PDA

View Full Version : 83 more of a disaster than 69 Cubs? and the 2005 Sox?


caulfield12
02-06-2007, 04:46 PM
http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/rosenblog/

Fenway
02-06-2007, 04:50 PM
http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/rosenblog/


Not the way I would rank them. Of course the 83 team was considered a lock to beat Baltimore and go to the Series. The 84 Cubs should be higher.

drewcifer
02-06-2007, 04:52 PM
http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/rosenblog/

Well, for starters I'd rank this article a bigger disaster than either the '83 Sox or '69 Cubs.

'84 Cubs should be alot higher.

WhiteSox5187
02-06-2007, 05:21 PM
The '83 Sox were a major disappointment simply because they forgot how to hit and if they could have brought across one measely run in Game 4, I don't think anyone would have beaten Lamar Hoyt in Game 5. But the '83 Sox lost to a team with two HOFers (maybe more, I dont' remember the '83 Orioles so well). I think 1919 is worse than '83. I think the '84 Cubs would have been more disappointing. But, that's just me.

downstairs
02-06-2007, 05:22 PM
I think his list is fairly dead-on... except the surprising 84 Cubs. Of course *I* was happy they lost, but in reality it was a dissaster. *especially* back when all you needed was three lousy wins to get to the World Series... not seven!

Dolanski
02-06-2007, 05:41 PM
caufield12, I am a bit confused by your title. Are you asking that 2005 White Sox be considered a disaster?

ewokpelts
02-06-2007, 05:46 PM
in 1983, they WON THE DIVISION

the 1969 cubs DIDNT do that.

Dolanski
02-06-2007, 05:50 PM
in 1983, they WON THE DIVISION

the 1969 cubs DIDNT do that.

I think the 69 Cubs are a bigger disaster. The 83 Sox are beloved by diehards, but mostly forgotten by others (not a bad thing). This 69 Cubs are infamously celebrated as one of the biggest collapses in baseball history. Next time you talk to a Cub fan, ask them about 1969 and watch them cringe.

Hitmen77
02-06-2007, 06:04 PM
The '84 IMO was much bigger disaster. '83 was a big disappointment, no doubt - but it doesn't compare to being up 2 games to none in a best of five and then blowing it with the pennant in your grasp.

Regarding the Bears, there is no way I would rank the '06 Bears as one of the top 10 Chicago disasters. I'm sorry, but the Bears were huge underdogs and lost to a team that was simply better than them. That is not the same as, for example, the favored Packers getting stunned by the Broncos or the favored Rams getting beat by the Patriots. The Bears had a great season and great playoff games against Seattle and N.O. to win the NFC championship. IMO, our culture has become too focused on winning to the point that the runners up are now considered complete losers and an NFC championship is a "disaster" for their city. I suppose we were alot happier 2 years ago when the Bears were 5-11.

Johnny Mostil
02-06-2007, 06:05 PM
But the '83 Sox lost to a team with two HOFers (maybe more, I dont' remember the '83 Orioles so well).

I count three--Murray, Ripken, and, near the end of his career, Palmer (who I suppose barely counts for present purposes, given that he only appeared as a pinch runner in the ALCS). There may be others I'm forgetting.

But, yeah, do I dare say that at least four of the "disaster" teams--the '06 Bears, the '88 Bears, the '83 Sox, and the '69 Cubs--lost out to better teams?

IndianWhiteSox
02-06-2007, 06:25 PM
The '84 IMO was much bigger disaster. '83 was a big disappointment, no doubt - but it doesn't compare to being up 2 games to none in a best of five and then blowing it with the pennant in your grasp.

Regarding the Bears, there is no way I would rank the '06 Bears as one of the top 10 Chicago disasters. I'm sorry, but the Bears were huge underdogs and lost to a team that was simply better than them. That is not the same as, for example, the favored Packers getting stunned by the Broncos or the favored Rams getting beat by the Patriots. The Bears had a great season and great playoff games against Seattle and N.O. to win the NFC championship. IMO, our culture has become too focused on winning to the point that the runners up are now considered complete losers and an NFC championship is a "disaster" for their city. I suppose we were alot happier 2 years ago when the Bears were 5-11.


