PDA

View Full Version : Dan Shulman on ESPN radio: "All the press the Sox get is negative"


alumbrados
09-23-2005, 12:36 AM
And he's right. At the beginning of the season it was all "Are you guys for real?"

Now it's "Are you guys really going to choke?"

Shulman also reminded everyone that the Sox still have the best record in the AL and it's unlikely the Injuns, Dead Sox and Skankees will ALL catch us.

Good rational take on the whole situation.

kevingrt
09-23-2005, 12:41 AM
And he's right. At the beginning of the season it was all "Are you guys for real?"

Now it's "Are you guys really going to choke?"

Shulman also reminded everyone that the Sox still have the best record in the AL and it's unlikely the Injuns, Dead Sox and Skankees will ALL catch us.

Good rational take on the whole situation.

But I want the Central not the wildcard. But I guess i'll take anything at this point

HotelWhiteSox
09-23-2005, 12:55 AM
Shouldn't be an excuse for this team, but he's right. Predicted for 4th at best in the preseason with their offseason moves ridiculed, if even mentioned. Then, when we were 15 games up, no press, not even locally. The focus was on the Cubs struggles, injuries, and 'when' they would break out. Now, they come a calling as Sox are struggling. The hardest thing for the mediots to do was have to show the Sox and admit they were good after their predictions, now they all anxiosuly smile as every game goes on

Lip Man 1
09-23-2005, 12:58 AM
Such is life in Chicago. Why should this be a surprise to any of you? (Including the players?)

You get what you sow. Uncle Jerry should have thought more strongly about his bottom line business only decisions over the past 25 years.

'Chicago has always been a Cubs town...'--Jerry Reinsdorf to ESPN Radio June 2002.

That's the way to take em' on Jerry-baby!

Lip

mr_genius
09-23-2005, 01:04 AM
'Chicago has always been a Cubs town...'--Jerry Reinsdorf to ESPN Radio June 2002.


Lip

Reinsdorf has no idea what he's talking about. It became a Cubs town after "uncle Jerry" torn down Comiskey, his white flag "fire sale", ect. The Sox used to outdraw the Cubs in the old stadium... this "always been a cubs town" thing is an excuse for Reinsdorf for his failures as owner and for out of town media types.

SouthSide_HitMen
09-23-2005, 01:17 AM
Reinsdorf has no idea what he's talking about. It became a Cubs town after "uncle Jerry" torn down Comiskey, his white flag "fire sale", ect. The Sox used to outdraw the Cubs in the old stadium... this "always been a cubs town" thing is an excuse for Reinsdorf for his failures as owner and for out of town media types.

He has really ruined the PR battles during his time here (and one event - The Tribune buying the Cubs, which was out of his control).

Sportsvision / On-TV & leaving Superstation WGN

Threatening to take his carpetbag to Tampa unless he could fleece the taxpayers, tear down Comiskey Park and get a brand new stadium free of charge with the State of Illinois buying tickets if need be.

His hardline stance moving Bud toward no deal and the loss of our best chance since 1983 for a World Series in 1994.

White Flag -Turned out to be a good trade but the way it was presented to the fans was just stupid PR.

He has taken a back seat over the years and stayed out of the public eye which is good for the White Sox and good for MLB.

It will take several years after a new managing partner / owner is named for the White Sox to reclaim Chicago. A World Series or two wouldn't hurt either - something we have a chance for this season.

BNLSox
09-23-2005, 01:37 AM
A World Series or two wouldn't hurt either - something we have a chance for this season.

Shouldn't we focus on just winning a regular season series right now? That might be good practice for the three consecutive series we would have to win to be World Champs.

peeonwrigley
09-23-2005, 01:46 AM
Such is the hand the team is dealt, its nothing new. The Cubs won't be in the playoffs this year. Or probably for the next 3. There's a nice window here for the White Sox given the pitching staff.

September is when the important games are played (let this season be your example of the old adage - you can't win a division early on, but you can lose it). I didn't think it would come to this for the Sox, but more often than not divisions are won in September. And here we are. And all eyes are on the White Sox. Want good press now? Go earn it.

This team can still get the better part of the city behind it with a nice run here. And there's no reason they can't go on a nice run against two teams completely out of it.

Soxfanspcu11
09-23-2005, 01:48 AM
Reinsdorf has no idea what he's talking about. It became a Cubs town after "uncle Jerry" torn down Comiskey, his white flag "fire sale", ect. The Sox used to outdraw the Cubs in the old stadium... this "always been a cubs town" thing is an excuse for Reinsdorf for his failures as owner and for out of town media types.


You seriously must be a genious! Im not kidding either, thats EXACTLY how I would summarize the situation, word for word! Nicely done, this really would look good on his tombstone (although I believe the ground shouldn't be wasted like that).

But to reference this thread, yes the media does hate the sox and/or give them no respect. I really can't stand it at this point. When the Sox were winning consisntently, I would watch Baseball tonight and sportscenter all the time because it was sooooooooooo funny to see how upset Kruk and crew were that the sox were winning and they couldn't believe it. I can't watch it now though because they are laughing at every sox loss. Even after game 2 of the cleveland series that we won, they couldn't resist taking shots at our "shrinking" 15 game lead, before and after the highlight. Yes, I think most people understand the Sox have been struggling, when you show and tell us 44 times an hour, its hard to miss.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-23-2005, 06:45 AM
Such is life in Chicago. Why should this be a surprise to any of you? (Including the players?)

