PDA

View Full Version : Which is more disappointing, 94 or 06?


nasox
09-27-2006, 10:14 PM
Which season carries more hurt, more disappointment, and more frustration, 94 or this one?

JB98
09-27-2006, 10:17 PM
Which season carries more hurt, more disappointment, and more frustration, 94 or this one?

1994, hands down. Aside from the 2005 Sox, that was my favorite Sox team of all-time. I don't know if they would have won the World Series, but I would have loved to have seen them try.

This season, we realize we just weren't good enough. With regard to 1994, we'll never know.

SockItThome
09-27-2006, 10:18 PM
1994, hands down. Aside from the 2005 Sox, that was my favorite Sox team of all-time. I don't know if they would have won the World Series, but I would have loved to have seen them try.

This season, we realize we just weren't good enough. With regard to 1994, we'll never know.

:)

eastchicagosoxfan
09-27-2006, 10:24 PM
This season is more disapointing. Expectations were sky high. The consensus ( although there were vocal dissenters ) was that the Sox were better. We know what happened. As far as 1994 goes, we don't know. We don't know how Feller's career would have looked had he not served in WWII. Same goes for Williams. If Paige could have played in the NL or AL at his peak? If there wasn't a strike? The Indians were hot on the tails of the Sox. We don't know. There is no reality of that season beyond how it ended.

23Ventura
09-27-2006, 10:25 PM
1994. Not even close.

samram
09-27-2006, 10:27 PM
This season is only because we have no idea what would have happened in 1994.

HotelWhiteSox
09-27-2006, 10:30 PM
1994 because we already got the championship

Bob G
09-27-2006, 10:38 PM
1994 - we were the best team in the league but never got the chance to prove it.

Lip Man 1
09-27-2006, 10:39 PM
1967

Lip

BiggestFan14
09-27-2006, 10:44 PM
2006 easily for me. Big expectations after winning it all.

sox1970
09-27-2006, 10:44 PM
1994 - we were the best team in the league but never got the chance to prove it.

The Yankees were 3 games better than the Sox at the time of the strike. The Indians were one game back and the Royals were four games back. With 49 games not played, it's impossible to know what would have happened the rest of that season. The Sox certainly had a great team, but who knows?

Andy T Clown
09-27-2006, 10:44 PM
1994:angry: :angry: :angry:

Myrtle72
09-27-2006, 10:45 PM
1994

JB98
09-27-2006, 10:47 PM
The Yankees were 3 games better than the Sox at the time of the strike. The Indians were one game back and the Royals were four games back. With 49 games not played, it's impossible to know what would have happened the rest of that season. The Sox certainly had a great team, but who knows?

We don't know, and that's why I find it more frustrating than this season. We were cheated out of an opportunity to win. This year, we had our opportunity, and we blew it.

A. Cavatica
09-27-2006, 10:49 PM
1994.

It took me eleven years to forgive Reinsdorf.

MadetoOrta
09-27-2006, 11:01 PM
1994.

I'm still pumped we won a World Series in my lifetime!

ws05champs
09-27-2006, 11:38 PM
1994. We never got a chance. I had season tickets that year and kept hoping they would settle. I was so disgusted with baseball it took me a few years to ever want to go see a game again.

After 2005 I always had in the back of my mind that there could be a let down this year.

MILTMAY5
09-27-2006, 11:40 PM
2006. This team was built to repeat. Kenny Williams must feel sick knowing he did everything he could to improve the talent level and the one thing that was missing was the hunger we had last year on a less talented club.

Lip Man 1
09-27-2006, 11:46 PM
Milt:

With due respect to Kenny, many would argue that his not shoring up the bullpen from the start and not having a competent #4 outfielder to back up Anderson in CF (instead of having to use Mack there) were serious shortcomings.

I think he did a lot to improve the team... I disagree with your phrase 'did everything he could.'

Lip

PushinWeight
09-27-2006, 11:49 PM
Hey, at least we got to finish this season! '94 was way worse because we might have ended our drought earlier than last year.

RealMenWearBlack
09-27-2006, 11:50 PM
I didn't really care about baseball in 1994, but I would think that 1994 would be more disappointing than this year. At least we had an opportunity to win a championship this year.

NoNeckEra
09-27-2006, 11:58 PM
1967

Lip
Why are you so obsessed with '67? We finished 4th for gosh sakes! We had the best pitching by far and the worst hitting by far. We didn't deserve it, and the Red Sox made for a very exciting World Series.

