PDA

View Full Version : Why The Chicago Baseball Rivalry Is So Intense.


Thome25
03-18-2007, 10:18 AM
I was sitting here thinking about baseball geography and it's effect on rivalries. I started thinking about all of the teams that have moved around in the past relocating to different cities. MLB has been VERY nomatic when it comes to teams moving from place to place.

Then it occured to me: Chicago has the oldest, longest intra-city rivalry in MLB. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we're the only city where at least one of the teams did NOT move somewhere else.

I know we've heard all of the usual answers about why the Chicago baseball rivalry is so heated; South VS North, Blue Collar VS White Collar, My Grandad VS Your Grandad. But, I think it has more to do with how long the rivalry has been around than class lines.

Take a look at all of the "original" two team cities from when baseball first began:

New York: Yankees, Dodgers, Giants (Dodgers and Giants moved.)

Boston: Red Sox and Braves (Braves moved)

Philadelphia: Phillies and Athletics (Athletics moved)

St. Louis: Cardinals and Browns (Browns moved)

Chicago: White Sox and Cubs (Both Teams Stayed)

Our Intra-City Rivalry has lasted the longest and is therefore the most heated.

What do you think?? GO WHITE SOX!!!!!

DumpJerry
03-18-2007, 10:49 AM
I'm sure the multi-generational aspect has something to do with it. After all, there are still old-timers here who won't cheer for the Bears because they feel the Cardinals were driven out of town by the Bears in 1961.

Imagine if you were living in New York when the Mets were formed. Do you suddenly become a die-hard Mets fan? I guess if you loathed the Yankees, you might. But then you might still be holding onto the Giants or Dodgers as difficult of a task that would have been in the pre-Internet, mass television era.

IndianWhiteSox
03-18-2007, 01:24 PM
I was sitting here thinking about baseball geography and it's effect on rivalries. I started thinking about all of the teams that have moved around in the past relocating to different cities. MLB has been VERY nomatic when it comes to teams moving from place to place.

Then it occured to me: Chicago has the oldest, longest intra-city rivalry in MLB. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we're the only city where at least one of the teams did NOT move somewhere else.

I know we've heard all of the usual answers about why the Chicago baseball rivalry is so heated; South VS North, Blue Collar VS White Collar, My Grandad VS Your Grandad. But, I think it has more to do with how long the rivalry has been around than class lines.

Take a look at all of the "original" two team cities from when baseball first began:

New York: Yankees, Dodgers, Giants (Dodgers and Giants moved.)

Boston: Red Sox and Braves (Braves moved)

Philadelphia: Phillies and Athletics (Athletics moved)

St. Louis: Cardinals and Browns (Browns moved)

Chicago: White Sox and Cubs (Both Teams Stayed)

Our Intra-City Rivalry has lasted the longest and is therefore the most heated.

What do you think?? GO WHITE SOX!!!!!

I would think what you said is the case, but I also think that the obnoxiousness of sCrUBS fans have something to do with it as well. Think about it? How many players on the sCrUBS do you really hate? Maybe Eyre and Howry topps? Although, Dodger and Angels hate each other so much that, when I saw this once, on each others websites they will have forums for just talking smack. Well, its just a thought.

WhiteSox5187
03-18-2007, 01:33 PM
I'm sure the multi-generational aspect has something to do with it. After all, there are still old-timers here who won't cheer for the Bears because they feel the Cardinals were driven out of town by the Bears in 1961.

Imagine if you were living in New York when the Mets were formed. Do you suddenly become a die-hard Mets fan? I guess if you loathed the Yankees, you might. But then you might still be holding onto the Giants or Dodgers as difficult of a task that would have been in the pre-Internet, mass television era.
I lived in New York for a year and hung out mostly with Met fans and I asked them like, were their grandparents Dodgers or Giants fans? And the answer came back as yes, but once they left they couldn't bring themselves to root for the Yankees, so they were sorta stranded in oblivion until the Mets came around and they quickly embraced them. As awful as those 1962 Mets were, they drew respectably well at the old Polo Grounds.

