PDA

View Full Version : Depressing Sox Columnists


RibbieRubarb
03-06-2002, 03:17 PM
Right here on WSI, or on ESPN, or in the forums. My god, WE"RE the fans. But all I read are complaints and doubts. Then you complain no one goes to the park, if I read what people like Hal Vickery thought I'd become a Cub Fan. Jesus, enjoy this team. Every team has doubts, but I guess being a "stereo-typical" Sox fan means the sky is fallin, no matter how good the team does. Don't write about something you don't enjoy. I dare WSI to wrtie a positive column.

doublem23
03-06-2002, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by RibbieRubarb
Right here on WSI, or on ESPN, or in the forums. My god, WE"RE the fans. But all I read are complaints and doubts. Then you complain no one goes to the park, if I read what people like Hal Vickery thought I'd become a Cub Fan. Jesus, enjoy this team. Every team has doubts, but I guess being a "stereo-typical" Sox fan means the sky is fallin, no matter how good the team does. Don't write about something you don't enjoy. I dare WSI to wrtie a positive column.

The Sox haven't won a World Series since 1917, and they haven't been to a World Series since 1959, so we do have a reason to be baseball-icly pessimistic.

SoxRulecubsdrool
03-06-2002, 03:41 PM
:gulp:
Don't count me in that bunch! I am always up on the Sox. Maybe it is the large amounts of hops and barley. :gulp:

cheeses_h_rice
03-06-2002, 03:45 PM
History.

Learn it. Live it. Embrace it.

czalgosz
03-06-2002, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by doublem23


The Sox haven't won a World Series since 1917, and they haven't been to a World Series since 1959, so we do have a reason to be baseball-icly pessimistic.

Baseball-icly? Sounds like something Ned Flanders would say.

Anyway, at this time of year, I'm too happy that there's baseball to be depressed.

Foulke You
03-06-2002, 03:51 PM
I try to maintain a balance between being a pessimistic Sox fan who is bitter from years of losing and also trying to keep some hope and spirit alive. 84 years without a World Series has made Sox fans the grumpiest bunch of baseball fans on the planet who just expect things to go wrong. You can't always have this outlook because otherwise, why watch the games and follow the team? We can't all be masochistic can we? A couple championships would cure some of this "glass is always half empty" outlook that many Sox fans like Hal Vickery have.

doublem23
03-06-2002, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
Anyway, at this time of year, I'm too happy that there's baseball to be depressed.

Oh, yeah, I'm really excited about the season, but A) Hal Vickery makes some good points, as depressing as they may be. Truth hurts, man. B) He's seen a LOT more Sox failure than, me, so he has millions of more reasons to be more pessimistic about the Sox.

Go Sox!

HawkDJ
03-06-2002, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by RibbieRubarb
Right here on WSI, or on ESPN, or in the forums. My god, WE"RE the fans. But all I read are complaints and doubts. Then you complain no one goes to the park, if I read what people like Hal Vickery thought I'd become a Cub Fan. Jesus, enjoy this team. Every team has doubts, but I guess being a "stereo-typical" Sox fan means the sky is fallin, no matter how good the team does. Don't write about something you don't enjoy. I dare WSI to wrtie a positive column.

Like he said we are the fans and we are here to love the White Sox, win or lose. I know you all love the Sox but still, get over the fact that the Sox are good, but not great and that most likely we will not win the World Series. But instead of complaining about the Sox faults and worries, how about just enjoying and celebrating their strengths. Go out and enjoy this season because I'm sure it will be great.

Lisa
03-06-2002, 04:42 PM
I don't know - a lot of the people on these boards I see at the park on a regular basis throughout the season (you know who you are!), and it seems to me that we come to the forums to discuss and blow off some steam, but when we go to the park we yell our heads off for the team. I've been on White Sox boards since before MLB took over the "official" one, so I like to think I've seen enough to claim what I've seen as the norm.

As for myself, I'm never going to look at the Sox through rose-tinted glasses - I'm too much of a realist. Ont the other hand, they will ALWAYS be my team, I've been a loyal fan my whole life, I have season tickets, and I look forward to every season no matter how I think they'll do. And I don't think that complaining about legitimate concerns here and going to cheer at the ballpark are bad things, as long as I do both. It balances out.

kermittheefrog
03-06-2002, 04:45 PM
I'm a stathead so I'm always angry.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-06-2002, 05:08 PM
I don't see any reason to bash Sox Fans who criticize the team. Most everyone who posts here gives a damned about the team--otherwise they wouldn't bother to visit. To echo what Lisa wrote, they attend games as regularly as possible.