You get what you sow. Uncle Jerry should have thought more strongly about his bottom line business only decisions over the past 25 years.

'Chicago has always been a Cubs town...'--Jerry Reinsdorf to ESPN Radio June 2002.

That's the way to take em' on Jerry-baby!

Lip

Umm... Chicago became a Cubs town after the Tribune bought the pathetic loser ballclub from Bill Wrigley (1981) and then the Cubune successfully jamming night games down the throat of both Wrigleyville residents and the Chicago City Council (1987).

The fact Reinsdorf bought the Sox within months of the Cubune buying the Flubs is a coincidence, not a precipitating factor. He has been his own worse enemy but the Cubune is the REAL problem with the media coverage, not the other way around.

Pulaski
09-23-2005, 08:23 AM
But I want the Central not the wildcard. But I guess i'll take anything at this point

Who cares how you get in, they key is getting in to the playoffs. Anything can happen in the playoffs.

downstairs
09-23-2005, 08:44 AM
Umm... Chicago became a Cubs town after the Tribune bought the pathetic loser ballclub from Bill Wrigley (1981) and then the Cubune successfully jamming night games down the throat of both Wrigleyville residents and the Chicago City Council (1987).

The fact Reinsdorf bought the Sox within months of the Cubune buying the Flubs is a coincidence, not a precipitating factor. He has been his own worse enemy but the Cubune is the REAL problem with the media coverage, not the other way around.

Absolutely. There is no argument. What do you THINK is going to happen when a national media empire buys a team? They're going to market themselves poorly and lose the few fans they had?

This is the same company that markets television shows about teenage witches and makes a fortune doing it.

TomBradley72
09-23-2005, 08:50 AM
One of our problems as a franchise is that we want credit/attention before we've actually accomplished anything. 88 years since a World Championship, 46 years since we won a pennant or won a home post season game. 3 post season appearances in that time. From a national perspective....we're one of the least compelling teams based on the last 50 years. Locally....we're not aligned with the wealthy and powerful like the Cubbies.

And now its creeping into our leaders...with Ozzie's comments about...hey we've won alot of games so far this year, etc. All I know is I'm responsible for meeting targets in my job...it's great if I'm on track all year...but if I fall off in the 4th Quarter and end up missing for the year....I don't get any credit for getting off to "a great start".

There is a bias in the media...but if we actuallly delivered a championship...we'll get all the attention we'll ever need.

hose
09-23-2005, 03:48 PM
The last thing I want to hear about is unfair media attention or Cub bashing, just let it go for a another month till the season is over.

samram
09-23-2005, 04:09 PM
But I want the Central not the wildcard. But I guess i'll take anything at this point

I want a World Series. Who cares whether they get in as the wildcard or as a division champion?

Ol' No. 2
09-23-2005, 04:10 PM
And he's right. At the beginning of the season it was all "Are you guys for real?"

Now it's "Are you guys really going to choke?"

Shulman also reminded everyone that the Sox still have the best record in the AL and it's unlikely the Injuns, Dead Sox and Skankees will ALL catch us.

Good rational take on the whole situation.Actually, the beginning of Sox' nosedive almost exactly coincided with the national mediots finally concuding that the Sox were for real. They played a lot better before they got any respect.

TomBradley72
09-23-2005, 04:30 PM
He has really ruined the PR battles during his time here (and one event - The Tribune buying the Cubs, which was out of his control).

Sportsvision / On-TV & leaving Superstation WGN

Threatening to take his carpetbag to Tampa unless he could fleece the taxpayers, tear down Comiskey Park and get a brand new stadium free of charge with the State of Illinois buying tickets if need be.

His hardline stance moving Bud toward no deal and the loss of our best chance since 1983 for a World Series in 1994.

White Flag -Turned out to be a good trade but the way it was presented to the fans was just stupid PR.

He has taken a back seat over the years and stayed out of the public eye which is good for the White Sox and good for MLB.

It will take several years after a new managing partner / owner is named for the White Sox to reclaim Chicago. A World Series or two wouldn't hurt either - something we have a chance for this season.

Veeck and Allyn didn't help things before Jerry....playing games in Milwaukee, moving the team to Ch. 32 in the late 60's, almost lost the team to Seattle in 1975, Veeck openly admitted he had a hand shake deal to move the team to Denver in the late 70's,

SouthSide_HitMen
09-23-2005, 04:48 PM
Veeck and Allyn didn't help things before Jerry....playing games in Milwaukee, moving the team to Ch. 32 in the late 60's, almost lost the team to Seattle in 1975, Veeck openly admitted he had a hand shake deal to move the team to Denver in the late 70's,

Allyn was bad. Veeck saved the team from moving to Seattle in 1975. The free agent rules changed and he was undercapitalized. He gave us a great 1977 in his 5 years. I don't understand the Veeck bashing on this board. Veeck had a positive relationship with the fans and media which is what we were discussing. Reinsdorf would have had better public relations if he and his fellow "sunshine boy" Einhorn hid in a cave or a fallout shelter or slipped into a coma. Each and everytime they spoke and acted they knocked the Sox down a notch. Didn't help MLB much either with 1994.