As for the Cubs Sox, I do think that age has something to do with it, but the Mets-Yankees rivalry is almost as intense and that is not that old. I can't comment on the Browns-Cardinals, Braves-Red Sox, or A's-Phillies, but I think that comparing the Sox-Cubs rivalry to either Dodgers-Giants or Dodgers-Yankees is an apt comparison.

tick53
03-18-2007, 01:42 PM
I'm sure the multi-generational aspect has something to do with it. After all, there are still old-timers here who won't cheer for the Bears because they feel the Cardinals were driven out of town by the Bears in 1961.

Imagine if you were living in New York when the Mets were formed. Do you suddenly become a die-hard Mets fan? I guess if you loathed the Yankees, you might. But then you might still be holding onto the Giants or Dodgers as difficult of a task that would have been in the pre-Internet, mass television era.

My father, rest his soul was a Cardinal fan who hated Halas because of the move. He became a Packers fan for spite. It didn't effect me or my brothers though. Go Bears!

IndianWhiteSox
03-18-2007, 02:37 PM
My father, rest his soul was a Cardinal fan who hated Halas because of the move. He became a Packers fan for spite. It didn't effect me or my brothers though. Go Bears!

Not to hijack the thread or anything, but the AFL mad a big mistake by neglecting Chicago while creating the league which ended up well not replacing the two team philosophy. Although now, its a mute point as Chicago only has two teams in baseball, thus making it a great rivalry.

TDog
03-18-2007, 02:44 PM
..
Imagine if you were living in New York when the Mets were formed. Do you suddenly become a die-hard Mets fan? I guess if you loathed the Yankees, you might. But then you might still be holding onto the Giants or Dodgers as difficult of a task that would have been in the pre-Internet, mass television era.

My father grew up a Brooklyn Dodgers fan, and despite being stationed as a Marine in Southern California from 1957 to 1959, he was never a Los Angeles Dodgers fan. I've met a lot of old Dodgers fans, but I've only met one Brooklyn-era fan who continued following the Dodgers after the move to LA, and that was someone who moved to LA before the Dodgers did. In fact, Dolores Kearns Goodwin famously became a Red Sox fan.

Thome25
03-18-2007, 03:09 PM
I'm sure the multi-generational aspect has something to do with it. After all, there are still old-timers here who won't cheer for the Bears because they feel the Cardinals were driven out of town by the Bears in 1961.

Imagine if you were living in New York when the Mets were formed. Do you suddenly become a die-hard Mets fan? I guess if you loathed the Yankees, you might. But then you might still be holding onto the Giants or Dodgers as difficult of a task that would have been in the pre-Internet, mass television era.

It's funny that you bring up the Bears because I think the fact that Chicago kept both of it's baseball teams while other cities couldn't shows that it's more of a baseball town than a football town.

Chicago couldn't support two football teams but it could support two baseball teams. (and still does.) Doesn't that show that baseball is a more popular and dominant sport in Chicago?

While I have as much hate as anybody for the team on the other side of town, I think we should be proud that the city has supported two teams longer than anyone else. We should embrace the rivalry.

WhiteSox5187
03-18-2007, 03:12 PM
It's funny that you bring up the Bears because I think the fact that Chicago kept both of it's baseball teams while other cities couldn't shows that it's more of a baseball town than a football town.

Chicago couldn't support two football teams but it could support two baseball teams. (and still does.) Doesn't that show that baseball is a more popular and dominant sport in Chicago?

While I have as much hate as anybody for the team on the other side of town, I think we should be proud that the city has supported two teams longer than anyone else. We should embrace the rivalry.
Chicago came notoriously close several times though to losing the White Sox. We're very lucky that things turned out they did. Had it not been for Art Allyn, we would be playing in Milwaulkee, had it not been for Bill Veeck we would be playing in Seattle and had it not been for Jerry Reisendorf we might be playing in New Orleans (though I don't think DeBartolo had announced he would move us to New Orleans).