The ugly truth is, there aren't many Sox Fans left anymore. Twenty-one years after Reinsdorf took over, the fan base has never been weaker compared to its closest competitor, the Cubs.

Let's throw the rocks where it might do us some good?

Clarkdog
03-06-2002, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I don't see any reason to bash Sox Fans who criticize the team. Most everyone who posts here gives a damned about the team--otherwise they wouldn't bother to visit. To echo what Lisa wrote, they attend games as regularly as possible.


Amen. As a Sox fan, I go to the park to see winning and want to see them make good decisions that lead to winning. When they make a bad one, it's my right as a fan to criticize. When it pans out, and my opinion is wrong, then I get on board and eat crow, but that won't stop me from criticizing them again.

In my mind, the White Sox are a great untapped opportunity, and I and others on WSI always want to see them strive to maximize their chances and it frustrates us all when they don't. 84 years is a long time.

RKMeibalane
03-06-2002, 05:26 PM
Let's keep in mind that most people who are criticizing the Sox have been fans of the team for years. They want the team to be successful, but they currently aren't happy with what the Sox are doing. Blind faith and acceptance of losing are characteristics of Cubs fans. We don't need that here at WSI.

kermittheefrog
03-06-2002, 05:48 PM
At least we're not the Royals:

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/sports/baseball/2798899.htm

Jerry_Manuel
03-06-2002, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
Anyway, at this time of year, I'm too happy that there's baseball to be depressed.


Even though I think Minnesota will win the Central, I'm not depressed. The games still have to be played, which is the best part. Even last year when the Sox were down right brutal to start the year, I enjoyed watching the games. I just love watching baseball, winning makes it more fun, as I'm sure anyone can imagine.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-06-2002, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by RibbieRubarb
Right here on WSI, or on ESPN, or in the forums. My god, WE"RE the fans. But all I read are complaints and doubts. Then you complain no one goes to the park, if I read what people like Hal Vickery thought I'd become a Cub Fan. Jesus, enjoy this team. Every team has doubts, but I guess being a "stereo-typical" Sox fan means the sky is fallin, no matter how good the team does. Don't write about something you don't enjoy. I dare WSI to wrtie a positive column.

Okay, I'll challenge you right back. There is a feature right on the front page of WSI called Sox Fans' Sound Off . It's there for ANY Sox Fan to write about any Sox-related subject. Just like anyone else here, you can use WSI's front page to reach an audience that currently averages over 150,000 hits per day. Care to try?

Send your document attachment opinion column to Soundoff@whitesoxinteractive.com. That's all you need to do. Everything else is done for you.

foulkesfan11
03-06-2002, 06:02 PM
I agree that the Fans come here to blow off steam. When things don't look too good, of course there's going to be depressing articles written. It's good to know that other die hard Sox fans agree with what we think when times are bad and GOOD! It's too bad the Sox Management doesn't read this board. Maybe they'd learn a little something.

I think one big reason that many of us are depressed is that it's been a long winter. Only 26 days til April 1st and Baseball's back! Hopefully we'll have more to cheer about then.

Paulwny
03-06-2002, 06:05 PM
In the back of my mind is the thought that the 59 ws I watched will be the only one I'll ever see the sox in. Damn the thought, I hope I'm wrong.

Cheryl
03-06-2002, 06:46 PM
Originally posted by foulkesfan11
Only 26 days til April 1st and Baseball's back!

I agreed with almost everything Hal had to say in his column, but I also agree with with Foulkesfan here.

A foolish consistancy is the hobgoblin of little minds, ya know.

longshot7
03-06-2002, 07:06 PM
yeah, the majority of us were not even around to see the 59 series - it's just the cold reality that I've waited my whole life for a White Sox championship and it seems like I'll be waiting a lot longer.

that being said - I love this team and I am truly excited for the start of another season. Especially now that I have DirecTV and will be able to see the games.

I remember George Will talking about the difference between him and his childhood friends. Being from downstate IL, he chose to follow the Cubs while they followed the Cards. Because of the Cards' success, his friends turned out happy, optimistic, liberal people, while because the Cubs continually suck, Will turned out cold, bitter, and conservative. Once you choose your team, you can't change - it just gives you the right to bitch even louder.