SOXSINCE'70
09-23-2005, 04:55 PM
moving the team to Ch. 32 in the late 60's

I thought I once read this move occured because the WGN drillrods
wanted to show all sCrUBS home and away games during the 1968
season.

Lip,Labrum,Ol' No.2, Dan H.,am I right??
You are slightly older than I am (43),so you might know.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-23-2005, 04:56 PM
Allyn was bad. Veeck saved the team from moving to Seattle in 1975. The free agent rules changed and he was undercapitalized. He gave us a great 1977 in his 5 years. I don't understand the Veeck bashing on this board.

Actually the general viewpoint is rather balanced at WSI. Certainly the editorial content on the main page is more balanced than somebody like Rich Lindberg provides.

Allyn saved the Sox in 1969 by buying the franchise from his brother. He saved it again by refusing to cave into MLB pressure to sell to Seattle interests. That doesn't excuse him or his brother for the boneheaded decisions they made in their years of ownership, including the "home" games played in Milwaukee.

Veeck saved the franchise in 1975 by buying it from Allyn. That doesn't excuse him for nearly selling the team to Denver in 1979.

There was a good side and a dark side to Veeck, same as the Allyns, and same as even the Comiskeys, too.

Dare I say it? There is a good and a dark side to Reinsdorf, too.
:cool:

putherawaywet
09-23-2005, 04:58 PM
I agree that the White Sox did not receive adequate media attention early in the year. Sadly, we are justifying the lack of attention early and the negativity lately by our weak play on the field. Everything negative that was stated has been proven correct to at least some degree. Skeptics pointed to our lack of offense, the fact that our starting pitching would return to earth and our "lucky" record in one run games would not continue. All of these assertions have proven true. The only way to prove that they were wrong would be to finish strong and at least advance to the ALCS.

greenpeach
09-23-2005, 05:07 PM
One of our problems as a franchise is that we want credit/attention before we've actually accomplished anything. 88 years since a World Championship, 46 years since we won a pennant or won a home post season game. 3 post season appearances in that time. From a national perspective....we're one of the least compelling teams based on the last 50 years. Locally....we're not aligned with the wealthy and powerful like the Cubbies.

And now its creeping into our leaders...with Ozzie's comments about...hey we've won alot of games so far this year, etc. All I know is I'm responsible for meeting targets in my job...it's great if I'm on track all year...but if I fall off in the 4th Quarter and end up missing for the year....I don't get any credit for getting off to "a great start".

There is a bias in the media...but if we actuallly delivered a championship...we'll get all the attention we'll ever need.

This is my nomination for the post of the week. Well said.

TomBradley72
09-23-2005, 05:21 PM
The free agent rules changed and he was undercapitalized. He gave us a great 1977 in his 5 years. I don't understand the Veeck bashing on this board. Veeck had a positive relationship with the fans and media which is what we were discussing.

Not Veeck bashing.....just the truth...he was ready to move the team. Why? So he could make a profit. Why did Reinsdorf want to move to Florida? To make a profit. I'm a huge Veeck fan. As a man, a human being and a maverick. But anyone that was ever part of having this team leave Chicago and leave us with nothing but the Cubbies....gets a black mark in my book.

FielderJones
09-23-2005, 05:33 PM
I agree that the White Sox did not receive adequate media attention early in the year. Sadly, we are justifying the lack of attention early and the negativity lately by our weak play on the field. Everything negative that was stated has been proven correct to at least some degree. Skeptics pointed to our lack of offense, the fact that our starting pitching would return to earth and our "lucky" record in one run games would not continue. All of these assertions have proven true. The only way to prove that they were wrong would be to finish strong and at least advance to the ALCS.

Four months of luck. That must be the longest ****ing lucky streak in the history of MLB.

Lip Man 1
09-23-2005, 10:51 PM
Sox since 70:

All I know about the moving of the Sox off WGN-TV comes from my interview with Rich Lindberg. Here is the extract along with his comments about Bill (whom he knew very well.) Like George said Bill had his good and bad points. He cared about the fans and the game and he cared about the White Sox but he simply never had the funds to do anything with the team especially the second time around. He was treading water at best. The thing is that some of Bill's partners were some of the richest men in America but like Uncle Jerry, Bill refused to go to them for more operating funding. Hope that helps some.

ML: Youíve seen firsthand the good and bad sides of the last two owners, Bill Veeck and Jerry Reinsdorf. Tell us about those men.

RL: "When Bill Veeck first bought the team in 1976, I thought he could do no wrong. I learned though that Veeck conned the city of Chicago and Sox fans. He never had the finances to field competitive teams and didnít have the ability to develop young players. He continually exaggerated his product. Unfortunately after time, I had several encounters with him that werenít pleasant. That being said, he still belonged in the Hall Of Fame because of what he brought to the game. Jerry Reinsdorf is a soft spoken, low key individual. He will only sell the team if baseball stops being interesting to him. Obviously heís also made a tremendous number of public relations gaffes."

ML: You provide some compelling evidence in your books that although Veeck did a lot of good for the Sox he also basically ruined the team. Can you explain that further?