Thome25
03-18-2007, 03:41 PM
Chicago came notoriously close several times though to losing the White Sox. We're very lucky that things turned out they did. Had it not been for Art Allyn, we would be playing in Milwaulkee, had it not been for Bill Veeck we would be playing in Seattle and had it not been for Jerry Reisendorf we might be playing in New Orleans (though I don't think DeBartolo had announced he would move us to New Orleans).

Good point. We have Bill Veeck, Art Allyn, Jerry Reinsdorf and the support of all the die hard White Sox fans over the years to thank.

Otherwise, the White Sox might've suffered the same fate as the Dodgers, Giants, Braves, Athletics and Browns did in their original cities.

tick53
03-18-2007, 03:42 PM
Chicago came notoriously close several times though to losing the White Sox. We're very lucky that things turned out they did. Had it not been for Art Allyn, we would be playing in Milwaulkee, had it not been for Bill Veeck we would be playing in Seattle and had it not been for Jerry Reisendorf we might be playing in New Orleans (though I don't think DeBartolo had announced he would move us to New Orleans).

Yes, I was sweating bullets a couple of time over that. Comedy actor Danny Kaye wanted to buy the Sox and move them to Seattle. I also remember reading the sports headline in i think was the old Chicago American that stated: Report White Sox Milwaukee Bound. I truly thought it was over.:(:

Hitmen77
03-18-2007, 03:42 PM
My father grew up a Brooklyn Dodgers fan, and despite being stationed as a Marine in Southern California from 1957 to 1959, he was never a Los Angeles Dodgers fan. I've met a lot of old Dodgers fans, but I've only met one Brooklyn-era fan who continued following the Dodgers after the move to LA, and that was someone who moved to LA before the Dodgers did. In fact, Dolores Kearns Goodwin famously became a Red Sox fan.

Is she Doris Kearns Goodwin's sister? :wink:

Railsplitter
03-18-2007, 03:53 PM
I've met a lot of old Dodgers fans, but I've only met one Brooklyn-era fan who continued following the Dodgers after the move to LA, and that was someone who moved to LA before the Dodgers did.

You've met Al Micheals? Seriously, he was born in Brooklyn, but his family moved to L.A. before the Dodgers.

itsnotrequired
03-18-2007, 04:08 PM
I was sitting here thinking about baseball geography and it's effect on rivalries. I started thinking about all of the teams that have moved around in the past relocating to different cities. MLB has been VERY nomatic when it comes to teams moving from place to place.

Then it occured to me: Chicago has the oldest, longest intra-city rivalry in MLB. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we're the only city where at least one of the teams did NOT move somewhere else.

I know we've heard all of the usual answers about why the Chicago baseball rivalry is so heated; South VS North, Blue Collar VS White Collar, My Grandad VS Your Grandad. But, I think it has more to do with how long the rivalry has been around than class lines.

Take a look at all of the "original" two team cities from when baseball first began:

New York: Yankees, Dodgers, Giants (Dodgers and Giants moved.)

Boston: Red Sox and Braves (Braves moved)

Philadelphia: Phillies and Athletics (Athletics moved)

St. Louis: Cardinals and Browns (Browns moved)

Chicago: White Sox and Cubs (Both Teams Stayed)

Our Intra-City Rivalry has lasted the longest and is therefore the most heated.

What do you think?? GO WHITE SOX!!!!!

The only city rivalry on this list is Giants-Dodgers.

EDIT: I suppose you could throw Yankees-Giants on there for the World Series' they played against each other. The best part was that both teams played in the same stadium.

Hitmen77
03-18-2007, 05:17 PM
I was sitting here thinking about baseball geography and it's effect on rivalries. I started thinking about all of the teams that have moved around in the past relocating to different cities. MLB has been VERY nomatic when it comes to teams moving from place to place.

Then it occured to me: Chicago has the oldest, longest intra-city rivalry in MLB. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we're the only city where at least one of the teams did NOT move somewhere else.


Chicago is the only city that has had 2 teams every year since the "modern" major league era began in 1901.

