-2005, 12:59 AM
It's their job to report the news. The news is that the Sox have the best record in baseball. If they can't to that, they're not a legit organization.

Haha. Do you watch the news of any kind? Real news: "SHOCK, HORROR, TRAGEDY, PANDAS!"

That relates to baseball too. If its not sexy as a 10+ K game, or as violent as a Yankee-Red Sox bash... why report it? They'll just stick to the age old system of Yankees, through thick and thin. Biggest market wins. Earlier they said they were doing a pitching analysis of the AL... and they said (I think the Blue Jays) had the lowest ERA in the AL. What they meant was the AL East, but they never clarified. They continued to say it was an AL pitching analysis... but it was all about the EAst, and how the best pitching in the AL belongs to Boston.... :rolleyes:

EDit: Oh yeah, I also heard Gammons mutter something about the Cardinals falling apart soon... and the Astros and i think the Cubs still looked good to move up in the Central. HAHAHA.

spongyfungy
05-05-2005, 01:35 AM
It's a rather obscure stat but still impressive. They mentioned it on Sportscenter an BBTN if that counts for anything

Dolanski
05-05-2005, 02:01 AM
Yes, the Sox broke the record, but when ESPN shows highlights there are only 12 people in the crowd. I'm down with "The Sox Marketing department sucks so bad they can't sell tickets" argument, but as far as ratings go do you think they've hit a gold mine when they talk about the White Sox? As far as they know the Sox don't have a fan base. Money is first to these people.

See I can't agree with that. They talk about the As all the time and they don't draw. They talk about the Braves and Marlins and they don't really draw. For that matter, what about the Royals two years ago? They got off to a hot start and get all kinds of press and were the talk of baseball, until they collapsed. Are we suffering from coverage because the experts don't want to get burned again?

I can understand giving the Red Sox top billing. They are the defending world champs, they earned it. They Yankees are well, the Yankees and they play in NYC and they are always going to be a headliner. But I DO think it is total crap that we are a second half Sportscenter story when we are the best team in baseball, broke some retarded record, and keep winning.

Two weeks ago, everyone says we are a fluke. Now there are backhanded compliments and the occassional talk of two teams coming out of the AL Central. Face it, they don't like us. We are the team no one wants to see win, especially in our own city. Fine, piss off Peter Gammons and Co, you can bother to acknowledge us after we crack you over the head with a World Series trophy.

And while your at it, you can shove Kerry Wood's broken arm up Nomar's groin.

Goose
05-05-2005, 09:50 AM
Yes, the Sox broke the record, but when ESPN shows highlights there are only 12 people in the crowd. I'm down with "The Sox Marketing department sucks so bad they can't sell tickets" argument, but as far as ratings go do you think they've hit a gold mine when they talk about the White Sox? As far as they know the Sox don't have a fan base. Money is first to these people.

I simply do not buy this argument. If ratings is what ESPN is ALL about, then they should be running re-runs of Desperate Housewives. It is called BASEBALL TONIGHT, and, from where I was sitting, last night, the White Sox had the best record in baseball. Don't you think that deserves a BIT of coverage? I, and other true baseball fans, tune in to watch the day's best BASEBALL stories, not what is "fasionable" in baseball according to ESPN. This is Cubs-fan mentality and I refuse to buy into it.

tacosalbarojas
05-05-2005, 01:38 PM
And regardless, it's a great record and all, but it really is an obscure and modern day stat geek made up record. In 1983 if they had this start I highly doubt that the record would ever have been mentioned.Personally, I'm still upset Jim Kern blew out his elbow that first weekend in '83 depriving us of such a start!

LVSoxFan
05-05-2005, 01:49 PM
No offense to the Sox, that's great for them and I was there last night when they racked up another one, but it's not exactly an easily-explainable record.

We had out-of-towners at the game and I had to explain to them exactly what this record meant, and they sort of shrugged, LOL.

Now, combine that with the "It's not how you start, but..." reality, and that's probably why you're not seeing a lot of talk about it. At least the Sun-Times and Trib reported on it.

I really don't need a lot of media coverage piling on to how we are starting out. Last year we started out something like 17-10 and were the talk of the town and look what happened. I don't think Ozzie cares either.

After the ASB if we're still cruising, there will be a media onslaught. But for now, the less reporting, the better!

balke
05-05-2005, 02:10 PM
Looking at the schedule, I expect May and August to be months of "Truth". We play very tough teams all through those months, beginning after this series with KC. SO, we'll find out how strong we are exactly... very soon.