PDA

View Full Version : S.I. Sox Story


Lip Man 1
03-20-2008, 10:17 AM
Pretty well done, includes Ozzie and Kenny comments:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/john_donovan/03/19/donovan.chisox/index.html

Lip

TommyJohn
03-20-2008, 10:37 AM
I like Guillen's quote that they clinched on October 26th, and by October 27th everyone forgot all about them. That is true, especially where Sports Illustrated is concerned.

kittle42
03-20-2008, 10:48 AM
I like Guillen's quote that they clinched on October 26th, and by October 27th everyone forgot all about them. That is true, especially where Sports Illustrated is concerned.

To be fair, Chicago didn't start forgetting about them until they tanked in the second half of 2006.

TomBradley72
03-20-2008, 10:57 AM
To be fair, Chicago didn't start forgetting about them until they tanked in the second half of 2006.

Can't disagree with the SI part of your statement. But I disagree with them being "forgotten" in general after winning the World Series....attendance was very high in 2006 AND 2007 (hell there were ~35,000 people at the last game of the season in '07), their TV ratings were very high...but the 2007 season wasn't just a bad year....it was a HISTORICALLY bad year. If you look at the "team leaders" in pitching, hitting, etc....the 2007 White Sox were similar to the 1988, 1989, 1976 teams...even some comparison to the 1970 team.

It's one thing to drop down to the .500 level...but they fell off a cliff last year.

goon
03-20-2008, 12:16 PM
The team that won nearly 200 games in the two years prior to '07 is now judged on the 90 games it lost last season. The lightning-rod manager, king of the town in '05, now fields questions about his job security every week. Ken Williams, the steady general manager who built the Sox from a Windy City afterthought into a force, now has his every move picked apart.

So true.

kittle42
03-20-2008, 12:17 PM
So true.

As it should be. Hey, you build a winner, you should stop getting a pass when you **** up.

goon
03-20-2008, 12:19 PM
As it should be. Hey, you build a winner, you should stop getting a pass when you **** up.

Ok

gamblinkenny
03-20-2008, 03:11 PM
It's hard to say they "tanked" the second half of 2006 when they still finished with 90 wins. It was certainly a disappointing finish, but i wouldnt go as far as saying they tanked.

#1swisher
03-20-2008, 03:24 PM
good read, thanks. emailed it to other white sox fans.:cool:

spiffie
03-20-2008, 04:05 PM
It's hard to say they "tanked" the second half of 2006 when they still finished with 90 wins. It was certainly a disappointing finish, but i wouldnt go as far as saying they tanked.
When you go 57-31 the first half of the year, and then go 33-41 the second half, "tanked" seems the only word that fits. "Choked" might also suffice.

Dolanski
03-20-2008, 04:18 PM
When you go 57-31 the first half of the year, and then go 33-41 the second half, "tanked" seems the only word that fits. "Choked" might also suffice.

Choked? No, that's what the Indians do.

Blueprint1
03-20-2008, 05:23 PM
When you go 57-31 the first half of the year, and then go 33-41 the second half, "tanked" seems the only word that fits. "Choked" might also suffice.

We played the same way all of last year also.

gamblinkenny
03-20-2008, 05:29 PM
Spiffie, we have different definitions of tanking i guess. The Sox won 90 games in 2006, if they would have finished with a second half record under .500 i'd be more inclined to say they tanked, but they had some key injuries and were just burned out from 2005.

I wouldn't say they tanked/choked as much as they played exceptionally well the first half. I don't care how you chop up the W's and L's, but when you win 90 games there is no tanking involved...in my opinion.

spiffie
03-20-2008, 05:32 PM
Spiffie, we have different definitions of tanking i guess. The Sox won 90 games in 2006, if they would have finished with a second half record under .500 i'd be more inclined to say they tanked, but they had some key injuries and were just burned out from 2005.

I wouldn't say they tanked/choked as much as they played exceptionally well the first half. I don't care how you chop up the W's and L's, but when you win 90 games there is no tanking involved...in my opinion.
Ummm...they did finish with a second half record under .500.

And I'm sorry, but the burnout thing isn't an excuse. Somehow the Yankees keep making the playoffs every year. The Braves won 3,406 straight years in a row. To have everyone collapse the way they did the second half was the whole damn team going into the tank and giving away what should have been a second straight playoff berth.

kittle42
03-20-2008, 05:34 PM
Spiffie, we have different definitions of tanking i guess. The Sox won 90 games in 2006, if they would have finished with a second half record under .500 i'd be more inclined to say they tanked, but they had some key injuries and were just burned out from 2005.

I wouldn't say they tanked/choked as much as they played exceptionally well the first half. I don't care how you chop up the W's and L's, but when you win 90 games there is no tanking involved...in my opinion.

Bull. For example, if a team has a 10-game lead entering September, then they play under .500 and lose that lead, they tanked in September, even if they ended up winning 90 games.

gamblinkenny
03-20-2008, 05:37 PM
was that the case with the sox? no. the mets tanked last year, yes. but the sox barely sniffed the division lead the entire second half. you can create any caveat you want, but please make sure it applies to the 2006 sox.

spiffie, you're right, i meant to say more than 10 games under .500 my bad.

Corlose 15
03-20-2008, 05:43 PM
was that the case with the sox? no. the mets tanked last year, yes. but the sox barely sniffed the division lead the entire second half. you can create any caveat you want, but please make sure it applies to the 2006 sox.

spiffie, you're right, i meant to say more than 10 games under .500 my bad.

The Sox had one of the best records in baseball at the time of the ASB in '06 and were right behind the Tigers in the division. They had something like a 7 game lead on the Wildcard as well.

The Tigers played like crap in the 2nd half and the Sox finished 5 games behind them for the Wildcard. That is the definition of tanking.

gamblinkenny
03-20-2008, 05:48 PM
haha, actually that is not the definition of tanking. if you read ESPN.com, they define tanking as not playing hard or losing on purpose as was stated in the recent story about the TWolves owner calling out KG. that's where our opinions differ, the sox played like crap the 2nd half of 2006, no doubt, but to me tanking infers losing on purpose.

kittle42
03-20-2008, 05:57 PM
haha, actually that is not the definition of tanking. if you read ESPN.com, they define tanking as not playing hard or losing on purpose as was stated in the recent story about the TWolves owner calling out KG. that's where our opinions differ, the sox played like crap the 2nd half of 2006, no doubt, but to me tanking infers losing on purpose.

Well, I'm sure we can all agree that we did not define "tanking" as not trying and/or losing on purpose, nor should you have realistically thought that's what we meant. Come on, now.

ilsox7
03-20-2008, 06:06 PM
Well, I'm sure we can all agree that we did not define "tanking" as not trying and/or losing on purpose, nor should you have realistically thought that's what we meant. Come on, now.

ESPN rules all. How dare you question them?

Frater Perdurabo
03-20-2008, 06:12 PM
The Sox had one of the best records in baseball at the time of the ASB in '06 and were right behind the Tigers in the division. They had something like a 7 game lead on the Wildcard as well.

The Tigers played like crap in the 2nd half and the Sox finished 5 games behind them for the Wildcard. That is the definition of tanking.

Yes, the Sox "tanked" in the second half. But you also have to give Minnesota credit for having an unbelievable "middle" of the season and finished strong. They went from 29-34, in 4th place, 12 games back on June 13, and then during the next five weeks had two eight-game winning streaks and an 11-game winning streak.

Foulke You
03-20-2008, 06:48 PM
I have to disagree with the final statement of the SI article. I don't think the Sox need to win another World Series to restore fan's confidence in the team and management. I think a postseason berth will do the job. Now don't get me wrong, the goal of the season is to win the World Series and anything less is a failure. However, to go from a 72W-90L season to say a 92W-70L season and a playoff spot would do wonders for the team's perception and fan's confidence regardless of the total October outcome.

gamblinkenny
03-20-2008, 07:18 PM
Foulke You, i completely agree. Confidence will be restored as long as we surpass the "media expectations," at the same time no fan should be truly satisfied unless the squad wins it all. All in all i think that SI article did a pretty fair job objectively analyzing the sox. The sox have a decent amount of question marks in terms of the staff and lineup, but that is no reason to be overly pessimistic.

Ilsox, i'm not saying ESPN is the end all be all, but if you would like another reference to the term "tanking" take the movie Major League. When Roger Dorn "tanks" the grounder in the 9th and almost blows ricky vaughn's complete game. "The ball was out of my reach, what do you want me to do? Dive for it?" the defense rests...

ilsox7
03-20-2008, 07:20 PM
Ilsox, i'm not saying ESPN is the end all be all, but if you would like another reference to the term "tanking" take the movie Major League. When Roger Dorn "tanks" the grounder in the 9th and almost blows ricky vaughn's complete game. "The ball was out of my reach, what do you want me to do? Dive for it?" the defense rests...

The defense would lose. It was clear, given the context, how the word tanked was used in this thread.

gamblinkenny
03-20-2008, 07:33 PM
the intention is irrelevant, the point i'm making is that it is the wrong word to use. i understand what he was trying to say, i'm just saying the sox didn't "tank" anything. choke, sure. tank, not a chance.

i guess it's all semantics, but it's poor word choice nonetheless.

ilsox7
03-20-2008, 07:35 PM
the intention is irrelevant, the point i'm making is that it is the wrong word to use. i understand what he was trying to say, i'm just saying the sox didn't "tank" anything. choke, sure. tank, not a chance.

i guess it's all semantics, but it's poor word choice nonetheless.

Except the word choice was just fine. Tanked means several different things depending upon the context. In the context it was used, it meant:

To suffer a sudden decline or failure: "Steady investors . . . kept their heads when the stock market tanked in October 1987"

gamblinkenny
03-20-2008, 07:40 PM
ok so now you are moving the comparison to the stock market? i guess whatever is convenient to your argument, haha. try not to digress further than we already have. in the context of sports, tanking has a very specific meaning.

fquaye149
03-20-2008, 07:43 PM
The Sox had one of the best records in baseball at the time of the ASB in '06 and were right behind the Tigers in the division. They had something like a 7 game lead on the Wildcard as well.

The Tigers played like crap in the 2nd half and the Sox finished 5 games behind them for the Wildcard. That is the definition of tanking.

So the White Sox were in 2nd place more than half way through the season and they finished in third.

Sounds like they tanked, all right.

ode to veeck
03-20-2008, 08:41 PM
rats, my Si didn't come this week, gotta be the same clown whole stole my 05 WS edition

Corlose 15
03-20-2008, 08:43 PM
So the White Sox were in 2nd place more than half way through the season and they finished in third.

Sounds like they tanked, all right.

No, they had the 2nd best record in baseball halfway through the season with a 7 game lead on the WC and finished third in their division, five games behind the wildcard.

They did tank.

EndemicSox
03-20-2008, 08:59 PM
No, they had the 2nd best record in baseball halfway through the season with a 7 game lead on the WC and finished third in their division, five games behind the wildcard.

They did tank.

Choke, tank, call it what you want. It was sad to see...something changed after that grand-slam by Monroe(?) or was it Thames? I'd call it a choke...

TomBradley72
03-20-2008, 10:51 PM
Choke, tank, call it what you want. It was sad to see...something changed after that grand-slam by Monroe(?) or was it Thames? I'd call it a choke...

How about "suck"? Can we all agree they "sucked" in the 2nd half of 2006 (33-41 over a full season would be 72-90) and REALLY sucked in 2007 (72-90)? :cool:

chisox77
03-20-2008, 11:00 PM
Very good article. However, it's time for a new season to start. Bring on 2008!


:cool:

TheVulture
03-21-2008, 02:14 PM
The defense would lose. It was clear, given the context, how the word tanked was used in this thread.

Or instead of using SI as a source for word definitions, we could turn to an actual dictionary, such as American Heritage:

v. intr.
Slang To suffer a sudden decline or failure: "Steady investors . . . kept their heads when the stock market tanked in October 1987" (Burton G. Malkiel).

Edit: Guess I should've read the entire post before posting - amazing that ilsox and I choose the same quote for the definition, though.

Ziggy S
03-21-2008, 10:11 PM
Yes, the Sox "tanked" in the second half. But you also have to give Minnesota credit for having an unbelievable "middle" of the season and finished strong. They went from 29-34, in 4th place, 12 games back on June 13, and then during the next five weeks had two eight-game winning streaks and an 11-game winning streak.

I don't think all of that happens if the Twins don't sweep us at home in July, which put us into a tie with them for the wild card lead at the time.

moochpuppy
03-21-2008, 10:19 PM
As it should be. Hey, you build a winner, you should stop getting a pass when you **** up.

2007 was Kenny Williams first below .500 as a GM. I'm willing to cut him some slack.