Unfortunately, many people would rather finish in last than second, as it is just the way that the competitive mind works. Not what I actually believe but that's what studies have proven.

I count three--Murray, Ripken, and, near the end of his career, Palmer (who I suppose barely counts for present purposes, given that he only appeared as a pinch runner in the ALCS). There may be others I'm forgetting.

But, yeah, do I dare say that at least four of the "disaster" teams--the '06 Bears, the '88 Bears, the '83 Sox, and the '69 Cubs--lost out to better teams?

I really don't know about any of those teams losing to better teams outside of the '69 sCrUBs.
But anyway, the choke jobs that might be considered worse than the '69 Cubs:

'86 Bears, '06 Sox(I hate to say it but they lost an 8 game wildcard lead to teams of inferior talent and coaching),'03 and '84 Cubs.

Johnny Mostil
02-06-2007, 06:40 PM
I really don't know about any of those teams losing to better teams outside of the '69 sCrUBs.
But anyway, the choke jobs that might be considered worse than the '69 Cubs:

'86 Bears, '06 Sox(I hate to say it but they lost an 8 game wildcard lead to teams of inferior talent and coaching),'03 and '84 Cubs.

'83 Sox and Orioles we've already been over; I don't have anything more to say.

'06 Bears and Colts has been talked to death on this board; we'll just have to disagree on whether the team that was favored by seven and won by a dozen (and could have won by more) really was better. Again, I think it was.

'88 Bears lost 28-3, in Chicago, on a cold, miserable day, to a 49ers team with some HoFers who were on their way to consecutive Super Bowl victories. I was at that game, and I don't think it was even that close.

As for the '86 Bears, yeah, maybe they should have beaten the Redskins (another playoff game I attended--I've since learned to stay away), even with Flutie at QB, but then I think the Giants would have killed them. (And, yes, I know the Bears beat the Giants convincingly in the MNF game to open the '87 season, but I don't think it matters. '86 was just the Giants' year.)

You've a fair point about the other teams.

WhiteSox5187
02-06-2007, 06:58 PM
I count three--Murray, Ripken, and, near the end of his career, Palmer (who I suppose barely counts for present purposes, given that he only appeared as a pinch runner in the ALCS). There may be others I'm forgetting.

But, yeah, do I dare say that at least four of the "disaster" teams--the '06 Bears, the '88 Bears, the '83 Sox, and the '69 Cubs--lost out to better teams?
I don't know about the '88 Bears, but the '06 Bears lost to a VASTLY superior team. I still maintain that the '83 White Sox were better than the Orioles, but the Orioles caught them at the right time. You gotta be good enough to get in and lucky enough to get hot at the right time, and the '83 Sox just were unlucky to be cold that week. The '69 Cubs are interesting. You have HOFers in the likes of Ernie Banks, Billy Williams and Fergie Jenkins and a guy who should be in the HOF (Ron Santo, I know people don't like him but he was a hell of a player). For the Mets you have guys like Tom Seaver, Nolan Ryan. The Cubs had a decent rotation too, but the Mets just went crazy in the end and their pitching staff was FANTASTIC. So, it's close, but I'm gonna say the Mets were just slightly better than the Cubs that year.

caulfield12
02-06-2007, 07:05 PM
caufield12, I am a bit confused by your title. Are you asking that 2005 White Sox be considered a disaster?

Oh, I didn't see the second part of his line about 05...for Cub fans only.