THE_HOOTER
03-06-2002, 09:00 PM
I agree with Jerry. I feel the Twins will win the division, and I think Cleveland will be better than everyone thinks. One reason--PITCHING.

Our pitching is below average except for Foulke.

George, I know we've argued about this before but the stats don't support your argument that the fan base is at it's weakest with Reinsdorf at the owner position.

This franchise has always lacked support.

doublem23
03-06-2002, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by THE_HOOTER
This franchise has always lacked support.

I know... Back before the strike when the park was sold out every night, those weren't real people... Just cardboard cut outs.... And of course, 1991, when the Sox nearly drew 3 million people... All a sham....

THE_HOOTER
03-06-2002, 09:12 PM
1991 was the first year of New Comiskey- hardly a year to judge fan support of the whole scheme of things.

I agree that there was a good amount of support in 1991-1994 before the strike.

Guess who the owner was?????? Reinsdorf.

You just helped me win my argument with George.

If you look at a decade or two, the Sox have never been able to consistently hold fans. Up until the last decade, the same goes for the Cubs.

I am ashamed to say that the majority of Chicago fans are extremely fair weathered.

But then again, we do have the best city in America competing with things to do...

Daver
03-06-2002, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by THE_HOOTER
I agree with Jerry. I feel the Twins will win the division, and I think Cleveland will be better than everyone thinks. One reason--PITCHING.

Our pitching is below average except for Foulke.

George, I know we've argued about this before but the stats don't support your argument that the fan base is at it's weakest with Reinsdorf at the owner position.

This franchise has always lacked support.

The Sox outdrew the Cubs in the 80's.

THE_HOOTER
03-06-2002, 09:14 PM
Daver,

I know the Sox outdrew the Cubs in the eighties but if you look at the numbers, I'm sure they aren't very impressive.

Not for a city with 2,900,000.

Daver
03-06-2002, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by THE_HOOTER
Daver,

I know the Sox outdrew the Cubs in the eighties but if you look at the numbers, I'm sure they aren't very impressive.

Not for a city with 2,900,000.

I have,the numbers are much better than what the Sox average now.
I think you should include the whole metro area and make that number 8 million.

doublem23
03-06-2002, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by THE_HOOTER
1991 was the first year of New Comiskey- hardly a year to judge fan support of the whole scheme of things.

I agree that there was a good amount of support in 1991-1994 before the strike.

Guess who the owner was?????? Reinsdorf.

You just helped me win my argument with George.

How? You said the Sox never had support, and, by my last count, drawing an average of 2,549,690 fans over the years of 1990-1993 (2,002,359; 2,934,154; 2,681,156; 2,581,091) is pretty good support...

Of course, this all ended because of, guess who?... Reinsdorf and the Strike of 1994 and then the White Flag Trade 3 years later. Like it or not, the Sox once had a strong fan base that is becoming increasingly disillusioned by Unky Jerry.

:reinsy
Please. Have blind faith in me. I know what I'm doing.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-06-2002, 09:32 PM
Hey, this is great. I don't have to say a single word! :smile:

Hooter is in good company thinking the Sox never had good support. Richard Lindberg has done an outstanding job making the case in his several Sox books.

The truth lies elsewhere. The Sox were still outdrawing the Cubs most years until 1988 when the Cubune finally succeeded in getting night games for the Urinal. The Sox did okay fighting back in the early-90's with a new ballpark. We were on our way to a fifth consecutive season of drawing over 2 million when the labor impasse began.

Gee, what happened to all that goodwill the Sox received from fairweather Sox Fans and the taxpayers of Illinois?

:reinsy
"I've got my own agenda."

:ohno
"Don't we know it."

THE_HOOTER
03-06-2002, 09:46 PM
Doublem,

The Owner during 1990-1993 was Reinsdorf! If you blame him for ruining the fan base then you have to give him the credit when people did show up.

Please go back to the pre-Reinsdorf era and tell me what the previous owners did attendance-wise.

I can't tell you how many games I went to in Old Comiskey when you could pick your seat. Of course back then if you picked the wrong seat you might get a punch in the nose!

The bottom line is the most successful attendance figures have been during the Reinsdorf era. I do not disagree with the fact that Reinsdorf didn't help the Sox's cause with the strike.

I don't care what anybody says, I was not pissed off with the White flag trade. We were not going to catch Cleveland, and every guy the Sox traded was going to walk just like Fernandez.