RL: "Veeck was very self serving. He knew that the 1959 pennant winning team wasnít put together by him. It was put together by Chuck Comiskey, Frank Lane and John Rigney. All Veeck did was get Ted Kluszewski. Veeck wanted to win the pennant again in 1960 to reflect his skill not those others. He traded the cream of the Sox minor league system for a bunch of guys like Gene Freese and Minnie Minoso who were done. The guys who were traded turned out to be some of the biggest stars of the 60's. Players like Norm Cash, Johnny Romano, Earl Battey, Johnny Callison and Don Mincher. If the Sox had just one of two of them, they would have won pennants in 1964 and 1967. When Bill returned to the Sox in 1976, he basically saved the team from the mess that he created sixteen years earlier."

ML: You talk of a conversation that you had with Jack Brickhouse about the biggest mistake the Sox ever made in 1968. Tell us about that, what Brickhouse tried to do to stop it and the subsequent fallout effects.

RL: "I talked with Jack about it in an interview in 1996. Jack told me about the time he, Arnie Harris and Sox owner Art Allyn sat down for lunch. Jack expected the Sox to agree to another extension on WGN after their agreement expired after the 1967 season. He was shocked when Allyn told him that the Sox were moving to a basically brand new UHF outlet WFLD (Channel 32 in Chicago). Brickhouse, whom I consider a giant of the broadcasting industry, said he felt sure that something would happen to the industry in the future that would make it possible for WGN to be shown not only in Chicago but around the Midwest, he strongly urged Allyn to reconsider. Allyn wouldnít but he had the best interest of the team at heart. You have to look at why the Sox wanted to move in the first place. WGN was basically showing Sox day games on Saturday and Sunday afternoons, they werenít showing night games because they didnít want to disrupt their evening schedule. Very few road games were shown and those were only from the East Coast, New York, Cleveland and such. Allyn wanted ALL Sox road games shown and at least WFLD tried to do that. For the first time Sox fans saw the inside of the Oakland Alameda County Coliseum and Anaheim Stadium. The trouble was UHF technology was very new. You had to have a converter box to be able to get the channels on your old TV and it didnít work very well. The picture was snowy, grainy and unreliable. The other problem was that WFLD decided to have Jack Drees do the games. Dress was an East Coast horse racing guy who wasnít known in Chicago. Bottom line the experiment just didnít work."

Lip

IowaSox1971
09-24-2005, 02:40 AM
I think Veeck is getting too much blame for our inability to win a pennant after 1959. Minoso had a very good season in 1960 and he almost helped us to another pennant. We were only two games out with something like 12 to go while having to battle a Yankees team that had added Roger Maris, who ended up having an MVP year. Freese also had a decent season for that 1960 club.

Veeck knew that the Yankees, who had an off year in 1959, would be tougher than ever in 1960, so that's why he went for veterans. If he had not made those trades, we might have finished 20 games out in 1960. Many teams have traded young talent for veterans in an effort to win a pennant or to repeat as a champion. The trouble we faced in the early 1960s is that the Yankees basically used the Kansas City Athletics as a farm club. The Kansas City owner was a Yankees fan, and he would trade the Yankees his top players whenever they needed them. We didn't have that luxury.

I agree that, in the long run, some of Veeck's trades did not pan out. But to blame him for our failure to win the 1964 and 1967 pennants is a stretch.

TornLabrum
09-24-2005, 07:51 AM
I think Veeck is getting too much blame for our inability to win a pennant after 1959. Minoso had a very good season in 1960 and he almost helped us to another pennant. We were only two games out with something like 12 to go while having to battle a Yankees team that had added Roger Maris, who ended up having an MVP year. Freese also had a decent season for that 1960 club.

Veeck knew that the Yankees, who had an off year in 1959, would be tougher than ever in 1960, so that's why he went for veterans. If he had not made those trades, we might have finished 20 games out in 1960. Many teams have traded young talent for veterans in an effort to win a pennant or to repeat as a champion. The trouble we faced in the early 1960s is that the Yankees basically used the Kansas City Athletics as a farm club. The Kansas City owner was a Yankees fan, and he would trade the Yankees his top players whenever they needed them. We didn't have that luxury.

I agree that, in the long run, some of Veeck's trades did not pan out. But to blame him for our failure to win the 1964 and 1967 pennants is a stretch.

Yeah, we really didn't nead Cash...or Callison...or Battey...etc. They wouldn't have helped at all! Especially in '65!

That said, a lot of the drop in 1960 was attributable to the aces of the staff in '59 being an old man and a rookie. Wynn's age caught up with him in '60, and Shaw's rookie season proved to be his best. Pierce was aging but managed a winning record. Pierce rebounded. Donovan only started 8 games. And Veeck traded for Herb Score who was completely washed up following his injury.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-24-2005, 08:13 AM
All I can say is the Go-Go White Sox never won a world championship (and only won one pennant in a year the Yankees finished third) because they never had enough HITTING to put them over the top.

They didn't have enough hitting BEFORE Veeck arrived. They didn't have enough hitting AFTER Veeck arrived. Why aren't any of the other owners blamed for committing the same sin?
:?:

The lousy trades Veeck made? They were meant to get the Sox more hitting -- including the one for Ted Kluszewski that literally powered the Sox to their only pennant. You think the '59 Sox win the pennant with Earl Torgeson at first base? I don't think so.