And for me, '06 is more disappointing than '94. We didn't blow it in '94. We played well and were shut down.
This year, there WILL be a post-season, and we won't be in it.

FJA
09-28-2006, 12:00 AM
1994 - no contest.

Parrothead
09-28-2006, 12:00 AM
Eventhough it is not a choice....1984 for me. The Sox did not even finish above .500

Parrothead
09-28-2006, 12:01 AM
1994 - we were the best team in the league but never got the chance to prove it.

The Sox were one game above Cleveland at the time and the Yankees and Montreal had a better record than the Sox. The Sox were a very good team but there was alot of baseball left.

soxinem1
09-28-2006, 12:54 AM
1994 - we were the best team in the league but never got the chance to prove it.

I agree about 1994, but one thing needs to be clarified. It was fair knowledge that the Sox were only a game up on the Indians, but thy were just four over an excellent and FAST KC team.

Even though the White Sox were starting to really click at the time, any of those three could have won it. The Indians had just games a few on the Sox, and KC was playing real tough with solid pitching and tons of SB's.

BainesHOF
09-28-2006, 01:01 AM
Easily 1994. At least we got to play and see where we stood in 2006.

Suburbanbuddha
09-28-2006, 01:07 AM
1994
Not even close.

Huisj
09-28-2006, 02:06 AM
I agree about 1994, but one thing needs to be clarified. It was fair knowledge that the Sox were only a game up on the Indians, but thy were just four over an excellent and FAST KC team.

Even though the White Sox were starting to really click at the time, any of those three could have won it. The Indians had just games a few on the Sox, and KC was playing real tough with solid pitching and tons of SB's.

I've gotta kind of disagree about KC. Their record was good, but look at their team and they didn't seem built for a championship. Cone was outstanding, but their next best starters, Gordon and Appier, were just average to that point that year. Montgomery wasn't having a particularly outstanding year at closer, and Bob Hamelin was their best hitter. Yes, Vince Coleman had 50 SB, but he was hitting .240 with a .280ish OBP. There was no one in that lineup who could get hot and carry them.

On the Sox side of things, Thomas was on his way to possibly one of the best offensive years in baseball history, Julio Franco was having a career year, Ventura was driving in lots of runs, and Lance Johnson had 14 triples. Fernandez, Alvarez, and McDowell were decent (though not great).

However, to me, possibly the biggest disappointment with the whole strike thing was how it totally ruined Jason Bere's career. He was 12-2 at that point, and when was throwing strikes, he seemed unhittable (he still had a few control problems here and there, but his stuff was good enough to work through that a lot). Then after the strike, he came back out of shape and fat, and he totally sucked and blew out his arm. What if the strike hadn't happened, and he had kept pitching and stayed in shape? What could he have become? Would he have had the same injury problems? Obviously, no one will every know, but it seems less likely that his career would have blown up the way it did if he hadn't had those months off to sit around and do nothing, which is what it basically appeared he did during the strike. A shame.

Deuce
09-28-2006, 06:57 AM
1994. That is when I learned that my dreams came a distant second to greed. I walked away from baseball for years after that. Nothing is worse.

Deuce

Bucky F. Dent
09-28-2006, 07:54 AM
1994.

A dream deferred in the words of Mr. Hughes.

mccoydp
09-28-2006, 08:27 AM
1994 just absolutely crushed me at the time...I didn't even watch the 1995 season when play resumed. I was fuming.

The Sox had a great team that year, and a legitimate shot at going all the way.

Rooney4Prez56
09-28-2006, 08:39 AM
2006. We win the World Series and we won't even be in the playoffs this year. We won't even come that close.

soxfanatlanta
09-28-2006, 08:41 AM
I almost walked away from baseball when the season ended from the strike. This year sucked, but I will be dreaming of victory dances in October of 2007.

mwc44
09-28-2006, 08:45 AM
Without question... it has to be 1994.

Madvora
09-28-2006, 08:49 AM
I'd pick 2001, 2002, 2003 or 2004.
Those years almost made me walk away from the Sox forever.

The Racehorse
09-28-2006, 08:53 AM
2003.

That team was talented and healthy, and were leading the division in September. I felt at the time that if the Sox could just get back into the post season, after what seemed like an eternity [sans the 2000 team], that they could get hot and win it all [just as they did last year].