I just want to know where the hell all 2,900,000 in the city are during every Sox game?

czalgosz
03-06-2002, 09:58 PM
Hooter,

George's point is that most people in Chicago blame Reinsdorf for the strike in '94, and that's why they don't go to the games. I think that he's right, although I wonder why the people in the Tribune Tower, who seemed just as excited to start the '94 strike, seem to escape all culpability...

:knue

I'm certainly not going to rip on my bosses! You want me to lose my job? Jerry's a much better target.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-06-2002, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by THE_HOOTER
The bottom line is the most successful attendance figures have been during the Reinsdorf era. I do not disagree with the fact that Reinsdorf didn't help the Sox's cause with the strike.

You're missing the point. The fact that Reinsdorf's team has drawn the highest is a function of overall attendance trends for MLB, not the Sox. To the contary, Reinsdorf is LOSING the attendance battle.

As recently as 25 years ago, the goal for every team was to achieve 1 million paid attendance. In the era of free agency, that number has consistently climbed. As recently as 1990, drawing 2 million was the standard. Today there are clubs drawing 3 million or more on a regular basis.

Thanks largely to P.K. Wrigley's silly insistence on playing strictly day games, the Sox had a monopoly on night time baseball games in Chicago. This fact, combined with higher seating capacity at Old Comiskey, gave the Sox a built-in advantage which generally gave the Sox BETTER ATTENDANCE than the Cubs most seasons since WWII.

Under Reinsdorf, this has changed. Not even the new ballpark could reverse the trend, though it's worth noting the team was drawing exceedingly well until a first-place team had the rug pulled out from under it in 1994. It's been downhill ever since.

You want to blame Sox Fans for the team's ills? Fine. I want to blame American consumers for not buying more American steel, too. That doesn't change the fact that either of these businesses is losing ground to its competitors.

Daver
03-06-2002, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge



Under Reinsdorf, this has changed. Not even the new ballpark could reverse the trend, though it's worth noting the team was drawing exceedingly well until a first-place team had the rug pulled out from under it in 1994. It's been downhill ever since.



PHG,I think you need to give some credit to the white flag trade,though it was in the best interest of the team,it alienated a lot of fans.

czalgosz
03-06-2002, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by daver


PHG,I think you need to give some credit to the white flag trade,though it was in the best interest of the team,it alienated a lot of fans.

PHG has already apportioned the White Flag Trade its fair share of the blame for current attendance woes.

It's kind of frustrating to me to listen to this debate, as I moved out of Chicago for good during the strike and haven't really been back, so I can't claim to have my finger on the pulse of what's going on in terms of White Sox attendance.

George, other than fielding a winning team, what can the Sox do to draw back fans, in your opinion?

PaleHoseGeorge
03-06-2002, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by daver
PHG,I think you need to give some credit to the white flag trade,though it was in the best interest of the team,it alienated a lot of fans.

Yes, the White Flag Trade played a crucial role, too. I didn't mean to minimize its role. I was highlighting the fact that "fairweather" Sox Fans showed no signs of giving up on their team until the strike of '94 ruined a first-place team's aspirations.

For many fans still unsure of Reinsdorf's true priorities, the '97 White Flag Trade sort of sealed the deal. If you blindly support this man's team (either by buying tickets or paying your taxes), you most certainly are going to get burned.

:reinsy
"Who, me?"

Lip Man 1
03-06-2002, 10:23 PM
Folks:

I write for WSI (along with the AP and the Idaho Falls Post Register) and all I can say is if you can't handle the truth, then you SHOULD become a Cub fan.

When the Sox give me a reason to be optimistic, I will gladly write something positive.

Like when the team finally decides to spend some money like the 3rd largest city and media center in America should, or when Jerry Reinsdorf and his boot licking bunch of fools leave the scene, or as colleague and author Dan Helpingstein has said "when the fans are finally appreciated and stopped being made the whipping boys" for all the Sox moronic moves and comments

I mean after all, it's only been 42 years since the club appeared in a World Series and 84 since they last won it. That's a drop in the bucket (if you have a life span of 300 years!!!).

So when the "can't miss kids" fall flat on their collective asses again, when our "intrepid G.M." continues to hammer away at the "whoa is us theme...we (sniff, sniff) just can't (sob) afford to sign any free agents", and when the Sox in the field couldn't catch a cold let alone a baseball, I'll think of you, smile and remember those famous words..."There is a sucker born every minute!"