I would think what you said is the case, but I also think that the obnoxiousness of sCrUBS fans have something to do with it as well. Think about it? How many players on the sCrUBS do you really hate? Maybe Eyre and Howry topps? Although, Dodger and Angels hate each other so much that, when I saw this once, on each others websites they will have forums for just talking smack. Well, its just a thought.

I don't know nearly enough about the Yankees/Mets rivalry to make a comparison, but this is a big reason why the Chicago rivalry is so intense for me. In other rivalries, the fans of the teams hate the opposing teams. In Chicago, it's worse because many Cub fans just think the Sox don't even exist and like to go around saying there are no Sox fans.

Heck, even after we won the World Series, I met someone while I was out of town who was a Cub fan from Chicago. Really nice guy and he didn't know I was also from Chicago - and he was saying how there really is only 1 team in Chicago (meaning the Cubs, of course) - that's the problem, even as we were holding the Commissioner's Trophy, Cub fans (and not just the ones of the obnoxious fratboy/trixie stereotype) were still talking stupid about the Sox do not count. Michael Barrett's comments about seeing the Sox have a parade on "our streets" really sums up their attitude. IMO, that's what gives this rivalry an edge even though we don't compete with them in the standings.

TornLabrum
03-18-2007, 05:18 PM
Good point. We have Bill Veeck, Art Allyn, Jerry Reinsdorf and the support of all the die hard White Sox fans over the years to thank.

Otherwise, the White Sox might've suffered the same fate as the Dodgers, Giants, Braves, Athletics and Browns did in their original cities.

Thank John Allyn, not Art. John bought them from Art and kept them out of Seattle.

WhiteSox5187
03-18-2007, 05:49 PM
Good point. We have Bill Veeck, Art Allyn, Jerry Reinsdorf and the support of all the die hard White Sox fans over the years to thank.


I just remembered this, we should also thank then Govenor Bill Thompson for unplugging the clock and keeping the Sox here. Even though this was the death knell for Old Comiskey, it kept us out of Tampa.

tony1972
03-18-2007, 05:56 PM
I just remembered this, we should also thank then Govenor Bill Thompson for unplugging the clock and keeping the Sox here. Even though this was the death knell for Old Comiskey, it kept us out of Tampa.

I think you mean Jim Thomson..

The North/South geographical split has a lot to do with this rivalry. It seems that when a family settled in one area..they stayed there.

We settled on the Southside (Roseland and Marquette Park) and have stayed in the Southside or South Suburbs. Only my sister and I have lived up North (Lincoln Park for about 2 years..but I eventually moved back to the SouthSide)..

DumpJerry
03-18-2007, 07:54 PM
I would think what you said is the case, but I also think that the obnoxiousness of sCrUBS fans have something to do with it as well. Think about it? How many players on the sCrUBS do you really hate? Maybe Eyre and Howry topps? Although, Dodger and Angels hate each other so much that, when I saw this once, on each others websites they will have forums for just talking smack. Well, its just a thought.

I'm not getting how you really feel...........

I think you mean Jim Thomson..

No, he meant Jim Thompson. Who is/was Jim Thomson?

johnr1note
03-19-2007, 12:12 AM
I was sitting here thinking about baseball geography and it's effect on rivalries. I started thinking about all of the teams that have moved around in the past relocating to different cities. MLB has been VERY nomatic when it comes to teams moving from place to place.

Then it occured to me: Chicago has the oldest, longest intra-city rivalry in MLB. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we're the only city where at least one of the teams did NOT move somewhere else.

I know we've heard all of the usual answers about why the Chicago baseball rivalry is so heated; South VS North, Blue Collar VS White Collar, My Grandad VS Your Grandad. But, I think it has more to do with how long the rivalry has been around than class lines.

Take a look at all of the "original" two team cities from when baseball first began:

New York: Yankees, Dodgers, Giants (Dodgers and Giants moved.)

Boston: Red Sox and Braves (Braves moved)

Philadelphia: Phillies and Athletics (Athletics moved)

St. Louis: Cardinals and Browns (Browns moved)

Chicago: White Sox and Cubs (Both Teams Stayed)

Our Intra-City Rivalry has lasted the longest and is therefore the most heated.