I thought he was writing about 2005 as IF we had actually choked and not made the playoffs the first time I read it.

caulfield12
02-06-2007, 07:08 PM
I don't know about the '88 Bears, but the '06 Bears lost to a VASTLY superior team. I still maintain that the '83 White Sox were better than the Orioles, but the Orioles caught them at the right time. You gotta be good enough to get in and lucky enough to get hot at the right time, and the '83 Sox just were unlucky to be cold that week. The '69 Cubs are interesting. You have HOFers in the likes of Ernie Banks, Billy Williams and Fergie Jenkins and a guy who should be in the HOF (Ron Santo, I know people don't like him but he was a hell of a player). For the Mets you have guys like Tom Seaver, Nolan Ryan. The Cubs had a decent rotation too, but the Mets just went crazy in the end and their pitching staff was FANTASTIC. So, it's close, but I'm gonna say the Mets were just slightly better than the Cubs that year.

But wouldn't we make a similar argument (based on these talent analyses) that the Tigers last year choked and should have beaten a vastly inferior Cardinals' team? And yet most will excuse it as being their first time in the playoffs in 20 years and say they lost due to youth/inexperience. For Tiggers fans, elation that you didn't collapse and actually made it to the WS, frustration that you fell apart once you arrived on the big stage.

I want Mags back
02-06-2007, 08:41 PM
I think the 69 Cubs are a bigger disaster. The 83 Sox are beloved by diehards, but mostly forgotten by others (not a bad thing). This 69 Cubs are infamously celebrated as one of the biggest collapses in baseball history. Next time you talk to a Cub fan, ask them about 1969 and watch them cringe.

the cubs are ther bigger disaster, but I certainly dont think the 83 team is forgotten about

TommyJohn
02-06-2007, 08:46 PM
???????

Does this guy even do any research?????

The 1969 Cubs finished second, not third!

But I guess smarmy sarcasm is more important than facts.

And I just don't get why Super Bowl XLI is such a "disaster." They lost to a
better team with a better QB. Me, I won't rip Grossman. I also like what
Hitmen77 said, perhaps we'd all like it if the Bears went 5-11. Bring back the
good old days of 1969, when the Bears went 1-13. Ah, those were the times.
No one had to scratch their bellies and bellow about being embarrassed in
the Super Bowl that year.

Dick Allen
02-06-2007, 09:04 PM
Personally, I think the '87 Bears were a bigger disappointment since they had a 14-0 lead on Washington at home and lost. That was Payton's last game. The '83 Sox stopped hitting the last two weeks of the regular season and it carried over into the playoffs. They were no-hit by Mike Warren, for crissakes. When you don't hit in a best of 5 series, good night. The Sox only led at one game to nothing. The '84 and '03 Flubs, on the other hand, had commanding leads in their series. Bigger choke jobs.

rocky biddle
02-06-2007, 09:15 PM
Rosenbloom is the Trib's answer to Marriotti. They're both pathetic excuses for sports journalists. It's fitting that the two most ignorant members of the Chicago media took the most offense to Rex's ignorant comment and won't let it go.

As for this list, I don't think this year's Bears are that big of a disappointment. All the "not-ignorant-at-all" media types picked them to be mediocre and they were Super Bowl runners-up. Their inclusion on this list is just Rosenbloom's way of piling on Rex.

Anyway, since this is in the Sox Clubhouse, where would the 2000 Sox rank?

caulfield12
02-06-2007, 10:10 PM
Rosenbloom is the Trib's answer to Marriotti. They're both pathetic excuses for sports journalists. It's fitting that the two most ignorant members of the Chicago media took the most offense to Rex's ignorant comment and won't let it go.

As for this list, I don't think this year's Bears are that big of a disappointment. All the "not-ignorant-at-all" media types picked them to be mediocre and they were Super Bowl runners-up. Their inclusion on this list is just Rosenbloom's way of piling on Rex.

Anyway, since this is in the Sox Clubhouse, where would the 2000 Sox rank?


Definitely not Top 10, or even Top 15.

Maybe in the way they lost, but Parque, Baldwin and Sirotka were shadows of their former selves by then, and pitching on guts and instinct. We were merely floating around at .500 for much of the second half, although some thought the Charles Johnson deal would help more than it did. Funny, I still remember the Josh Paul/Mark Johnson fiasco...Chad Bradford's strange appearance out of nowhere...and Piniella simply outmanaging Manuel. Especially the last play, which summarized it all, the Guillen squeeze.