Mark Liptak :D: :D: :D: :D: :D:

PaleHoseGeorge
03-06-2002, 10:25 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
George, other than fielding a winning team, what can the Sox do to draw back fans, in your opinion?

I've written a lot about this. Unfortunately, it's not an easy question to answer.

I believe in my heart the Chicago White Sox are a viable franchise, playing at 35th & Shields, in a ballpark currently configured like New Comiskey Park. There is absolutely nothing wrong with any of this.

My favorite whipping boy has been the team's marketing and public relations, however I feel Gallas has probably got his hands tied by Reinsdorf.

Instead of trying to answer this in a long post (a futile excercise), I promise to point out specific things that I would do differently in future posts as others here raise various subjects for discussion.

I wouldn't want to be accused of being too negative. :smile:

:gulp:

Lip Man 1
03-06-2002, 10:33 PM
Folks:

I write for WSI (along with the AP and the Idaho Falls Post Register) and all I can say is if you can't handle the truth, then you SHOULD become a Cub fan.

When the Sox give me a reason to be optimistic, I will gladly write something positive.

Like when the team finally decides to spend some money like the 3rd largest city and media center in America should, or when Jerry Reinsdorf and his boot licking bunch of fools leave the scene, or as colleague and author Dan Helpingstein has said "when the fans are finally appreciated and stopped being made the whipping boys" for all the Sox moronic moves and comments

I mean after all, it's only been 42 years since the club appeared in a World Series and 84 since they last won it. That's a drop in the bucket (if you have a life span of 300 years!!!).

So when the "can't miss kids" fall flat on their collective asses again, when our "intrepid G.M." continues to hammer away at the "whoa is us theme...we (sniff, sniff) just can't (sob) afford to sign any free agents", and when the Sox in the field couldn't catch a cold let alone a baseball, I'll think of you, smile and remember those famous words..."There is a sucker born every minute!"

Mark Liptak :D: :D: :D: :D: :D:

doublem23
03-06-2002, 10:42 PM
To back up PHG's point, in the 21 years since Reinsdorf bought the team, the Sox average finish in the A.L. "Attendance Standings" has been 8.23.... And the Sox have only finished in the Top 5 for the AL 6 times...

While it is true that the numbers might be larger, the basic fact is the Sox are not drawing fans the way a team in the third largest market in the country should.

Not that it matters, I'd rather win a World Series, anyway. But you really can't blame the fans for not wanting to waste their money when they've had 21 years of incompetence to deal with.

czalgosz
03-06-2002, 10:45 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Folks:

I write for WSI (along with the AP and the Idaho Falls Post Register) and all I can say is if you can't handle the truth, then you SHOULD become a Cub fan.

When the Sox give me a reason to be optimistic, I will gladly write something positive.

Like when the team finally decides to spend some money like the 3rd largest city and media center in America should, or when Jerry Reinsdorf and his boot licking bunch of fools leave the scene, or as colleague and author Dan Helpingstein has said "when the fans are finally appreciated and stopped being made the whipping boys" for all the Sox moronic moves and comments

I mean after all, it's only been 42 years since the club appeared in a World Series and 84 since they last won it. That's a drop in the bucket (if you have a life span of 300 years!!!).

So when the "can't miss kids" fall flat on their collective asses again, when our "intrepid G.M." continues to hammer away at the "whoa is us theme...we (sniff, sniff) just can't (sob) afford to sign any free agents", and when the Sox in the field couldn't catch a cold let alone a baseball, I'll think of you, smile and remember those famous words..."There is a sucker born every minute!"

Mark Liptak :D: :D: :D: :D: :D:

I hate to say it, but this post comes dangerously close to being a troll. I would counter by saying that if there is no hope, and the team is going to suck, why bother watching? Better yet, why not just become a Yankee fan? They are far less likely to let you down, and they certainly aren't going to skimp on the free agents.

Look, if you want the White Sox to build up a huge payroll and sign big-name free agents, don't hold your breath. The White Sox will never, ever be that team. Go root for the Rangers or Dodgers or Red Sox.

czalgosz
03-06-2002, 10:53 PM
I found this (http://www.baseballreference.com/teams/CHW/attend.shtml), which gives a clear indication of what happened to the attendance at Comiskey Park. Everything was going well, the strike hit, and the bottom fell out. The 2000 White Sox dramatically improved on their 1999 attendance, as expected, and a falloff was also expected in 2001, given the team's performance.