What do you think?? GO WHITE SOX!!!!!

I also think the long history of ineptness on both sides of Chicago helped fuel the rivalry here, where since WWII, neither team could claim real bragging rights until 2005. In the other cities, prior to one of the two teams vacating, there was a lot of success on the other side of town. While places like Philadelphia or Boston often had two very bad teams, at the time clubs were pursuing "greener pastures," the Red Sox and Phils were experiencing better fortune than thier cross town rivals. The NY rivalries were alwasy a little stronger because there was a sense of fighting for real live post season bragging rights. A lot of people presume that in St. Louis, the Cardinals always had the upper hand, and that the Browns were always the doormat, but in the early 50s, Cardinal ownership was in trouble because of IRS problems, and the fortunes of the team was in the dumper. Had the Browns been able to contend, the Cards might have been defeated (there were attempts by Cardinal ownership to relocate the Cards to Houston, Milwaukee, and possibly Baltimore). Augie Bush rode into town with his White hat, and the Browns wound up leaving town.

tony1972
03-19-2007, 12:32 AM
I also think the long history of ineptness on both sides of Chicago helped fuel the rivalry here, where since WWII, neither team could claim real bragging rights until 2005. In the other cities, prior to one of the two teams vacating, there was a lot of success on the other side of town. While places like Philadelphia or Boston often had two very bad teams, at the time clubs were pursuing "greener pastures," the Red Sox and Phils were experiencing better fortune than thier cross town rivals. The NY rivalries were alwasy a little stronger because there was a sense of fighting for real live post season bragging rights. A lot of people presume that in St. Louis, the Cardinals always had the upper hand, and that the Browns were always the doormat, but in the early 50s, Cardinal ownership was in trouble because of IRS problems, and the fortunes of the team was in the dumper. Had the Browns been able to contend, the Cards might have been defeated (there were attempts by Cardinal ownership to relocate the Cards to Houston, Milwaukee, and possibly Baltimore). Augie Bush rode into town with his White hat, and the Browns wound up leaving town.

Plus the teams at least play in completely different areas (neighborhoods).

Yuppie vs. more middle class/blue collar. In New York both team play more in working class areas. There's not much of a differentiation..

WhiteSox5187
03-19-2007, 12:54 AM
Plus the teams at least play in completely different areas (neighborhoods).

Yuppie vs. more middle class/blue collar. In New York both team play more in working class areas. There's not much of a differentiation..
While the Bronx could hardly be considered "white collar" the Yankees have historically had a more "elite" fan base. They have a LOT of blue collar fans too, but you'd never see a guy like say...Humphrey Bogart at a Dodgers or Giants game. Lorne Michaels at the height of his prestige went to Yankee games, never Met games...although ironically enough my friend in New York has a picture of John Lennon wearing a Mets cap.

StillMissOzzie
03-19-2007, 02:53 AM
I was sitting here thinking about baseball geography and it's effect on rivalries. I started thinking about all of the teams that have moved around in the past relocating to different cities. MLB has been VERY nomatic when it comes to teams moving from place to place.

Then it occured to me: Chicago has the oldest, longest intra-city rivalry in MLB. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we're the only city where at least one of the teams did NOT move somewhere else.

I know we've heard all of the usual answers about why the Chicago baseball rivalry is so heated; South VS North, Blue Collar VS White Collar, My Grandad VS Your Grandad. But, I think it has more to do with how long the rivalry has been around than class lines.

Take a look at all of the "original" two team cities from when baseball first began:

New York: Yankees, Dodgers, Giants (Dodgers and Giants moved.)

Boston: Red Sox and Braves (Braves moved)

Philadelphia: Phillies and Athletics (Athletics moved)

St. Louis: Cardinals and Browns (Browns moved)

Chicago: White Sox and Cubs (Both Teams Stayed)

Our Intra-City Rivalry has lasted the longest and is therefore the most heated.

What do you think?? GO WHITE SOX!!!!!

I agree with much of what you said, but let's examine this a bit more:
Dodgers and Giants fans still hate each other, I imagine just as much as they did when both were in New York.
The Braves (Boston -> Milwaukee -> Atlanta) and Athletics (Philly -> KC -> Oakland) and (IIRC) the Browns (St L -> Texas -> Baltimore???) have all moved TWICE, so I think much of their history is either lost upon or ignored by younger fans, which I think is important to keep up a good rivalry.
So by default, the Sox vs. Cubs rivalry has endured multiple generations.

SMO
:gulp:

chitownhawkfan
03-19-2007, 02:55 AM
I think it is the most intense inter city rivalry in baseball because of both teams losing habits until recent. In the 90's the Yankees fans could care less about the Mets because they were busy winning championships. Here in Chicago, where there was a lack of postseason success, city bragging rights were huge. Throw in the total dogging the Sox and their fans get at the hands of the Trib and snobbish Cub fans and you have all the makings of a nasty rivalry. At least thats my take.

DumpJerry
03-19-2007, 07:44 AM
I also think the long history of ineptness on both sides of Chicago helped fuel the rivalry here, where since WWII, neither team could claim real bragging rights until 2005.

Who was the American League rep in the 1959 World Series and missed it by one game in '64?

Plus the teams at least play in completely different areas (neighborhoods).

Not too long ago, Lincoln Park was not a nice place unless you were a criminal. It's only since the mid '70's or so that the area got cleaned up.

I think it is the most intense inter city rivalry in baseball because of both teams losing habits until recent.
Who are you talking about? The White Sox have one of the best records overall since 1989.

itsnotrequired
03-19-2007, 08:13 AM
Who are you talking about? The White Sox have one of the best records overall since 1989.

From 1990-2006, the Sox have the 5th best record in all the majors. 1433-1252 for a .534 winning percentage. The Braves in that same timeframe have an other worldly .586 winning percentage.

TomBradley72
03-19-2007, 09:27 AM
Who was the American League rep in the 1959 World Series and missed it by one game in '64?
Not too long ago, Lincoln Park was not a nice place unless you were a criminal. It's only since the mid '70's or so that the area got cleaned up.

Valid points...but you're citing examples from 48 years ago, 43 years ago and 30+ years ago....

TDog
03-19-2007, 11:02 AM
Is she Doris Kearns Goodwin's sister? :wink:

If she weren't a Red Sox fan, I'd be able to keep her name straight.

The Sox-Cubs thing is a unique Chicago thing, and I'm not sure if any explanations here totally explain it. The neighborhood thing might be part of it. It might be different if the Federal League hadn't happened (creating Wrigley Field) and the Cubs ended up playing for years in Comiskey Park. I had a 1947 Sporting News Baseball Guide that showed two teams sharing parks. As for the inept team leaving, no team (until the Cubs, perhaps) was ever as inept as the Philadelphia Phillies. The Philadelphia A's developed great teams that Connie Mack sold off.

Madscout
03-19-2007, 11:28 AM
From what I hear of the old New York rivalries, they were pretty heated. They all were good at the same time, where as we have been good and the cubs suck with a few seasons where the cubs pull their heads out of their butts. The rivalry is only because of the perception that we are the second team, and last year, because we won. They had true rivalries where the teams played meaningful games against each other.

TDog
03-19-2007, 12:29 PM
From what I hear of the old New York rivalries, they were pretty heated. They all were good at the same time, where as we have been good and the cubs suck with a few seasons where the cubs pull their heads out of their butts. The rivalry is only because of the perception that we are the second team, and last year, because we won. They had true rivalries where the teams played meaningful games against each other.

As I understand it, there was never any rivalry more intense than Yankees vs. Brooklyn Dodgers. Part of it was the Yankees being the Yankees and the Dodgers rising from decades of ineptness to face the baseball behemoth in the World Series seven times in the 1940s and 1950s, only winning once. The fact that they could win more than 90 games in those years and finish second to the crosstown Giants made it a three-way rivalry, but the Dodgers and Yankees thing was national and transcended baseball. I read an article by David Halberstam years ago where he recalled being with other Yankees fans during a Brooklyn-Yankees Series game and being embarrassed at the racism on display. The Yankees were the white establishment. The Dodgers were racially integrated.

Great black players would come up with every team, eventually even the Yankees and Red Sox, but the Dodgers became black America's team.

chitownhawkfan
03-19-2007, 01:12 PM
Who are you talking about? The White Sox have one of the best records overall since 1989.


I was referring to the lack of postseason success. Which I think is the only thing that really matters. The fact that we had one of the higher winning percentages in the 90's and didnt win anything shows that while we were never awful, we were never really that good. (strike year excluded)

tick53
03-19-2007, 01:43 PM
Bottom line, as much as we hate the Cubs, it's nice that Chicago is the city that endured to MLB team moves.

Railsplitter
03-19-2007, 08:12 PM
Every reason for the intense Sox/Cubs rivalry I've seen here is valid. It's not so much and one reason, but a combination of many reasons.

DumpJerry
03-19-2007, 09:48 PM
I think it is those AJ/Zambrano McDonald's commercials.:rolleyes:

vegyrex
03-19-2007, 10:59 PM
I was referring to the lack of postseason success. Which I think is the only thing that really matters. The fact that we had one of the higher winning percentages in the 90's and didnt win anything shows that while we were never awful, we were never really that good. (strike year excluded)

If you want to contend, you have to be a winning team. You shouldn't minimize the accomplishment of having a winning season. When I lived in Boston I met a Yankee fan who told me back in the 50's and 60's he would check the papers to see how the Sox did the night before. He hoped they lost cause he viewed the White Sox as a threat to the Yankees. If the Sox weren't winning he wouldn't have cared what they did the night before.

RadioheadRocks
03-19-2007, 11:10 PM
If you want to contend, you have to be a winning team. You shouldn't minimize the accomplishment of having a winning season. When I lived in Boston I met a Yankee fan who told me back in the 50's and 60's he would check the papers to see how the Sox did the night before. He hoped they lost cause he viewed the White Sox as a threat to the Yankees. If the Sox weren't winning he wouldn't have cared what they did the night before.


Great point. That 1951-1967 stretch of better than .500 baseball for the Sox is the 4th longest of all time in the Majors!!! :cool:

PaulDrake
04-03-2007, 09:48 PM
Great point. That 1951-1967 stretch of better than .500 baseball for the Sox is the 4th longest of all time in the Majors!!! :cool: I thought it was 3rd, but I guess I could be wrong.
1. Yankees 1926-1964
2. Orioles 1968-1985
3. White Sox 1951-1967

WhiteSox5187
04-03-2007, 11:32 PM
From about 1951-1967ish, the Sox had the second highest winning percentage overall. Had they played in the NL they woulda won about six or eight pennants, but behind the damned Yankees, they couldn't catch a break.

IndianWhiteSox
04-04-2007, 06:47 AM
From about 1951-1967ish, the Sox had the second highest winning percentage overall. Had they played in the NL they woulda won about six or eight pennants, but behind the damned Yankees, they couldn't catch a break.

Hell, those teams could've won 3 or 4 titles in those days if they played in the NL.

:(:

IlliniSox4Life
04-04-2007, 07:11 AM
I think it is those AJ/Zambrano McDonald's commercials.:rolleyes:

:D: They have fueled it recently, but the Ozzie/Dusty Subway commercials really got the fire going

itsnotrequired
04-04-2007, 08:07 AM
:D: They have fueled it recently, but the Ozzie/Dusty Subway commercials really got the fire going

Subway, eat French!

:tongue:

soxfan13
04-04-2007, 10:34 AM
Subway, eat French!

:tongue:
http://ec2.images-amazon.com/images/P/B000LPR6AG.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg



MR FRENCH:tongue:

PalehosePlanet
04-04-2007, 10:45 AM
I'm not getting how you really feel...........


No, he meant Jim Thompson. Who is/was Jim Thomson?

My wife saw Big Jim last week and, of course, thanked him for keeping the Sox here. He told her that not a day goes by without someone thanking him --- and it's been almost 20 years!