Dan H
09-28-2006, 09:39 AM
1994 by a long shot. At least in '06 the White Sox had a chance to prove if they belonged in the playoffs or not. The proved they didn't. In '94, there was no post season, so we will never know what really would have happened. 1994 was more than a disappointment. It was an out and out travesty that should've never happened.

Hangar18
09-28-2006, 09:42 AM
Which season carries more hurt, more disappointment, and more frustration, 94 or this one?


Both very disappointing.
but 94, because we never got a chance .............

Johnny Mostil
09-28-2006, 09:55 AM
Why are you so obsessed with '67? We finished 4th for gosh sakes! We had the best pitching by far and the worst hitting by far. We didn't deserve it, and the Red Sox made for a very exciting World Series.

And for me, '06 is more disappointing than '94. We didn't blow it in '94. We played well and were shut down.
This year, there WILL be a post-season, and we won't be in it.

I guess we all have our own standards for disappointment. Mine is seeing a Sox team that should have won many more games than it did. There were some Sox teams that, I thought, should have won 20 more. I thought the '06 Sox would win about a half dozen more. But they wouldn't have won 20 more. And, like you, I certainly don't believe the '67 Sox could have won 20 more games.

The '94 team would (at least IMO) have won at least 20, maybe 30, more games. And it would have been interesting to see how they did in the post-season. Of course, as others have pointed out, the Indians were right behind them. And, in fact, the Sox didn't even have the best record in the league that year.

PaulDrake
09-28-2006, 10:05 AM
This year is the most disappointing for me, a Sox fan since the Eisenhower administration. For slightly more than half a season, it looked like at the very least there would be a return trip to the playoffs. Then starting with the Boston series before the break, they morphed into one of the worst teams in MLB. For a veteran team, built to win now, with a weak farm system, this doesn not bode well.

Since Lip mentioned the 67 team, let me add that the 64 team was far more disappointing to me back in the day. The 67 team, even in a pitching era was weak beyond measure offensively. The 64 team had great pitching, solid defense, and better hitting. Going 6-12 against the Yanks (losing the first 10 times they played) sealed their doom.

SCarolina_Ron
09-28-2006, 10:05 AM
1994 For Sure! My son (12 at the time) lost his love of baseball and is just now starting to get it back. I'm OK with 2006. Contrary to many here, I think the SOX gave their all but it just wasn't good enough.

johnr1note
09-28-2006, 10:11 AM
Why are you so obsessed with '67? We finished 4th for gosh sakes! We had the best pitching by far and the worst hitting by far. We didn't deserve it, and the Red Sox made for a very exciting World Series.

And for me, '06 is more disappointing than '94. We didn't blow it in '94. We played well and were shut down.
This year, there WILL be a post-season, and we won't be in it.

You must be very young. They say youth is wasted on the young.

In 1967, on September 27, with only 5 games remaining, the Sox started play 1 game out of first, behind Minnesota, tied with Boston, also a game out, and Detroit was 1.5 back. But the Sox were scheduled to play a double header with the Kansas City A's in KC, and then they finished with 3 games at home against the Washington Senators. Minnesota, Boston, and Detroit were playing each other and much stiffer competition. Winning these last 5 games would almost guarantee the pennant, even winning 3 of the 5 would have meant a strong chance. Of course, you know the Sox lost all 5.

Yes, the Sox finished 4th -- but only 3 games out, but they could have won it all. Yes, we had a weak offense, but if you recall, EVERYONE had a weak offense in 1967 -- Carl Yaztremski was the only hitter in the AL to top .300. This disappointing defeat was doubly bitter, not just because the Sox narrowly missed going to the Series, but because it was the end of an era. The White Sox had been competetive for for nearly 20 years -- if not for the Yankee juggernaut of the 50s and early 60s, the White Sox might have had many episodes of World Series glory. The team was about to go into the dumper for a long, long time, and but for one or two bright years (the Chuck Tanner/Dick Allen Sox and the South Side Hitmen), would remain mediocre to terrible for the next generation. 1967 was also the year the Cubs came out of thier doldurms -- the first year they had fielded a winning team since 1946. The axis of Chicago's baseball universe shifted that last week of September, 1967. I was but a lad at the time, but I still feel the sting of that disappointment.

That is not to say that 1994 or this year were not disappointing. (Indeed, I cancelled my season tickets after the strike year, and did not pay my way back into the park until 1999). I think 67 is magnified for me because I was a little kid at the time, a wide eyed novice Sox fan, the same age my son was last year when the Sox won it all. I am grateful that my Son's formative years as a Sox fan will at least have one memory of glory. It helps to take some of the sting out of missing the post season.

Hangar18
09-28-2006, 10:12 AM
everyone in my office was unanimous.
1994. blamed Reinsdorf for that

Dan H
09-28-2006, 11:55 AM
You must be very young. They say youth is wasted on the young.

In 1967, on September 27, with only 5 games remaining, the Sox started play 1 game out of first, behind Minnesota, tied with Boston, also a game out, and Detroit was 1.5 back. But the Sox were scheduled to play a double header with the Kansas City A's in KC, and then they finished with 3 games at home against the Washington Senators. Minnesota, Boston, and Detroit were playing each other and much stiffer competition. Winning these last 5 games would almost guarantee the pennant, even winning 3 of the 5 would have meant a strong chance. Of course, you know the Sox lost all 5.

Yes, the Sox finished 4th -- but only 3 games out, but they could have won it all. Yes, we had a weak offense, but if you recall, EVERYONE had a weak offense in 1967 -- Carl Yaztremski was the only hitter in the AL to top .300. This disappointing defeat was doubly bitter, not just because the Sox narrowly missed going to the Series, but because it was the end of an era. The White Sox had been competetive for for nearly 20 years -- if not for the Yankee juggernaut of the 50s and early 60s, the White Sox might have had many episodes of World Series glory. The team was about to go into the dumper for a long, long time, and but for one or two bright years (the Chuck Tanner/Dick Allen Sox and the South Side Hitmen), would remain mediocre to terrible for the next generation. 1967 was also the year the Cubs came out of thier doldurms -- the first year they had fielded a winning team since 1946. The axis of Chicago's baseball universe shifted that last week of September, 1967. I was but a lad at the time, but I still feel the sting of that disappointment.

That is not to say that 1994 or this year were not disappointing. (Indeed, I cancelled my season tickets after the strike year, and did not pay my way back into the park until 1999). I think 67 is magnified for me because I was a little kid at the time, a wide eyed novice Sox fan, the same age my son was last year when the Sox won it all. I am grateful that my Son's formative years as a Sox fan will at least have one memory of glory. It helps to take some of the sting out of missing the post season.

An excellent post not only for the summing up the disappointment of 1967, but it was truly an end of the era and the beginning of all sorts of troubles for the franchise. The White Sox almost fell off the face of the earth while the Cubs dominated Chicago baseball news during the late '60's. The Sox lost the first 10 games of 1968 and nobody cared about them after that. And in 1967, there were no playoffs. That wouldn't happen until 1969. First place meant a passage right to the World Series. In a sense, the 1967 team came the closest to the World Series until '05. The team fizzled in the last days of a great pennant race, and its fortunes as a franshise plummeted with an almost move to Seattle. 1967 is a big turning point in Sox history. It is truly amazing the franchise survived the Allyn brothers. Neither, especially John, had a clue even though most look at John Allyn as a decent. The best thing that happened under John Allyn was the hiring of Nancy Faust in 1970.

soxfanatlanta
09-28-2006, 12:08 PM
And for me, '06 is more disappointing than '94. We didn't blow it in '94. We played well and were shut down.


Shut down? More like they walked away from the game I love because they wanted more money. We are still going to see 162 games this year, for better or worse. Nobody can say that about '94.

Hangar18
09-28-2006, 12:12 PM
Why are you so obsessed with '67? We finished 4th for gosh sakes! We had the best pitching by far and the worst hitting by far. We didn't deserve it, and the Red Sox made for a very exciting World Series.



My old man told me a number of times when I was growing up, how disappointing 1967 was too. Said they shouldve been in the playoffs, but they blew it

Hangar18
09-28-2006, 12:17 PM
1994 just absolutely crushed me at the time...I didn't even watch the 1995 season when play resumed. I was fuming.

The Sox had a great team that year, and a legitimate shot at going all the way.