It just wasn't meant to be, the pitching wasn't there. The 99 wins were something of an illusion by the end of that season. At least I had the priviledge of attending the Tigers/Sox brawl that really kicked the White Sox into gear that April.

ilsox7
02-06-2007, 10:22 PM
The 99 wins were something of an illusion by the end of that season.

95 wins.

Brian26
02-06-2007, 10:44 PM
Does this guy even do any research?????


I could put a better list together in ten minutes without even trying.

As far as the White Sox, I wouldn't label 1983 a "disaster" by any means. It was a glorious season. Even losing to Baltimore in the playoffs, they were a heartbeat from the World Series.

If you want to talk disasters, I'd label the 1994 season a disaster due to the way it ended, and/or include the 1995 season as part of that.

Why would he include the '99 Bulls when they had no chance to contend from the first game of the season? Jordan, Pippen and Phil Jackson were gone.

C-Dawg
02-06-2007, 11:16 PM
Maybe in the way they lost, but Parque, Baldwin and Sirotka were shadows of their former selves by then, and pitching on guts and instinct. We were merely floating around at .500 for much of the second half.

Yeah, the momentum train lost speed towards the end.... Clinched in Minnesota (despite the loss).... Unfortunately it was the start of a 5-game losing streak. They were ice cold; I had a very bad feeling going into the playoffs that year.

WhiteSox5187
02-07-2007, 01:39 AM
But wouldn't we make a similar argument (based on these talent analyses) that the Tigers last year choked and should have beaten a vastly inferior Cardinals' team? And yet most will excuse it as being their first time in the playoffs in 20 years and say they lost due to youth/inexperience. For Tiggers fans, elation that you didn't collapse and actually made it to the WS, frustration that you fell apart once you arrived on the big stage.
THere's another good question, were the Tigers better than the Cardinals? Here's something that is overlooked, the Cardinals were pretty banged up for most of the season. It was only in the playoffs that they had a healthy Pujols, Edmonds and Rolen. The Cardinals have the best hitter in all of baseball on their team, who do the Tigers have? So maybe the Cardinals were a little better than the Tigers. I wouldn't doubt it.

As for the 2000 White Sox, they're the Southside's answer to the 1998 Cubs. For one year everyone had a career year and strung together a magical season but they were playing waaaaay over their heads. That showed in the playoffs.

QCIASOXFAN
02-07-2007, 02:00 AM
I think the 03 Cubs might take it down, they have 88.3% of the vote at the moment.

TommyJohn
02-07-2007, 08:15 AM
I
If you want to talk disasters, I'd label the 1994 season a disaster due to the way it ended, and/or include the 1995 season as part of that.




I would say 1984 would top that. They were expected to run away with
everything and wound up going 74-88.

GoSox2K3
02-07-2007, 09:47 AM
I think the 69 Cubs are a bigger disaster. The 83 Sox are beloved by diehards, but mostly forgotten by others (not a bad thing). This 69 Cubs are infamously celebrated as one of the biggest collapses in baseball history. Next time you talk to a Cub fan, ask them about 1969 and watch them cringe.

About a week ago, Ed Sherman in the Trib had his list of top 10 moments in Chicago sports. Interestingly, he listed the "83 Sox winning the AL West" and the "84 Cubs losing in the playoffs". I think that is a pretty good representation of what is memorable. Yes, they both lost in the playoffs - but the Cubs more famously choked in '84.

I think you are right that the '83 team really got pushed aside by all but diehard Sox fans after the Cubs won the NL East in '84. A few years later, no one seemed to remember what the Sox accomplished in '83. But, I think over time that '83 team has made sort of a nostalgic comeback in the minds of many. Now you see people who weren't even born (or were babies) in '83 wearing Winning Ugly "throw-back" jerseys.

soxtalker
02-07-2007, 09:55 AM
It isn't even fair to make such judgments this close to the season. I bet that if you look at it a few years out, the '06 Bears would be way down on the list. In addition to the points raised in other posts about the quality of the team, I find it hard to compare the sense of loss for a franchise that won 21 years ago with the baseball teams that hadn't won in the lifetimes of almost all fans. That added a lot to all of the Sox and Cubs near misses. (I lived in Boston for a few years, and, even though the Red Sox had won pennants, that same sense of "just having missed" haunted the fans there.)

ewokpelts
02-07-2007, 10:06 AM
Definitely not Top 10, or even Top 15.