I guess you can draw your own conclusions from these numbers. But there they are, to reference for further arguments.

bjmarte
03-07-2002, 12:18 AM
Originally posted by RKMeibalane
Let's keep in mind that most people who are criticizing the Sox have been fans of the team for years. They want the team to be successful, but they currently aren't happy with what the Sox are doing. Blind faith and acceptance of losing are characteristics of Cubs fans. We don't need that here at WSI.

Exactly. There is no such thing as silver and black rock on this board, not just because we are biased but because it genuinely doesn't exist.

THE_HOOTER
03-07-2002, 08:43 AM
I think most people would agree with me that whether the Sox win or lose, we still love them and cheer them on.

However, bad trades, poor fielding, bad lineup choices, and so on deserve our criticism and judgement.

That is what makes us fans! :beer


I believe it is wrong to blame the entire attendance problems n the ownership. I do believe they play a huge part though.

I still think it is up to the fans to support their team. I know it's tough to do it with the current ownership, but if you're lucky enough to be in Chicago why not head to Comiskey for a few cold ones?

It's a lot of fun to me!

Procol Harum
03-07-2002, 10:27 AM
I've just returned from 10 days in the UK and have to admit that I am in the process of catching up on all that's going on with the Sox in Tucson. That said, I read Hal V.'s column and must say that I feel he's probably right in everything he says. And what I've heard about recent Sox developments makes me feel he's all the more on target. Parque not being able to break a windowpane with his fastball, Buerhle's whining over his contract, KW's whining over Buerhle's whining ("We can't even afford the roster we have..."), the fact that our pitching has apparently been getting shelled, and, overall this team can hardly catch a baseball--pretty depressing.

For us long-time White Sox geezers it's just more of the same. I'll continue to watch and attend games and will root like crazy, but I'm afraid 2002 is gonna be just another link in that long chain of Sox fan-suffering.

Iwritecode
03-07-2002, 12:35 PM
I just have one comment on the front page article:

Doubt #8: The Twins. They've owned the Sox for the past two years. They had a great first half in 2001, and they are a young team. They will be playing for the survival of their franchise. (Can you see Budlight Selig contracting by dumping a division champion?) Most people discount the Twins, but the players have a lot of incentive this year. Couple that with the fact that the Sox haven't been able to touch their pitching for two years, and you start to wonder about the chances of the Sox.

This is only half right. Yes, the Twins did own the Sox last year but that was mostly due to some bad bounces and rolls on the carpet the Twins call a field, some fluke blown saves by Keith Foulke and the absence of Frank Thomas. We'll find out this year whether their pitching last year was for real or not. But in 2000 the Sox went 7 - 5 against the Twins. This is hardly what I would call "owning" the Sox. The only pitcher they had problems with that year was Joe "Cy" Mays.

All the other arguements can actually be argued against as well, but I don't have enough time right now... :smile:

PaleHoseGeorge
03-07-2002, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
This is only half right. Yes, the Twins did own the Sox last year but that was mostly due to some bad bounces and rolls on the carpet the Twins call a field, some fluke blown saves by Keith Foulke and the absence of Frank Thomas. We'll find out this year whether their pitching last year was for real or not. But in 2000 the Sox went 7 - 5 against the Twins. This is hardly what I would call "owning" the Sox. The only pitcher they had problems with that year was Joe "Cy" Mays.

I would note that before 2001, Kansas City was brutal on the Sox. They had a better record against our Sox than any of the playoff teams in 2000. Is it realistic to suggest the 2002 Sox won't revert to their doormat status against the Royals?

When the Sox actually begin beating the Twins, I'll start taking them for granted.

:ray
"Ummm... I've been shooting my mouth off all winter."

Iwritecode
03-07-2002, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


I would note that before 2001, Kansas City was brutal on the Sox. They had a better record against our Sox than any of the playoff teams in 2000. Is it realistic to suggest the 2002 Sox won't revert to their doormat status against the Royals?

When the Sox actually begin beating the Twins, I'll start taking them for granted.

:ray
"Ummm... I've been shooting my mouth off all winter."

The Royals were 7 - 5 against us. The exact same record the Sox had against the Twins that year. So, using your logic, is it realistic to suggest the 2002 Twins won't revert to their doormat status against the Sox?