I watched that stripped down 95 team until the SOX get swept badly by the rising Indians in May, capped off by that grandslam hit by Jim Thome that landed in their CF patio area and shattered a picnic table. I turned the SOX off right after that for the summer. I was still furious about 94

soxfan80
09-28-2006, 12:20 PM
Which season carries more hurt, more disappointment, and more frustration, 94 or this one?94

in 2006, we were a defending world champion that won 88 games(and counting)
in 2004, we were a defending western division champ looking to get back in the playoffs, and doing apretty good job, when the season ended in august.
no chance to make the WS that year.

06 may suck, but 94 sucked worse.

Johnny Mostil
09-28-2006, 12:43 PM
The best thing that happened under John Allyn was the hiring of Nancy Faust in 1970.

That was indeed a very good thing, but Nancy couldn't hit a ball as far as Dick Allen, could she? (Or was Allen's signing the doing of Art Allyn? And, of course, Chuck Tanner . . .)

Lip Man 1
09-28-2006, 12:56 PM
No Neck (and others):

I'll be posting shortly my 'this day in Sox history' blurb for September 29th soon.

You may want to read it. Talk about a frustrating way to get 'eliminated...'

Also the only reason the Sox were scheduled to play a DH vs. the A's was because the Tuesday game got rained out. It wasn't a regularly slated twin bill.

Regarding 1964, that also was an extreme disappointment because the Sox finished one game behind the Yanks. However even with the Sox winning the final nine in a row to close out the season, they were to far behind them to close the gap completely. I think the Yankees lead was 4 1/2 with two weeks or ten days to go. The Sox were in it, but weren't as close, nor in the driver's seat like in 1967.

By the way...from the Mike Andrews interview with WSI:

ML: Mike you came up for good in 1967. That was the year the Red Sox, Tigers, Twins and White Sox fought for the pennant through the last week of the season. The Red Sox had sluggers like George Scott, Tony Conigliaro and Carl Yastrzemski. The Tigers offered Al Kaline, Norm Cash and Willie Horton. The Twins countered with Harmon Killebrew, and Bob Allison. The White Sox, and I mean no disrespect, had guys like Ken Berry, Al Weis, J.C. Martin and Pete Ward. As a member of the opposition how did the White Sox stay in the race? What did you see watching from the other side of the field?



http://whitesoxinteractive.com/BaseballCards/Andrews73.jpg

Turning the double-play on the carpet in Kansas City!



MA: "What they had was a total team effort, a bunch of gutsy players who always gave one hundred per cent. They also had guys like Gary Peters, Joe Horlen, Tommy John and Juan Pizarro. That pitching staff was the best. On the Red Sox we had Jim Lonborg and everyone else. Gary Bell contributed after we traded for him and Jose Santiago helped, but the White Sox had the best pitching. These guys threw nothing but hard sinkers and they were using balls that were heavier from being kept underground. Comiskey Park also helped them. The infield grass was like four inches high and the baselines were sloped inwards, at least thatís what I always heard, to keep the White Sox bunts in fair territory. They were a very good team. Going into that last week, the guys on the Red Sox looked at the schedule and figured the White Sox had it won."

Lip

soxfan80
09-28-2006, 12:56 PM
That was indeed a very good thing, but Nancy couldn't hit a ball as far as Dick Allen, could she? (Or was Allen's signing the doing of Art Allyn? And, of course, Chuck Tanner . . .)allen wasnt signed. he was traded.

Johnny Mostil
09-28-2006, 01:01 PM
allen wasnt signed. he was traded.

I'll rephrase. Acquiring Dick Allen was an even better move than hiring Nancy Faust. OK?

Hangar18
09-28-2006, 01:30 PM
I'll rephrase. Acquiring Dick Allen was an even better move than hiring Nancy Faust. OK?


I'll take this a step further. Nancy at least is STILL contributing to the team (somewhat)

Johnny Mostil
09-28-2006, 01:35 PM
I'll take this a step further. Nancy at least is STILL contributing to the team (somewhat)

That's a good point--although I'm not sure she would be contributing to the team in Chicago if Allen hadn't joined it.

Back on topic--how come nobody lists the '70 Sox as the most disappointing team?:tongue:

downstairs
09-28-2006, 01:52 PM
1994 and 2006 are completely different.

1994 - anger
2006 - dissapointment

Juice16
09-28-2006, 02:09 PM
2006 by far. I would also go with 1984 before 1994. In 1994, at least we were in 1st place when the season ended.

Johnny Mostil
09-28-2006, 02:14 PM
2006 by far. I would also go with 1984 before 1994. In 1994, at least we were in 1st place when the season ended.

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned (or I didn't notice anybody mention . . . ) the '84 team before now. Basically the same team that won 99 in '83, addition of a HoF pitcher . . . and 74 wins? Ugh . . .

Lip Man 1
09-28-2006, 02:32 PM
Johnny:

You can also throw in 1968, 1973 and 1995. Years the Sox were the consensus pick to win and fell apart with losing records (although there were extenuating circumstances in regards to 73)

Lip

Hangar18
09-28-2006, 02:38 PM
Johnny:

You can also throw in 1968, 1973 and 1995. Years the Sox were the consensus pick to win and fell apart with losing records (although there were extenuating circumstances in regards to 73)

Lip


1995? No way. I knew there was going to be a big drop-off that year.
If I remember correctly, that was the year the "luxury tax" was implemented
and Uncle Jerry right away pared the SOX payroll to set an "example". Of course, the Yankees ignored the tax, and the SOX went on to have one of their more miserable seasons. Kruk played 1 month for us. Chris Sabo was signed to play 3rd base. He only lasted a month also I believe ........

Ishmookie
09-28-2006, 03:27 PM
94 by far. we won the freakin series last year. cant win every year. in 94 i never saw the sox win. now im really dissapointed but we won last year attendence is way up and the franchise is spending money. Times are still fine.

Dan H
09-28-2006, 03:32 PM
That was indeed a very good thing, but Nancy couldn't hit a ball as far as Dick Allen, could she? (Or was Allen's signing the doing of Art Allyn? And, of course, Chuck Tanner . . .)

Even I admit that was going a bit far. Allen had the biggest impact of any single player in the '70's. Problem was he faded quickly and deserted the team. His exit was low class. It was too bad. There was a great deal of talent wasted.

Lip Man 1
09-28-2006, 05:51 PM
Hangar:

Because of the labor impasse and the late start to the 1995 season no one knew how things were going to turn out. Most of the pundits went the safe route and picked the team that won the division in 1993 and were leading at the time of the strike in 1994 to repeat, talent be dammed.

Lip

GoSox2K3
09-28-2006, 09:02 PM
Since Lip mentioned the 67 team, let me add that the 64 team was far more disappointing to me back in the day. The 67 team, even in a pitching era was weak beyond measure offensively. The 64 team had great pitching, solid defense, and better hitting. Going 6-12 against the Yanks (losing the 10 times they played) sealed their doom.

'64, '67, '83, '94.....damn that's how we ended up with a 46 year pennant drought.

QCIASOXFAN
09-28-2006, 09:08 PM
2006, we had the best Sox team ever assembled on paper.

Martinigirl
09-28-2006, 09:11 PM
I was spending the summer in Europe in 1994. I checked USA Today or the International Herald Tribune everyday to see if the strike was over. The day they called the season ,I was in Paris, and I cried. I had it all planned out in my head. I was going to come home, see us clinch the pennant, like I had in 93, and go to the playoffs. It was going to make leaving Europe less painful, instead it made it worse.

So for that reason, 94 was worse. It seemed to come out of nowhere, where as this year, I saw the train coming, and I was in the country.

drewcifer
09-28-2006, 09:18 PM
2006, we had the best Sox team ever assembled on paper.

:nod: I agree. And were the defending Champs.

October26
09-28-2006, 10:26 PM
I would say '94 and '06 are equal for me - because the talent was so great on the teams for both of those seasons and we were disappointed at the end of each - for different reasons (lockout in 94 vs underachiving in 06). The only reason why '06 may not sting so bad for some is that we have all of our World Series memories fresh in our minds.

I wonder what the posts for this question will look like in 10, 20, 30+ years if we don't get back to the World Series? I'm confident Kenny will make the right moves, but you never know ...

Soxfest
09-28-2006, 11:16 PM
2006 easy:(:

RetireWoodys28
09-29-2006, 11:51 PM
1. 1984
2. 1994
3. All other years of my life before last Fall.

This year wasn't really any more remarkably disappointing for me than any other year when the Sox had a chance to make the playoffs and failed. Granted the expectations were higher this year, but as I recall the expectation level was also raised in 1984, and the 1984 season just sucked. 1984 was the type of season when you wished there WAS a strike!

