PDA

View Full Version : Cubune At It Again...Dark Clouds of '64 Hovering Over the Cell??


Wsoxmike59
09-02-2005, 07:48 AM
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-050901soxfeech,1,7484157,print.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

Well the Chicago Cubune is at it again. This morning's edition has a story about the 1964 Philadelphia Phillies monumental collapse down the stretch, and somehow trying to draw a parallel to the 2005 White Sox!!

The only comparison I could see is that both teams entered September with a 7.5 game lead. The Phillies endured a 10 game losing streak allowing the St. Louis Cardinals to catch them.

Also as the Phillies lead was shrinking, Manager Gene Mauch panicked and starting using his ace pitchers Jim Bunning and Chris Short on two days rest with disastrous results!

That's why I think the Sox inserting Brandon McCarthy in to the rotation for the September stretch run is a great move. Buehrle, Garland, Garcia, El Duque, and Contreras will all get the benefit of another days rest in a month that will only see us having 1 day off.

I think Ozzie ball will prevail and the Cubune wonks can go watch the ivy dying on the vine over at Clark and Addison in Sept. While we gear up for the playoffs on the Southside. :D:

PaleHoseGeorge
09-02-2005, 07:55 AM
I wasn't surprised. It's just the Cubune being the Cubune. Same ****, different day.

What DID surprise me is that the Cubune didn't compare the Sox to the '69 Cubs. That tells me they've gotten wise to how resentful we Sox Fans are of their Flubbie-centric view of the world.

McGrath might be dumb, but he's not stupid.

:cool:

RedHeadPaleHoser
09-02-2005, 07:59 AM
McGrath might be dumb, but he's not stupid.

No, he's just a lurker.

Madvora
09-02-2005, 08:56 AM
Man they are just living in denial. They're looking for anyway that the Sox don't upstage their precious Cubbies.

cheeses_h_rice
09-02-2005, 09:11 AM
Something tells me the Cubune's sports researchers have story scenarios ready for each and every contingency as the Sox advance through the playoffs, ready to compare the '05 Sox to a litany of teams in the exact same position and how they wound up losing:

e.g. Sox up 2 games in the ALDS, they'll find the one team that led 2-0 and then lost 3-2
e.g. Sox up 3 games to 0 in the ALCS, they'll compare us to the '04 Yankees
e.g. Sox up 3 games to 1 in the World Series, they'll find a team that choked away a similar lead

Jesus, this **** is getting old.

soxrme
09-02-2005, 09:14 AM
I usually keep out of this media bias thing because we will never win, but today another column on teams that have collapsed in the pennant race. This one is on the 1964 Phillies. I do not know how to link so maybe someone else can. What upsets me is they just cannot celebrate what we are doing. They will be the happiest people in the world if the Sox fail. If they want to look at failure, try seeing how many times Alou went into the stands for a ball before Bartman. How about paying a .500 pitcher being paid millions for 1/2 a good season. There is you failure. Sorry for the long rant but my God this is journalism at it worst.:angry:

TommyJohn
09-02-2005, 09:17 AM
Something tells me the Cubune's sports researchers have story scenarios ready for each and every contingency as the Sox advance through the playoffs, ready to compare the '05 Sox to a litany of teams in the exact same position and how they wound up losing:

e.g. Sox up 2 games in the ALDS, they'll find the one team that led 2-0 and then lost 3-2
e.g. Sox up 3 games to 0 in the ALCS, they'll compare us to the '04 Yankees
e.g. Sox up 3 games to 1 in the World Series, they'll find a team that choked away a similar lead

Jesus, this **** is getting old.

Your answers to 1 and 3 will be the 1984 Cubs and the 2003 Cubs.
Or if, as PHG says, they have gotten wise to our resentment, then
they'll go with the 1982 and 1986 Angels. And the 1985 Cardinals,
and the 1996 Cardinals, and the A's that have lost in the first round,
etc. etc. etc.

Dan H
09-02-2005, 09:32 AM
I have to admit I have been one of the most nervous fans when it came to the recent slump. But I didn't even read that stupid story about the Phillies. I know it happened and it can happen to another team. However, the Tribune is hoping it is going to happen. The Cubs and their greatest pitching staff ever assembled are going nowhere, and the Tribune can't handle it. A conflict of interest? Don't dare accuse them of it, no matter how obvious it is.

