View Full Version : Good Article
White Sox Josh
05-20-2005, 11:28 PM
Click Here (http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/3628112)
Thoughts! I thought it was a pretty solid article.
You'll love this article.
05-20-2005, 11:38 PM
History in a nutshell. Good job.
05-20-2005, 11:42 PM
Once more they perpetuate the myth that somehow Comiskey screwed Cicotte out of a chance for 30 wins. Read Rich Lindberg's "Stealing First" for the actual circumstances.
05-21-2005, 12:17 AM
05-21-2005, 09:13 AM
While I'm on the subject of the Black Sox, I'd also like to point out something else rather interesting about Cicotte. IIRC he was the second or third highest paid player on the team behind Eddie Collins and perhaps Ray Schalk. I think his salary was about $12K in 1919, which was about double what Joe Jackson was making. (I really have to find my copy of "Stealing First" to get the exact numbers. Suffice it to say that Lindberg, who had access to Sox salary records when he wrote the book, blows that whole Cicotte-getting-screwed-out-of-a-bonus-for-30-wins myth sky high.)Just to put things in perspective, the average income in the United States in 1919 was $650. Cicotte was making $12,000, Jackson $6,000. I think the lowest salary on the team was at least $1000. Comiskey may have been cheap, but these guys were making that kind of money over six months, so exactly how cheap does that make him? Sure, all things are relative, and other teams had higher payrolls (maybe), but all this Comiskey was a miser crap comes from Eliot Asinof, who as a novelist needed a villain for "Eight Men Out."
I seem to remember somebody (Asinof?) making a big deal about the players having to pay for laundering their uniforms and (of course) pay for their spikes, gloves, bats, etc. (A lot of players get comped by the manufacturers for that stuff these days. But if you look at the price for such things, even at $1000 a year income, the players still weren't hurting.
05-21-2005, 09:32 AM
I'm not really sure what is so "good" or even applause-worthy about this article. The author basically gives the reader a rundown of simple facts regarding each noteworthy Sox season. As Torn has already noted, he gets his facts wrong, too.
So what's the big deal?
The editor says the Sox are the "real underdog" in the headline but the writer offers nothing of the sort. It's just facts, some of them untrue.
Why are the Sox "underdogs?" I read the whole thing and I still haven't got a ****ing clue based on anything Kolb wrote.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.