White Sox Fans simply can't deal with success. Though we hate losing, we easily cope with it by blaming everyone. We're comfortable with losing because it is familiar. There are still Sox Fans who think pitching and defense wins championships. They haven't learned **** in 100+ years of supporting losing ballclubs. Many of them post here. Hundreds of them are reading this right now.
:o:

And then they bitch about the Sox never having enough hitting?
:kukoo:

Veeck is the scapegoat? Rich Lindberg is crazy.

TornLabrum
09-24-2005, 08:29 AM
All I can say is the Go-Go White Sox never won a world championship (and only won one pennant in a year the Yankees finished third) because they never had enough HITTING to put them over the top.

They didn't have enough hitting BEFORE Veeck arrived. They didn't have enough hitting AFTER Veeck arrived. Why aren't any of the other owners blamed for committing the same sin?
:?:

The lousy trades Veeck made? They were meant to get the Sox more hitting -- including the one for Ted Kluszewski that literally powered the Sox to their only pennant. You think the '59 Sox win the pennant with Earl Torgeson at first base? I don't think so.

White Sox Fans simply can't deal with success. Though we hate losing, we easily cope with it by blaming everyone. We're comfortable with losing because it is familiar. There are still Sox Fans who think pitching and defense wins championships. They haven't learned **** in 100+ years of supporting losing ballclubs. Many of them post here. Hundreds of them are reading this right now.
:o:

And then they bitch about the Sox never having enough hitting?
:kukoo:

Veeck is the scapegoat? Rich Lindberg is crazy.

The big problem with the Sox in 1960 was that the ace of their pitching staff was Early Wynn, whose record in 1960 was closer to his records in '57 and '58. He was 40 years old in '60, iirc. (Imagine Terry Mulholland as your ace, although Mulholland is at least 56 years old.)

Shaw fell apart, or came to earth, in 1960. Pierce improved in winning percentage but still only managed 14 wins, the same as '59. Herb Score was a disaster, an early attempt by the Sox to catch lightning in a bottle.

'60 was the prototype for every Sox disaster that followed. And they did get rid of guys like Cash, Callison, and Battey, who would have contributed a lot more than the players they were traded for.

Of course if they hadn't been traded, we wouldn't be having Moose as our luncheon guest today.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-24-2005, 08:47 AM
The big problem with the Sox in 1960 was that the ace of their pitching staff was Early Wynn, whose record in 1960 was closer to his records in '57 and '58. He was 40 years old in '60, iirc. (Imagine Terry Mulholland as your ace, although Mulholland is at least 56 years old.)

Shaw fell apart, or came to earth, in 1960. Pierce improved in winning percentage but still only managed 14 wins, the same as '59. Herb Score was a disaster, an early attempt by the Sox to catch lightning in a bottle.

'60 was the prototype for every Sox disaster that followed. And they did get rid of guys like Cash, Callison, and Battey, who would have contributed a lot more than the players they were traded for.

Of course if they hadn't been traded, we wouldn't be having Moose as our luncheon guest today.

You and Lindberg have got this one bass ackwards. The 1960 Sox became the #2 offense in the league -- and that was WITHOUT Cash, Callison, or Battey. Veeck already traded them. (The '59 Sox were ranked #6 in offense.)

The '60 Sox fell from #1 to #2 in league pitching, but it WASN'T pitchers who Veeck traded. He traded for hitters. So where's the beef?
:?:

It wasn't Veeck who was guilty of repeating the same old Loser's Mantra about pitching and defense win championships. That was everybody else. Lindberg has sown even more confusion by trying to villify Veeck for not being the same kind of LOSER Sox Fans expect.
:o:

I'm glad Moose Skowron became a Sox. He is one of the few guys we had that could scald the ball. Figures he's an ex-Yankee, too. Send him my best.
:thumbsup:

FielderJones
09-24-2005, 10:28 AM
There are still Sox Fans who think pitching and defense wins championships. They haven't learned **** in 100+ years of supporting losing ballclubs. Many of them post here. Hundreds of them are reading this right now.


Yeah, give me Alan Bannister with a .300 avg over Juan Uribe any day. :rolleyes:

PaleHoseGeorge
09-24-2005, 10:32 AM
Yeah, give me Alan Bannister with a .300 avg over Juan Uribe any day.

:rolleyes:

Don't laugh. Uribe and the rest of the bottom-3 have been our best hitters down the stretch. I'm not sure what that says about Alan Bannister, but I sure know what it says about this year's offense.

:cool:

TommyJohn
09-24-2005, 10:35 AM
:rolleyes:

Don't laugh. Uribe and the rest of the bottom-3 have been our best hitters down the stretch. I'm not sure what that says about Alan Bannister, but I sure know what it says about this year's offense.

:cool:

Is it me, or does it seem like, no matter what the team, it's always the
bottom guys that come through in the clutch? Bucky Dent batting .400
in the 1978 World Series is one example that springs to mind.

FielderJones
09-24-2005, 10:40 AM
Don't laugh. Uribe and the rest of the bottom-3 have been our best hitters down the stretch. I'm not sure what that says about Alan Bannister, but I sure know what it says about this year's offense.


I think this year's offense has gone into a clutch hitting slump in August and September. The Sox get three more late inning hits, hell, late inning sac flies, in August and September, we're not even having this discussion.

Ol' No. 2
09-24-2005, 10:43 AM
Is it me, or does it seem like, no matter what the team, it's always the
bottom guys that come through in the clutch? Bucky Dent batting .400
in the 1978 World Series is one example that springs to mind.Troy Glaus was a .250 hitter in 2002, but hit .385 in the WS and won the WS MVP. If you work out the difference between .250 and .385 in his 26 WS AB it comes out to 3.5 extra hits. Anybody can have a hot week.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-24-2005, 10:43 AM
I think this year's offense has gone into a clutch hitting slump in August and September. The Sox get three more late inning hits, hell, late inning sac flies, in August and September, we're not even having this discussion.

Indeed. Luck always runs out. That's why it's foolish to count on it lasting.

:cool:

FielderJones
09-24-2005, 10:49 AM
Indeed. Luck always runs out. That's why it's foolish to count on it lasting.

I'm not going to attribute clutch hitting to luck. There are some guys who focus better with RISP, and have a large jump in average w/RISP over season average.

I'd take a .260 hitter who hits .340 w/RISP over a .300 hitter who hits .300 w/RISP. Over the season the former will produce more runs.

tstrike2000
09-24-2005, 10:55 AM
The Hell with this Friends. Starting with last night let's run the table and lock up this division. Everyone's sick of concerning ourselves with our own inadiquate playing along with the Indians. Contreras set the tone last night and let's finish off these next two and home and get a resounding sweep in Detroilet. Then we can have Contreras start one of the games in Cleveland and let them chase his fork ball!

Yorke97
09-24-2005, 11:01 AM
It seems that a lot of the negative press on the Sox lately is focusing on the failure of the Sox, When in fact, the Sox haven't failed at all. They are are 12-10 this month so far, it's just that the Indians have been sooo good the last month and a half. The Sox shouldn't get a free pass for their sometimes crappy play, but the focus, as always, is Sox = negative. Look at any other division in any league. The Cardinals, for crying out loud, have only four more wins than us, but there's no talk of failure because nobody's nipping at their heels.

The Point is we play in a tougher division that any member of any media will recognize. The Indians have played very well, and deserve any good press clippings they get. But the Sox shouldn't get a bad wrap simply because the Indians are doing well.

Chrisaway
09-24-2005, 11:03 AM
Amen

batmanZoSo
09-24-2005, 11:21 AM
I wasn't aware of any Sox collapse. Let me know when the season's over and we're not in the playoff bracket. :rolleyes:

SOXSINCE'70
09-24-2005, 11:26 AM
:whocares

Let the scribes in the Scum Times and Cub-Une be damned!!
I'd like to see the Sox win the whole damn thing and shut out
the damn print mediots when they try to kiss the team's ass.
No dice.If you aren't a fan at the beginning,you ain't with
the team at the end.:angry:

veeter
09-24-2005, 11:31 AM
You're exactly right. When you put 34 wins or so in your win column, in a short period of time, you're going to catch anybody. With their win last night the Tribe officially has played .750 baseball over about 50+ games. Give me a break.

jackbrohamer
09-24-2005, 11:38 AM
Not Veeck bashing.....just the truth...he was ready to move the team. Why? So he could make a profit. Why did Reinsdorf want to move to Florida? To make a profit. I'm a huge Veeck fan. As a man, a human being and a maverick. But anyone that was ever part of having this team leave Chicago and leave us with nothing but the Cubbies....gets a black mark in my book.

That was part of Veeck's M.O., he did the same thing with the St.L. Browns by buying a down-and-out franchise in a 2-team town, painting the stadium, PHing midgets and doing other PR stunts, then after a few years he ran out of $ and sold the team to Baltimore. Leaving every Browns fan in St. Louis with nothing but their hated rival Cardinals to cheer for.

I have no doubt he would have done the same with the Sox if were in his best interests. I don't fault him for trying to make money with his business, but it's not accurate to claim that he was particularly loyal to Sox fans.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-24-2005, 01:01 PM
I'm not going to attribute clutch hitting to luck. There are some guys who focus better with RISP, and have a large jump in average w/RISP over season average.

I'd take a .260 hitter who hits .340 w/RISP over a .300 hitter who hits .300 w/RISP. Over the season the former will produce more runs.

Hey, if you can point to STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT evidence to back up any of this bull**** you just wrote, I would love for you to share it here. It would be another WSI first: proof a hitter can turn it on and turn it off when it really matters (whatever that is). All we know so far about BA with RISP is that it tends to come and go from season to season... and even month to month.

Good luck with your clutch hitting assignment. Maybe it exists, but there is over 100 years of empirical data out there and nobody has been able to quantify it yet -- including every statistician who has ever tried. Good hitters are good. Bad hitters are bad. "Clutch" hitting comes and goes.

Meanwhile I'll take the sure thing of stacking my line up with hitters who can hit, not just "clutch" hitters. Methinks it's merely luck you think is clutch.
:cool:

TornLabrum
09-24-2005, 04:23 PM
You and Lindberg have got this one bass ackwards. The 1960 Sox became the #2 offense in the league -- and that was WITHOUT Cash, Callison, or Battey. Veeck already traded them. (The '59 Sox were ranked #6 in offense.)

The '60 Sox fell from #1 to #2 in league pitching, but it WASN'T pitchers who Veeck traded. He traded for hitters. So where's the beef?
:?:

It wasn't Veeck who was guilty of repeating the same old Loser's Mantra about pitching and defense win championships. That was everybody else. Lindberg has sown even more confusion by trying to villify Veeck for not being the same kind of LOSER Sox Fans expect.
:o:

I'm glad Moose Skowron became a Sox. He is one of the few guys we had that could scald the ball. Figures he's an ex-Yankee, too. Send him my best.
:thumbsup:

I'm actually trying to have it both ways here. The lack of pitching killed us in '60, but the lack of hitting killed us for much of the rest of the decade.

We also traded Honey Romano and Don Mincher in that gutting of the farm system. We were able to bring up the likes of Floyd Robinson and Tommy McCraw.

Moose has to be my favorite ex-player (moving on to the other subject). He was absolutely hilarious at the luncheon today. So was Roland Hemond. Minnie was, too, for those of us who are able to understand him...but he also engaged in some interesting self-revelation which WCSF members will be able to read about in the next newsletter.

BTW, Bryan Dolgin is great in the role of emcee. We've invited him back to our holiday party in December, and he's accepted.

MRKARNO
09-24-2005, 04:47 PM
Hey, if you can point to STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT evidence to back up any of this bull**** you just wrote, I would love for you to share it here. It would be another WSI first: proof a hitter can turn it on and turn it off when it really matters (whatever that is). All we know so far about BA with RISP is that it tends to come and go from season to season... and even month to month.

Good luck with your clutch hitting assignment. Maybe it exists, but there is over 100 years of empirical data out there and nobody has been able to quantify it yet -- including every statistician who has ever tried. Good hitters are good. Bad hitters are bad. "Clutch" hitting comes and goes.

Meanwhile I'll take the sure thing of stacking my line up with hitters who can hit, not just "clutch" hitters. Methinks it's merely luck you think is clutch.
:cool:

What? PHG agreeing with BP on any issue?? I thought we had heard the last of it when you were proclaiming how the Twins had somehow managed to "outsmart Pythagorous" or however you phrased it at the time (it was pretty funny).:D:

MILTMAY5
09-24-2005, 07:57 PM
One of our problems as a franchise is that we want credit/attention before we've actually accomplished anything. 88 years since a World Championship, 46 years since we won a pennant or won a home post season game. 3 post season appearances in that time. From a national perspective....we're one of the least compelling teams based on the last 50 years. Locally....we're not aligned with the wealthy and powerful like the Cubbies.

And now its creeping into our leaders...with Ozzie's comments about...hey we've won alot of games so far this year, etc. All I know is I'm responsible for meeting targets in my job...it's great if I'm on track all year...but if I fall off in the 4th Quarter and end up missing for the year....I don't get any credit for getting off to "a great start".

There is a bias in the media...but if we actuallly delivered a championship...we'll get all the attention we'll ever need. 110% correct!!

PaleHoseGeorge
09-24-2005, 08:09 PM
What? PHG agreeing with BP on any issue?? I thought we had heard the last of it when you were proclaiming how the Twins had somehow managed to "outsmart Pythagorous" or however you phrased it at the time (it was pretty funny).

I took two years of statistics in college and consider myself strictly an amateur at the science of it. However even I can spot bull**** statistics and Baseball Prospectus is literally filled with it. I have contempt for the BP Propellerheads not because I don't believe in conclusions based on statistical analysis, but conclusions based on bull**** statistical analysis. Guess which kind BP is filled with?
:cool:

And it's spelled Pythagoras. I resent his good name getting dragged through the mud by the junk scientists at BP.
:wink:

IowaSox1971
09-25-2005, 01:45 AM
What the Veeck bashers do not realize is that we let Denny McClain go in the early 1960s. We kept Bruce Howard instead. (This happened after Veeck sold the team.) Blaming Veeck for our failure to win another pennant is not only revisionist history, it's unfair.

We picked up three players before the 1960 season who had outstanding years for us. Minoso batted .311 with 20 homers and 105 RBIs while playing every game that season. I believe Sievers hit 28 homers and batted .295. And Freese batted in the .270s while hitting 18 homers as a third baseman. We plugged some holes that the 1959 team had, and we ended up showing a lot of improvement on offense in 1960.

However, as I mentioned in a previous post, the Yankees just happened to retool that year and got Maris in a lopsided trade with Kansas City. By doing nothing and hanging onto our prospects, we would not have been in contention at all in 1960, nor in the next couple of years, when the reloaded Yankees were really the Yankees. Veeck had a choice: Either try to defend our AL title and remain relevant in the league race for the next few years, or hang onto our prospects and be out of contention for a while. As it turned out, we contended with some awesome Yankees teams and we ended up with winning records for the next seven years. So, Veeck did not ruin the franchise.

RadioheadRocks
09-25-2005, 01:48 AM
What the Veeck bashers do not realize is that we let Denny McClain go in the early 1960s. We kept Bruce Howard instead. (This happened after Veeck sold the team.)

I remember reading in a book about White Sox history that Bruce Howard and Denny McLain faced each other in an intrasquad game during Spring Training, with the winner remaining with the team and the loser given up in the trade. Needless to say Howard won that particular game.

chidonez
09-25-2005, 02:12 AM
It's fairly simple:

positive coverage/all coverage = # sox fans/(# sox fans + haters)

I think the difficulty is that it's hard to generate new fans when the media villanizes the team and its fans; although some people dig the stigma.

TornLabrum
09-25-2005, 08:13 AM
What the Veeck bashers do not realize is that we let Denny McClain go in the early 1960s. We kept Bruce Howard instead. (This happened after Veeck sold the team.) Blaming Veeck for our failure to win another pennant is not only revisionist history, it's unfair.

We picked up three players before the 1960 season who had outstanding years for us. Minoso batted .311 with 20 homers and 105 RBIs while playing every game that season. I believe Sievers hit 28 homers and batted .295. And Freese batted in the .270s while hitting 18 homers as a third baseman. We plugged some holes that the 1959 team had, and we ended up showing a lot of improvement on offense in 1960.

However, as I mentioned in a previous post, the Yankees just happened to retool that year and got Maris in a lopsided trade with Kansas City. By doing nothing and hanging onto our prospects, we would not have been in contention at all in 1960, nor in the next couple of years, when the reloaded Yankees were really the Yankees. Veeck had a choice: Either try to defend our AL title and remain relevant in the league race for the next few years, or hang onto our prospects and be out of contention for a while. As it turned out, we contended with some awesome Yankees teams and we ended up with winning records for the next seven years. So, Veeck did not ruin the franchise.

What those who quote Freese's offensive statistics fail to point out is that he was a third baseman who couldn't throw the ball to first without it going wide, in the dirt, over the first baseman's head, etc....anywhere but on target.

1959 was Lollar's last good season. Battey or Romano sure would have looked a lot better than J.C. Martin a few years later. (We're not talking about JUST 1960...we're talking about the farm system being gutted of its best talent, affecting the rest of the decade). Cash would have lasted a lot longer than Sievers or Skowron. Callison was better than, say, Mike Hershberger, no?

The Sox would have been stronger in at least 2-3 positions throughout the '60s, putting less of a burden on the pitching staff.

ode to veeck
09-25-2005, 09:08 AM
Sox should have hired Rodney Dangerfield to handle the press corps and post games this year

Lip Man 1
09-25-2005, 12:20 PM
April 8, 1963- Two pitchers faced off against each other in an intrasquad game that would determine who stayed in the organization. Both pitchers were 1962 "bonus babies" and under league rules the Sox could only keep one. Bruce Howard would win the game 2-1 and get a ticket to the Sox Double AA affiliate. Denny McLain (yes THAT Denny McLain) was released and signed by the Tigers the next week.Lip

IowaSox1971
09-26-2005, 02:29 AM
What those who quote Freese's offensive statistics fail to point out is that he was a third baseman who couldn't throw the ball to first without it going wide, in the dirt, over the first baseman's head, etc....anywhere but on target.

1959 was Lollar's last good season. Battey or Romano sure would have looked a lot better than J.C. Martin a few years later. (We're not talking about JUST 1960...we're talking about the farm system being gutted of its best talent, affecting the rest of the decade). Cash would have lasted a lot longer than Sievers or Skowron. Callison was better than, say, Mike Hershberger, no?

The Sox would have been stronger in at least 2-3 positions throughout the '60s, putting less of a burden on the pitching staff.


If the farm system was gutted of its best talent, then how did we manage to contend for the next seven years? I'm not sure if any other team in the American League had winning seasons EVERY YEAR from 1960 to 1967. We had a deep farm system, and we took a chance on winning another pennant. It just didn't work out. Obviously, we didn't trade every top prospect if we remained in contention until nearly the end of the decade. Freese gave us a very good offensive season in 1960, and then he had another good year while helping Cincinnati win the pennant in 1961. Minoso and Sievers had very good years for us in both 1960 and 1961. These guys did what we needed them to do; it's just that some of our holdovers didn't do well enough to help us to a pennant in either of those years. Veeck still left the franchise in good hands, since we contended for six years after he sold the team.

Lip Man 1
09-26-2005, 12:44 PM
The Sox clearly were a slumping team in both 1961 and 1962. The core of the team was getting older and an infusion of talent was needed. However the talent at first did not come from the farm system.

The fortunes of the Sox were completely changed when Ed Short made his deal with Baltimore in January 1963. The Sox got Pete Ward, Hoyt Wilhelm, Ron Hansen and Dave Nicholson. Suddenly they had three straight seasons of 90 or more wins.

The second deal that put the Sox in contention to keep that streak of winning seasons going was when Short made a deal in January 1965. He, the Indians and the A's hooked up. When it was done the Sox got John Romano back and picked up two rookies who developed overnight....Tommy John and Tommy Agee.

The one constant throughout the 17 year winning streak (1951-1967) was this...as Hal has often said, 'you can never have enough pitching.' The Sox had it in spades. They were arguably the best and deepest staff in the American League and compared most favorably to the Dodgers (and they didn't have two Hall Of Famers like L.A. did!) From guys like Pierce, Donovan, Shaw, Staley and Wynn to Hebert, Buzhardt, Peters, Horlen, Pizarro, John, Wilhelm and Locker the Sox had the pitching to keep them in the race practically every season.

Lip

nlentz88
09-26-2005, 02:38 PM
Sox should have hired Rodney Dangerfield to handle the press corps and post games this year

Yes, I too have often thought about Dangerfield's famous quote when talking about the relationship between the White Sox and the media.

FYI, please note that Dangerfield died on 5 October 2004.