Hangar18
09-02-2005, 09:40 AM
[QUOTE=Dan H]I have to admit I have been one of the most nervous fans when it came to the recent slump. [QUOTE]

Dark Cloud heh heh join us :smile:

SOXPHILE
09-02-2005, 09:55 AM
The Chicago Tribune is unfriggin' believable. Not that we should be the least bit surprised. We've all been predicting that this comparison to the '64 Phillies was coming, it was only a matter of time. I like how they have it nice and big on the front page complete with Jim Bunning's picture, and the caption "September's worst fall", right alongside the story of the great White Sox win last night. Oh, but they also have "March to SOXtober in there too, so they're not at all biased. Another thing that's funny is that they have David Haugh, their FOOTBALL WRITER and BEARS BEAT REPORTER doing the story. What's wrong Trib ? Paul Sullivan too busy looking at Carrie Woods' x-rays to write this garbage for you ? Hey Tribune, the Sox in all likelyhood are going to the playoffs, and your stupid, precious little blue and red team is going to be golfing on October 4, while the ivy changes colors and dies, and the frat boys, trixies and old ladies who fill your urine smelling dump each year will be back in hibernation. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

ElevenUp
09-02-2005, 10:05 AM
What an absolutely ridiculous article. David Haugh now goes to the top of my "Cubune moron" list for coming up with that drivel.:angry:

PeteWard
09-02-2005, 10:19 AM
I wasn't surprised. It's just the Cubune being the Cubune. Same ****, different day.

What DID surprise me is that the Cubune didn't compare the Sox to the '69 Cubs. That tells me they've gotten wise to how resentful we Sox Fans are of their Flubbie-centric view of the world.

McGrath might be dumb, but he's not stupid.

:cool:

Where were you two weeks ago? They wore out the comparison to '69 Cubs already and had to drag the poor Phillies into the morass of childishness that is Chicago sports writing. Mariotti had a column yesterday about choking that was simply a steaming pile of manure. In other words a typical effort by him.

daveeym
09-02-2005, 10:19 AM
Another thing that's funny is that they have David Haugh, their FOOTBALL WRITER and BEARS BEAT REPORTER doing the story. What's wrong Trib ? Paul Sullivan too busy looking at Carrie Woods' x-rays to write this garbage for you ? He's probably sick of writing the drivel and looking like an ass. So they drew straws to see who got stuck with the article.

Iwritecode
09-02-2005, 10:34 AM
[QUOTE=Dan H]I have to admit I have been one of the most nervous fans when it came to the recent slump. [QUOTE]

Dark Cloud heh heh join us :smile:

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/daver/darth.jpg
Join me and together we will rule the universe!

Do not underestimate the power of the dark clouds!

skobabe8
09-02-2005, 10:52 AM
What an absolutely ridiculous article. David Haugh now goes to the top of my "Cubune moron" list for coming up with that drivel.:angry:

You have to really try hard to get on the top of that list.

Andy T Clown
09-02-2005, 10:53 AM
I'm still suprised that the cubs didn't wait until we clinched to retire Sandberg's number.

SOecks
09-02-2005, 11:33 AM
I'm surprised everybody failed to mention the front page article. The 4th sentence in the article starts "A crowd of 20,743-the smallest at US Cellular Field in 3 months..." Of couse they had to mention the crows. Why? What does this have to do with the 12-3 victory AT ALL? And even if for some reason it is worth mentioning, why in the 4th sentence in this cover page article? Just pathetic. :angry:

Iwritecode
09-02-2005, 11:44 AM
I'm surprised everybody failed to mention the front page article. The 4th sentence in the article starts "A crowd of 20,743-the smallest at US Cellular Field in 3 months..." Of couse they had to mention the crows. Why? What does this have to do with the 12-3 victory AT ALL? And even if for some reason it is worth mentioning, why in the 4th sentence in this cover page article? Just pathetic. :angry:

Because talking about attendance is taboo around here.

TDog
09-02-2005, 11:54 AM
If you came of age as a Sox fan when Buddy Bradford was supposed to be the next five-tool star preparing to emerge on the baseball scene, you've spent a good deal of your life watching the Sox lose. At this point, you're not concerned with winning as much as you're concerned with not losing, not blowing the division. What is troublesome, though, is the double standard.

A big reason Sox fans have reason to be pessimistic is the example of collapse the Cubs demonstrate at every opportunity. My youngest brother told me long-distance in 1984, when the Cubs headed to San Diego up 2-0 in the NLCS that he told people they would somehow lose. They would look like they were going to win, and something would happen. Something bad, from the perspective of Cubs fans. Something always happens. He could have added that in another 19 years, you will think the Cubs will be going to the World Series, but you will be oh so wrong.

It isn't that stories about collapse don't address a concern in the Sox-fan community. It is that collapse stories ignore positives in a a rare dream season and only seem legitimate when it is the Sox are the team in a position to collapse. When the Cubs are in the position, you get stories about efforts from the jello-brained fandom to reverse the curse that must be blamed for such persistent incompetence at the precipice of greatness.

This is what makes such coverage so annoying.

From my perspective, the way they cover baseball makes Chicago media irrelevant.

mccoydp
09-02-2005, 12:41 PM
You would think that the Cubune would be throwing their support to the Sox to win it all this year for Chicago, considering that their wonderful Cubbies are below .500 and out of it in the NL Central.

But, alas, it isn't to be...

cheeses_h_rice
09-02-2005, 12:59 PM
You would think that the Cubune would be throwing their support to the Sox to win it all this year for Chicago, considering that their wonderful Cubbies are below .500 and out of it in the NL Central.


(Pssst....you're supposed to use teal for sarcasm.)

:)

Irishsox1
09-02-2005, 01:03 PM
I think Ozzie has handeled the press brilliantly. Before yesterdays post game media session, Ozzie came up to the mike and was saying "Ohhh...Chicago Media....Ohhhh" and waving his arms like he was scared. Ozzie then said something along the lines of "You Chicago media...so scared".

Ozzie is calm and relaxed heading into September and the Sox need to stay relaxed and Ozzie is setting the tone. The chicago media needs to write about something, so they choose to write about teams in the past that didn't make it. Makes for an interesting story, but on the whole, a waste of paper.

Mr. White Sox
09-02-2005, 02:34 PM
Trib

Along those lines ... it was so kind of the Tribune today to stir up the ghosts of the 1964 Phillies in connection with the White Sox. Good thing they didn't mention the 1969 Cubs ...



WSIers aren't the only ones seeing the bias! :D:

IowaSox1971
09-02-2005, 05:09 PM
What made the 1964 Phillies' collapse so noteworthy is that they held a 6.5-game lead with just 12 to play. Then they lost 10 in a row before winning their last two.

I'm as nervous as anyone about this season, but I also must say it's obvious that the Tribune has an agenda. When we had our big lead around the All-Star break, we were already being compared by the Trib to the 1993 Giants, who had let a similar advantage slip away. And now we're being compared to the 1964 Phillies, even though our lead had not yet slipped to less than seven games in the second half of the season. I'm just wondering if, when the Cubs were up three games to one in the 2003 NLCS, did the Tribune run a big story about teams that had blown 3-1 series leads?

Another thing about this is that I noticed the Trib, Sun-Times and Daily Herald did not have a columnist covering the Sox game last night, even though it was our first home game since a 10-game road trip and we're in first place by seven games on Sept. 1. Would the same thing have happened if the Cubs were in our position?

MarySwiss
09-02-2005, 05:19 PM
Another thing about this is that I noticed the Trib, Sun-Times and Daily Herald did not have a columnist covering the Sox game last night, even though it was our first home game since a 10-game road trip and we're in first place by seven games on Sept. 1. Would the same thing have happened if the Cubs were in our position?

Of course. The Chicago sports media is nothing if not objective. :rolleyes:

mccoydp
09-02-2005, 06:01 PM
(Pssst....you're supposed to use teal for sarcasm.)

:)

Oh no, no sarcasm here...I was trying to be serious. I really thought the Cubune would be happy for the city of Chicago's success, but it looks as if they are defiant in their never-ending support of all things Cub, while rooting against the Sox...