Maybe in the way they lost, but Parque, Baldwin and Sirotka were shadows of their former selves by then, and pitching on guts and instinct. We were merely floating around at .500 for much of the second half, although some thought the Charles Johnson deal would help more than it did. Funny, I still remember the Josh Paul/Mark Johnson fiasco...Chad Bradford's strange appearance out of nowhere...and Piniella simply outmanaging Manuel. Especially the last play, which summarized it all, the Guillen squeeze.

It just wasn't meant to be, the pitching wasn't there. The 99 wins were something of an illusion by the end of that season. At least I had the priviledge of attending the Tigers/Sox brawl that really kicked the White Sox into gear that April.95 wins

DSpivack
02-07-2007, 01:16 PM
I'll chip in again for going way back in history. How about the 1906 Cubs? Still have the best record in MLB history, and in the World Series they choked to a team of "hitless wonders."

The Racehorse
02-07-2007, 01:37 PM
I'll chip in again for going way back in history. How about the 1906 Cubs? Still have the best record in MLB history, and in the World Series they choked to a team of "hitless wonders."

:harry&jimmy
"116 wins. Jimmy, did you see that?! Now, that's a disaster... Holy COW! SOX WIN!"

mcfish
02-07-2007, 02:03 PM
Where's the '04 Cubs on that list? I thought that was almost a worse choke than '03. All they needed was 1 win in the last week of the season to clinch the Wild Card and they couldn't do it.

And why does he mention the '05 Sox at all in that list?

IndianWhiteSox
02-07-2007, 02:19 PM
Where's the '04 Cubs on that list? I thought that was almost a worse choke than '03. All they needed was 1 win in the last week of the season to clinch the Wild Card and they couldn't do it.

And why does he mention the '05 Sox at all in that list?

That's a good point you could mention many Cub teams in that regard but I think he mentions the 2005 Sox, he sort of makes it funny when he says mentioned by cub fans.

soxinem1
02-08-2007, 04:56 PM
Not the way I would rank them. Of course the 83 team was considered a lock to beat Baltimore and go to the Series. The 84 Cubs should be higher.

Most of the nation's sportswriters picked BAL in 1983 to beat the White Sox, IIRC. Sure the Sox led the ML with 800 runs, but BAL had 799. We had 99 wins, but they had 98.

We had the favored starting pitching, but honestly, they had a better all around line up and the BAL bullpen was far better than ours, even though the White Sox led the league in saves. BAL had a top four group of SP's consisting of McGregor, Flanagan, Boddicker, and Storm Davis, who were outstanding both halves of that year, while our best pitcher was Jerry Koosman in the first half, and he finished up the year in the pen.

But the '84 cubs were at the doorstep of victory and blew it, so IMO, it's a bigger disaster if you blow it when you are on the verge of winning it.

WhiteSox5187
02-08-2007, 06:25 PM
Where's the '04 Cubs on that list? I thought that was almost a worse choke than '03. All they needed was 1 win in the last week of the season to clinch the Wild Card and they couldn't do it.


And they lost to cellar dwelling teams like the Mets and the Reds.

PKalltheway
02-08-2007, 07:16 PM
'06 Sox(I hate to say it but they lost an 8 game wildcard lead to teams of inferior talent and coaching)
I guess that statement can be in the eye of the beholder. They were widely picked to repeat, and like you said, they lost 8 games in the wildcard to teams of inferior talent...all in all you could call it a choke, but it will probably be one that will be forgotten because most fans were still high off of the world championship from the year before, so they'll probably overlook it. They were, and still are, in a tough-ass division anyway. 2003 on the other hand...