I just don't think that the Twins having one good year against a weakened Sox team and then falling out of first during the 2nd half should really make us worry about them that much. I mean yes, we should worry about them because they are in our divsion but the Sox have shown that, when healthy, they are capable of beating them.

ma-gaga
03-07-2002, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
I just don't think that the Twins having one good year against a weakened Sox team and then falling out of first during the 2nd half should really make us worry about them that much. I mean yes, we should worry about them because they are in our divsion but the Sox have shown that, when healthy, they are capable of beating them.

The only thing that stands between the Sox and the division title, is the Twins. (god forbid unless Detroit or KC got better without telling anyone...) If the Sox can take the season series, they should easily win the division.

There are 17 games between the two this year. Should be fun.

AsInWreck
03-08-2002, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by THE_HOOTER
Doublem,

The Owner during 1990-1993 was Reinsdorf! If you blame him for ruining the fan base then you have to give him the credit when people did show up.

Please go back to the pre-Reinsdorf era and tell me what the previous owners did attendance-wise.

I can't tell you how many games I went to in Old Comiskey when you could pick your seat. Of course back then if you picked the wrong seat you might get a punch in the nose!

The bottom line is the most successful attendance figures have been during the Reinsdorf era. I do not disagree with the fact that Reinsdorf didn't help the Sox's cause with the strike.

I don't care what anybody says, I was not pissed off with the White flag trade. We were not going to catch Cleveland, and every guy the Sox traded was going to walk just like Fernandez.

I just want to know where the hell all 2,900,000 in the city are during every Sox game?

That's great, Reinsdorf used to do a good job 15 years ago. Now he's helping to ruin the game, but who cares cause the sox had good attendance in the 80s

TornLabrum
03-09-2002, 09:28 AM
I'd like to reply in general to the responses to my column.

As I've pointed out numerous times since I've been writing the column, the Sox won their last pennant when I was 9 years old. They won their last World Series two years before my parents were born, and my father has been gone for nearly seven years. I've seen rebuilding program after rebuilding program. I've seen teams that had they had some offense would have won pennants. I've seen teams that if only they'd had some pitching would have won pennants. We all need to remember what George's "85 Years and [Still] Waiting" refers to.

I'm not capable in my overall make-up of being like a Cubs fan who can think of his team as a bunch of "lovable losers." One reason I write my column is because George and I (along with thousands of other Sox fans) both believe that "losing isn't lovable."

Yes, it's nice to have a winning season, but that isn't what teams play for. It's nice to win a division and go three and out in the playoffs, but that's not what they play for either. The OBJECT of all of this is to win the pennant, and the Sox haven't done that for 43 years. To make things even worse, the Sox went 40 years before winning that pennant. That's two pennants in 83 years.

In the 33 seasons played since the playoffs were instituted, they have made it to the post-season exactly three times. You do the math.

That being said, I love the Sox. I go to as many games as I can afford, and I'm cheering the loudest when they do well, and I'm shouting encouragement when the roster is made up of players who should be playing AAA ball.

Am I negative? Maybe, but exactly what do I have to be optimistic about. The White Sox as constituted have only the slimmest of chances in getting past clubs like the Mariners, let alone the Yankees, in the post-season.

I'm tired of waiting!

PaleHoseGeorge
03-09-2002, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
I'd like to reply in general to the responses to my column...

As I've pointed out numerous times since I've been writing the column, the Sox won their last pennant when I was 9 years old. They won their last World Series two years before my parents were born, and my father has been gone for nearly seven years. I've seen rebuilding program after rebuilding program. I've seen teams that had they had some offense would have won pennants. I've seen teams that if only they'd had some pitching would have won pennants. We all need to remember what George's "85 Years and [Still] Waiting" refers to.

It's funny how age plays such a role in how we view the team's chances. Heightened levels of pessimism seems to have a strong correlation to advanced age. The average age of posters on the message board is younger, and I'm accused of being too negative. I go to the Sox email list, where the average age is a bit older, and I'm accused by some of being too much a pollyanna for the team.

The moral of the story? You can't win with the Sox!

:gulp:

baggio202
03-09-2002, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


It's funny how age plays such a role in how we view the team's chances. Heightened levels of pessimism seems to have a strong correlation to advanced age. The average age of posters on the message board is younger, and I'm accused of being too negative. I go to the Sox email list, where the average age is a bit older, and I'm accused by some of being too much a pollyanna for the team.

The moral of the story? You can't win with the Sox!

:gulp:

i thought the moral was the sox cant win :whiner: