PDA

View Full Version : New Yorker Magazine Writes About the Sox


tebman
11-18-2005, 06:26 PM
Roger Angell, the editor and long-time baseball writer for The New Yorker, writes about the postseason in the 11/21 issue of the magazine. Angell is one of the very best writers about the game. He's been writing long pieces on baseball for TNY for more than 40 years.

Because it's written from a New York perspective, the Sox, and especially Ozzie, are unknown curiosities. But it's still nice to see a great baseball writer say something like this:

"Locally, they were a smash hit, for once utterly extinguishing the Cubs and Cubs' mystique, but they also encouraged the rest of us to forget the sullen imperatives of the Yankees, and perhaps the histrionics of the Red Sox as well -- the C. of the B. and the Idiots and those dirty uniforms -- while we take a little hope in baseball. Kisses all around."

If you get a chance, pick up a copy and read the piece. It's nice to read about it again, and from another point of view.

wassagstdu
11-18-2005, 08:28 PM
Roger Angell is a great writer but I thought he totally missed the point. Of course the White Sox had a great season, anyone can see that. But the most memorable event of the postseason was Albert Pujols' home run?? Give me a break. And Pujols Doesn't play in NY or Boston. Go fugure. That is so "2004", so "baseball as home run derby." The Sox won a whole new (old) way, as a team. Isn't that a heck of a lot more interesting?

.

cheeses_h_rice
11-18-2005, 08:43 PM
Hasn't shown up in my mailbox yet, but I'm looking forward to it. Angell is a great writer, period, but it would be nice to see him penning something not slavishly devoted to Boston or New York.

itsnotrequired
11-18-2005, 09:43 PM
EDIT

Stupid roommate...:angry:

TornLabrum
11-19-2005, 06:57 AM
Roger Angell is a great writer but I thought he totally missed the point. Of course the White Sox had a great season, anyone can see that. But the most memorable event of the postseason was Albert Pujols' home run?? Give me a break. And Pujols Doesn't play in NY or Boston. Go fugure. That is so "2004", so "baseball as home run derby." The Sox won a whole new (old) way, as a team. Isn't that a heck of a lot more interesting?

As an isolated single moment, the Pujols homer was very likely the most memorable event of the off-season, just because of the dramatic change in fortune for that one game. However, at least for me, El Duque's performance in Boston with the bases loaded and nobody out was far more dramatic and memorable. But then again, I'm a Sox fan who grew up in the '50s and '60s appreciating great pitching.

I think Angell would have more of a case had the Cards gone on to win the NLCS, but they didn't.

DumpJerry
11-19-2005, 08:33 AM
As an isolated single moment, the Pujols homer was very likely the most memorable event of the off-season, just because of the dramatic change in fortune for that one game. However, at least for me, El Duque's performance in Boston with the bases loaded and nobody out was far more dramatic and memorable. But then again, I'm a Sox fan who grew up in the '50s and '60s appreciating great pitching.

I think Angell would have more of a case had the Cards gone on to win the NLCS, but they didn't.
Pujols' blast was in the back of Lidge's head when he made his next appearance.......without it, he might have more confidence when he made that next appearance.

robiwho
11-19-2005, 08:45 AM
While I had to keep flipping pages to get to the Sox part of the article, it was nice to see our team get some space in the New Yorker.

FanofBill
11-19-2005, 09:12 AM
While I had to keep flipping pages to get to the Sox part of the article, it was nice to see our team get some space in the New Yorker.

Link to article:

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/051031ta_talk_angell

jortafan
11-19-2005, 09:42 AM
Link to article:

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/051031ta_talk_angell

That's not it.

That link is to a short piece Angell wrote just prior to the beginning of the World Series.

The piece being talked about now is a much longer, more substantial piece headlined "How the White Sox won it all." Unfortunately for those of us who are too cheap to go out and buy a magazine, the New Yorker did NOT include this piece on their website. So you won't be able to read it for free.

Procol Harum
11-19-2005, 10:35 AM
Hasn't shown up in my mailbox yet, but I'm looking forward to it. Angell is a great writer, period, but it would be nice to see him penning something not slavishly devoted to Boston or New York.

Y'know, it is not without reason that they call it the NEW YORKER..... :o:

SoxEd
11-20-2005, 04:53 PM
The piece being talked about now is a much longer, more substantial piece headlined "How the White Sox won it all." Unfortunately for those of us who are too cheap to go out and buy a magazine, the New Yorker did NOT include this piece on their website. So you won't be able to read it for free.


I, for one, was hoping they'd stick the articel up on the WorldWideInterweb once the next edition hits the newsstands in the US - it's not so easy to find the New Yorker on newsstands in the English Midlands :D:.

Does anyone know if that's what they do, or do they only publish certain articles?

buehrle4cy05
11-20-2005, 08:42 PM
Angell is a great writer, but his piece was still geared towards the Yankees, Red Sox, and the Cardinals. The bulk of the article was not on the White Sox, but on those teams.

Once again, great writer, poor article.

Johnny Mostil
11-21-2005, 05:04 AM
I, for one, was hoping they'd stick the articel up on the WorldWideInterweb once the next edition hits the newsstands in the US - it's not so easy to find the New Yorker on newsstands in the English Midlands :D:.

Does anyone know if that's what they do, or do they only publish certain articles?

Only certain articles are posted to the web, before or after publication. All articles are eventually posted to Lexis/Nexis, but not yet those of 21 Nov 05.

I thought this quote odd:

Last winter [Guillén] and general manager Ken Williams persuaded Jerry Reinsdorf not to re-sign Ordoñez and to trade away another slugging outfielder, Carlos Lee, and thus perhaps break the Sox' ancient [my emphasis] predilection for home runs and second-place finishes.


I would have thought such a fine and, um, ancient writer as Roger Angell (in the article he recalls "homers from my youth by the likes of Jimmie Foxx, Lou Gehrig, and the Babe") would be more discriminating in his use of "ancient."

gaelhound
11-21-2005, 10:16 AM
I'll Be sure to pick up a copy, you never know when you might run low on the Charmin!

slavko
11-21-2005, 05:11 PM
It's worth going to the Public Library for. He's an old style writer with a literary bent who turns a nice phrase. It's not worth paying $4.95 to read, but it's worth reading.

tacosalbarojas
11-22-2005, 12:44 PM
It's worth going to the Public Library for. He's an old style writer with a literary bent who turns a nice phrase. It's not worth paying $4.95 to read, but it's worth reading.Agreed. I've always enjoyed Angell. Read his stuff on the '77 and '83 teams in "Late Innings" and "Season Ticket" books respectively. I thought he did a good job of getting it right about what it was to be a SOX fan back then and his descriptions of old Comiskey were terrific. Okay, so he wrote that Pujols' HR was the moment of the post-season. How old is Rodg anyhow? Maybe the age is showing, but I think he still beats the hell out of 95% of the beat and column writers we've got around here.

Brewski
11-28-2005, 11:39 AM
Agreed. I've always enjoyed Angell. Read his stuff on the '77 and '83 teams in "Late Innings" and "Season Ticket" books respectively. I thought he did a good job of getting it right about what it was to be a SOX fan back then and his descriptions of old Comiskey were terrific. Okay, so he wrote that Pujols' HR was the moment of the post-season. How old is Rodg anyhow? Maybe the age is showing, but I think he still beats the hell out of 95% of the beat and column writers we've got around here.

He belongs to another era. The model for today's sportswriter is a muckraker or someone who stirs the pot, like bad hair boy from the Sun-Times. Of the writers around here, only Bob Verdi, who clings to a Sunday column at the Trib, is in his league, and the bottom of the standings, at that.

cheeses_h_rice
11-29-2005, 07:19 PM
Sigh...so the New Yorker finally shows up in my mail today, and it's the Nov. 28 issue. For the first time ever, the Post Office has "failed" to deliver my copy.

:rolleyes:

Baby Fisk
11-30-2005, 08:50 AM
If it weren't for the Pujols HR, we would have been deprived of this beautiful moment...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/63/Joe_Buck.jpg/180px-Joe_Buck.jpg
"Do you think Lidge has been brought in to get the bad taste out of his mouth?"

http://www.rlrassociates.net/images/baseball_tim_mccarver.jpg
"I don't think that taste is there."

http://msn.foxsports.com/id/3785562_36_4.jpg
*CRACK!*

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/63/Joe_Buck.jpg/180px-Joe_Buck.jpg
"Lidge has a new taste now."

bobowhite
11-30-2005, 09:45 AM
Roger Angell is a great writer but I thought he totally missed the point. Of course the White Sox had a great season, anyone can see that. But the most memorable event of the postseason was Albert Pujols' home run?? Give me a break. And Pujols Doesn't play in NY or Boston. Go fugure. That is so "2004", so "baseball as home run derby." The Sox won a whole new (old) way, as a team. Isn't that a heck of a lot more interesting?

.

For me, the most memorable event was Dye's ground single up the middle to plate the winning run in game four of the WS. It really showed the world television audience how the Sox won from early April's game one and on.

jortafan
11-30-2005, 11:14 AM
Sigh...so the New Yorker finally shows up in my mail today, and it's the Nov. 28 issue. For the first time ever, the Post Office has "failed" to deliver my copy.

:rolleyes:

Very interesting.

I also subscribe, and actually had not received a copy of the magazine in three weeks until yesterday, when the issues for Nov. 28 and Dec. 5 showed up simultaneously. But I also have yet to get the Nov. 21 issue.

If I didn't know better, I'd think there's some degenerate Cubs fan working in the postal service who's trying to deprive us of this issue.

Fenway
11-30-2005, 11:22 AM
Angell's baseball wrapup is a Thanksgiving icon.

For years he wrote about the Red Sox's failures and he was usually on target. Then in 1986 he declared himself a Mets fan. :o:


But he hints at part of the problem with the World Series. The games simply go too late into the evening. MLB has to move the starting time up and also play in the afternoon on weekends. Today's 10 year olds need their World Series memories.

WestSideWhiteSox
11-30-2005, 11:31 AM
I'm not surprised at all that Angell's twist was seen decidedly through the NY/Boston/St.Louis paradigm. One of the things we all have to get used to is that building media mindshare in the world of sports is about building a brand name. While the White Sox have been around forever, they've constantly strayed from building a consistent brand that people outside of Chicago can identify with. Post-season appearances have something to do with it. Trust me, if the Sox make the post-season in say, 6 out of the next 10 years, we won't have a media perception issue anymore. We may not eclypse the Yankees or Red Sox in baseball lore, but we'll at least be the 70's Reds or Orioles, which is a far cry from where we've been.

Branding goes beyond post-season appearances though. It's about the uniforms, the players, the broadcasters, the ballparks, and yes even the fans. NY/Boston/St.Louis project those things upon baseball lore better than anyone else, and that's something the White Sox culture can learn from. In fact, if there's one thing we hate most about the Northsiders, it's that they have mastered the branding of their franchise despite having nothing to market on the field. Rather than hating the media for all that, let's learn to play the branding game.

The best success story I can think of for having turned around a "perception challenge" is the San Francisco Giants. After moving to the West Coast along side the Dodgers, the Giants completely abandoned their heritage for almost to 40 years, toying with zany gimmicks similar to what Bill Veeck did with the Sox. The Dodgers, meanwhile, built about as consistent a brand as possible over that time, both on and off the field. The result was that the wider public almost forgot the Giants were an original franchise, while the Dodgers maintained a foremost place in baseball's mind. It's not unlike what happened to the Sox and Cubs during the same era, and Giants fans have the some of the same gripes about the whole situation as Sox fans.

However, during the past 10 years the Giants have gone back to ultra-tradition on all fronts, and it's paid off in spades. On top of that, they have produced winning seasons year after year. The Sox are on the cusp of doing the same exact thing, but it's going to take time.

So in order to mitigate the same types of articles from the Roger Angells of world, I can only suggest that we stick with the formula we've recently developed, both on and off the field, no matter what. Time will reward us for it. If we don't, we have only ourselves to blame.

cheeses_h_rice
11-30-2005, 11:41 AM
Very interesting.

I also subscribe, and actually had not received a copy of the magazine in three weeks until yesterday, when the issues for Nov. 28 and Dec. 5 showed up simultaneously. But I also have yet to get the Nov. 21 issue.

If I didn't know better, I'd think there's some degenerate Cubs fan working in the postal service who's trying to deprive us of this issue.

...or a Sox fan too cheap to spring for his/her own copy.

I'm going to try to contact them to see if I can get a replacement issue. I've been subscribing for 10 years or so, so the least they could do is send me another.

Right? :(:

tebman
11-30-2005, 11:48 AM
I'm not surprised at all that Angell's twist was seen decidedly through the NY/Boston/St.Louis paradigm. One of the things we all have to get used to is that building media mindshare in the world of sports is about building a brand name. While the White Sox have been around forever, they've constantly strayed from building a consistent brand that people outside of Chicago can identify with. Post-season appearances have something to do with it. Trust me, if the Sox make the post-season in say, 6 out of the next 10 years, we won't have a media perception issue anymore. We may not eclypse the Yankees or Red Sox in baseball lore, but we'll at least be the 70's Reds or Orioles, which is a far cry from where we've been.

Branding goes beyond post-season appearances though. It's about the uniforms, the players, the broadcasters, the ballparks, and yes even the fans. NY/Boston/St.Louis project those things upon baseball lore better than anyone else, and that's something the White Sox culture can learn from. In fact, if there's one thing we hate most about the Northsiders, it's that they have mastered the branding of their franchise despite having nothing to market on the field. Rather than hating the media for all that, let's learn to play the branding game.

The best success story I can think of for having turned around a "perception challenge" is the San Francisco Giants. After moving to the West Coast along side the Dodgers, the Giants completely abandoned their heritage for almost to 40 years, toying with zany gimmicks similar to what Bill Veeck did with the Sox. The Dodgers, meanwhile, built about as consistent a brand as possible over that time, both on and off the field. The result was that the wider public almost forgot the Giants were an original franchise, while the Dodgers maintained a foremost place in baseball's mind. It's not unlike what happened to the Sox and Cubs during the same era, and Giants fans have the some of the same gripes about the whole situation as Sox fans.

However, during the past 10 years the Giants have gone back to ultra-tradition on all fronts, and it's paid off in spades. On top of that, they have produced winning seasons year after year. The Sox are on the cusp of doing the same exact thing, but it's going to take time.

So in order to mitigate the same types of articles from the Roger Angells of world, I can only suggest that we stick with the formula we've recently developed, both on and off the field, no matter what. Time will reward us for it. If we don't, we have only ourselves to blame.
Excellent observations, WSWS! We're all unhappy about the Chicago National League Ball Club's focus on perception instead of baseball, but you're spot on by noting that consistency in winning and in "branding" is what will build respect, a national fan base, and ultimately a long-term championship organization.

The Sox have a better product. We just need to sell it.

DenverSock
11-30-2005, 01:36 PM
As an isolated single moment, the Pujols homer was very likely the most memorable event of the off-season, just because of the dramatic change in fortune for that one game. However, at least for me, El Duque's performance in Boston with the bases loaded and nobody out was far more dramatic and memorable. But then again, I'm a Sox fan who grew up in the '50s and '60s appreciating great pitching.

I agree with you. I've not read the New Yorker article yet, but I will. I can honestly say I've read nearly every word Angell has written on baseball, mainly his collected works in book form, but I read from '75 or so on in the magazine when it came out. He always has an end-of-season piece on the season as a whole, focusing on the eventual winner.

MushMouth
11-30-2005, 01:41 PM
I read the article when I got my copy a couple weeks ago - the first page or so I started to fume about how he had not gotten to the Sox at ALL, but then he eases into a pretty well-crafted review of the Sox run. And he "got it" - he captured the idea that this was a different ballclub than the last decade or so of Spendalot champs. And more importantly, he welcomed the change.

WestSideWhiteSox
11-30-2005, 03:31 PM
Excellent observations, WSWS! We're all unhappy about the Chicago National League Ball Club's focus on perception instead of baseball, but you're spot on by noting that consistency in winning and in "branding" is what will build respect, a national fan base, and ultimately a long-term championship organization.

The Sox have a better product. We just need to sell it.

The other thing about building a brand is having a face or personality that the baseball world recognizes (God love 'em, but Frank Thomas and Harold Baines aren't exactly media darlings), and now we have that with Ozzie! Once we've got Konerko's future set, we need to sign Ozzie to a Mike Scioscia-type deal.

cheeses_h_rice
12-03-2005, 05:32 PM
My Nov. 21 issued just arrived today, so it wasn't stolen or lost after all. :smile:

(If anyone who subscribed didn't get their copy, I have a .pdf version I can supply you, just PM me.)