One of my favorite seasons as a Sox fan was 1991, and that team didn't even win 90 games. With any luck, the Sox will finish off a 90-win season this weekend, and they were competetive into September. I have every reason to believe 2007 will be a chance to improve on this season, not regress, and we had a year-long stint as World Series Champs to crow about along the way. 2006 will be remembered as an overall fun, positive baseball year for me.

Saddest fact of 2006: Lost in this "disappointment" is Dye's remarkable season. Who can honestly say they saw this level of performance coming when Dye replaced Mags last year?

doctorlecter
09-30-2006, 01:32 AM
1994
:angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry:: angry::angry::angry:
I boycotted baseball for four years after that ****show.

vegyrex
09-30-2006, 01:49 AM
:angry:1994 :angry:

Not only was it disappointing for that season to end the way it did with the Sox in 1st place at the time, and playing excellent baseball. But that strike really did some damage to the Sox fan base that didn't get better until this year, after we won the world series.

BV2005
09-30-2006, 02:00 AM
1994, last years championship really eased the blow this year.

nasox
09-30-2006, 02:10 AM
The Tigers offered Al Kaline, Norm Cash and Willie Horton. The Twins countered with Harmon Killebrew, and Bob Allison. The White Sox, and I mean no disrespect, had guys like Ken Berry, Al Weis, J.C. Martin and Pete Ward.

A Norm Cash we never should have traded. While I certainly have no actual experience concerning the Sox in the 60s (or even in 94 for that matter-I'm a youngun), that 1960 team was disappointing. And I for one feel it was repeated here in 2006. I think there are a lot of similarities between the two teams.

StillMissOzzie
09-30-2006, 02:25 AM
2006 by far. I would also go with 1984 before 1994. In 1994, at least we were in 1st place when the season ended.

Eventhough it is not a choice....1984 for me. The Sox did not even finish above .500


1. 1984
.....
Granted the expectations were higher this year, but as I recall the expectation level was also raised in 1984, and the 1984 season just sucked. 1984 was the type of season when you wished there WAS a strike!


I'm casting my vote for 1984 too. Not only was the '84 team a huge letdown from the dominating '83 team, we also had to deal with the surprising Cubs winning their division, adding insult to injury.
I hated 1994, but in a different way. I'm using "disappointment" to pertain to what happened on the field, not the Owners vs. MLBPA battle & strike. I was really down on baseball for 1995 and 1996 after the strike.

SMO
:gulp:

jabrch
09-30-2006, 09:50 AM
1994 - that was a far superior team to 2006.

shoelessshaun27!
09-30-2006, 11:23 AM
1994 Sox, only because we won the world series the year before, it's better than stil having never wittnessed it, 1994 wow big dissapointment but we had a great squad.

flo-B-flo
09-30-2006, 11:39 AM
94: I didn't watch baseball until 1999 after that ****. And just last year I would say Reinsy's name without an expletive attached.

06: disappointing sure, but there was something not right with this team all year. Their ability to never get the various parts of the team to perform together. No real long winning streaks that sort of thing.

35th&Shields
09-30-2006, 01:17 PM
They were each dissapointing, but in different ways. In 1994 I felt that our chances of a World Series championship was "taken away" from us by the owners and the players' association. This year it was dissapointing in that we didn't meet expectations. On the balance I look at this year as more dissapointing, because we had our chances and didn't capitalize on those chances. In 1994 it didn't matter what the White Sox did or could have done, there wasn't going to be a World Series.

Cellview22
09-30-2006, 02:12 PM
The reason '06 was disappointing was we had such a huge lead on the Twins before the all-star break. I remember being 11.5 games ahead of the Twins, it could've been more. I hate giving up big leads like that.

Parrothead
09-30-2006, 03:04 PM
They were each dissapointing, but in different ways. In 1994 I felt that our chances of a World Series championship was "taken away" from us by the owners and the players' association. This year it was dissapointing in that we didn't meet expectations. On the balance I look at this year as more dissapointing, because we had our chances and didn't capitalize on those chances. In 1994 it didn't matter what the White Sox did or could have done, there wasn't going to be a World Series.


Again, the Sox were one game above Cleveland at the time and the Yankees and Montreal had a better record than the Sox so a World Series was not guaranteed. The Sox were a very good team but there was alot of baseball left. Unfortuntately, the players did not play.