TornLabrum
09-02-2005, 07:22 PM
Not to blow my own horn here, but for those of you who follow the Fallen Arches column, the following appeared a week ago this past Sunday:

"Unfortunately for the “experts” the Sox showed that they weren’t about to choke. So now the 'writers' will have to find a more appropriate choke job the next time the Sox lose more than one game in a row. Some posting on the WSI boards think they have found the answer with the 1964 Phillies. Let’s see how long it takes for that choke job to come up in the local media."


The answer was exactly 12 days.

TommyJohn
09-02-2005, 07:45 PM
Not to blow my own horn here, but for those of you who follow the Fallen Arches column, the following appeared a week ago this past Sunday:

"Unfortunately for the “experts” the Sox showed that they weren’t about to choke. So now the 'writers' will have to find a more appropriate choke job the next time the Sox lose more than one game in a row. Some posting on the WSI boards think they have found the answer with the 1964 Phillies. Let’s see how long it takes for that choke job to come up in the local media."


The answer was exactly 12 days.


Congrats, Torn.

SOXSINCE'70
09-02-2005, 07:54 PM
Not to blow my own horn here, but for those of you who follow the Fallen Arches column, the following appeared a week ago this past Sunday:

"Unfortunately for the “experts” the Sox showed that they weren’t about to choke. So now the 'writers' will have to find a more appropriate choke job the next time the Sox lose more than one game in a row. Some posting on the WSI boards think they have found the answer with the 1964 Phillies. Let’s see how long it takes for that choke job to come up in the local media."


The answer was exactly 12 days.



As I said in an earlier post,I can't wait for the synopsis
of the '78 Blow Sawx and the '95 Halos. :angry: :angry: :angry:

My opinion of Sox coverage in any rag
except The Daily SouthTown:

:chunks

Cutter
09-03-2005, 09:06 AM
Any chance the Cubune will have a pullout section tomorrow comparing the '05 Sox to Warren Moon and the Oilers who blew a 5-TD lead against the Bills in the playoffs? Or perhaps the '75 Penguins who blew a 3-0 series lead against the Islanders?

Wow, they can make this a daily series until the Sox clinch!

TornLabrum
09-03-2005, 09:13 AM
Any chance the Cubune will have a pullout section tomorrow comparing the '05 Sox to Warren Moon and the Oilers who blew a 5-TD lead against the Bills in the playoffs? Or perhaps the '75 Penguins who blew a 3-0 series lead against the Islanders?

Wow, they can make this a daily series until the Sox clinch!

Excellent first post!!!!!

voodoochile
09-03-2005, 10:09 PM
Hey cubune... hover this...:cool:

I will never buy that rag again. I swear. Me and the Trib are through...

TommyJohn
09-04-2005, 05:50 AM
I find it hilarious that the Trib is highlighting teams that choked away big
leads. They haven't ever pointed out that the White Sox have never done
that in their history. Sure there were close call teams like 1967 and 1977
but they didn't have the leads of the 64 Phillies or 69 Cubs.

I have an idea for teams that they could do, but I'll wait for a while to
spring that idea.

In the meantime, let's have the Trib compare the 05 Sox to past SOX teams
that won. That wouldn't be too hard, would it?

Sneering Chicago Media Ass here. What a great idea. Dan! Kill today's
pull out section about the comparisons between the 05 Sox and the
64 Phillies,69 Cubs, 93 Giants, 95 Angels, and 01 Mariners. We're going
with a different angle!

The 2005 White Sox and the 1919 White Sox: A comparison

1b "Chick" Gandil "Chicks dig me" Konerko
Gandil was the ringleader of the fix. Will Konerko do the same?

LF "Shoeless" Joe Jackson "Homerless" Scott Podsednik

CF "Happy" Felsch Aaron Rowand
Felsch liked to run into walls. So does Rowand. Will history repeat itself?

A look at how Mark Buehrle and Jon Garland rate against Lefty Williams and Eddie Cicotte
Morrissey: Do this year's Sox have a Dickie Kerr?

Owners:
1919 Charles "I don't have any money!" Comiskey
2005 Jerry "I don't have any money!" Reinsdorf
will history repeat itself?

There ya are, Sox fans. Don't say we don't think of you. Sneering Chicago
Media Ass here. I'm out. *sneer* *sneer* *sneer*

Wsoxmike59
09-04-2005, 07:58 AM
Great job Tommy John! Very amusing headlines, and a most clever post. :cool: