White Sox Interactive Forums
What's The Score?

Welcome
Go Back   White Sox Interactive Forums > Baseball Discussions > What's The Score?
Home Chat Stats Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #46  
Old 08-14-2019, 12:50 PM
Domeshot17 Domeshot17 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Plainfield
Posts: 12,617
Default

Kenny Williams is also an easy guy not to like. He was very bad with word choice and quite pompous in delivery. From his can't spend a dollar if you have 50 cents to the Shock in my eyes comment on Machado, he has always had this "I am better than you" feel to his attitude. I don't know if 2005 was more a result of luck or talent, it was a good combination of both, but it was fantastic. But we are basically 85 bears fans at this point when we bring it up. He also never made the playoffs in back to back years.

Hahn is in the middle of the time that is going to define him. If we have another year next year like this year, he has to go. I have been a Hahn supporter for a long time, I think he inherited a huge mess of a bad mlb roster and the worst farm system in the game. That doesn't work when you refuse to spend money on free agents.

At the time Hahn dealt Tatis Jr., he was a lottery ticket. No one had him at this level, not one mlb franchise. Tatis Jr. signed for 700k, he was not a top 20-30 player in any international FA rankings. So that one I really do chalk to bad luck. Lets say at that point they traded Franklin Reyes, who signed for twice the money Tatis did. People would have been more upset then, but it would have been such a coup for us now. 16-17 year old international FA are wildly unpredictable. So its easy to hammer him in hindsight, he traded the winning lottery ticket, but he was still just a lottery ticket. It wasn't as if they traded Luis Robert for Shields.

But yah, its really hard to be a White Sox fan these days. It hopefully is getting better, but it can't be much worse.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 08-14-2019, 12:54 PM
LITTLE NELL LITTLE NELL is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sebring Florida
Posts: 11,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDog View Post
The game was a fairly routine loss for anyone who has followed the White Sox for half a century, a 9-1 loss, with Chet Leomon singling in a run in the ninth to avoid the shutout. Two things are noteworthy today. It was Kessinger's last game a manager. It also was Thurman Munson's last game. Ken Kravec walked Munson, who was playing first base that night, with two outs in the first. Reggie Jackson followed with a home run. Lou Piniella followed with another. Kravec struck out Munson in the top of the third, and Jim Spencer replaced him defensively in the bottom of the inning. Jerry Narron, the night's catcher and Munson's replacement as the Yankees' regular catcher, homered in the fourth. More Yankees runs were to come and the Sox did nothing against Don Hood, only picking up a late run against Jim Kaat.

Buried in this SABR story, Kessinger had lunch with Veeck the next day, said the team was playing with a bad attitude and he didn't know what to do. Kessinger's account was that he surprised Veeck by offering him to resign, effectively retiring from baseball. There was no search fro his replacement. Veeck called up LaRussa from Iowa. Maybe it started out to be an interim thing.

In a Lip interview with LaRussa for the Chicago Baseball Museum (my apologies if was something I missed it on WSI), LaRussa said the White Sox offered him the job the night. La Russa said Kessinger decided to step down. He also said he was asked co come back in 1980. So maybe Larry Doby and Tony LaRussa were quasi-interim managers given a tryout opportunity to impress Veeck.
After going 46-60 under Kessinger, LaRussa took over and the Sox played at a .500 clip going 27-27 in the final 54 games, probably why Veeck stuck with him plus as stated earlier, he was cheap.
I remember that season very well what with Disco Demolition Night but what I remember most is that all 5 of the main starters finished with .500 records or better, Kravec..15-13, Wortham...14-14, Baumgarten ...13-8, Trout...11-8 and Barrios at 8-3.
1980 was looking promising especially with Harold Baines coming on the scene but the team flopped again and finished at 70-90.
There were a lot of distractions in 1980 with talk about Marvin Davis buying the Sox and moving them to Denver and then Veeck trying to sell the club to DeBartolo only to have MLB nix the deal. Veeck finally found new owners with Reinsdorf, Einhorn and more than a few other investors buying the club for around 20 million bucks, quite an investment as Forbes has the franchise valued at 1.6 billion dollars.
__________________
Batting in the second position for the White Sox, number 2, the second baseman Nelson Fox.

Last edited by LITTLE NELL; 08-18-2019 at 01:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 08-14-2019, 02:01 PM
TDog TDog is online now
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 18,579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LITTLE NELL View Post
After going 46-60 under Kessinger, LaRussa took over and the Sox played at a .500 clip going 27-27 in the final 54 games.
I remember that season very well what with Disco Demolition Night but what I remember most is that all 5 of the main starters finished with .500 records or better, Kravec..15-13, Wortham...14-14, Baumgarten ...13-8, Trout...11-8 and Barrios at 8-3.
1980 was looking promising especially with Harold Baines coming on the scene but the team flopped again and finished at 70-90.
There were a lot of distractions in 1980 with talk about Marvin Davis buying the Sox and moving them to Denver and then Veeck trying to sell the club to DeBartolo only to have MLB mix the deal. Veeck finally found new owners with Reinsdorf, Einhorn and more than a few other investors buying in the club for around 20 million bucks, quite an investment as Forbes has the Sox now valued at 1.6 billion dollars.
It wasn't so much LaRussa's strategy that was superior to Kessinger, as reflected in the win-loss record. If you were to analyze Kessinger's moves, you might prefer them over the moves LaRussa made over the last 54 games. LaRussa, though, seemed to bring an energy to the team, and was probably someone players believed in. Many of the players had played for LaRussa in the minors. LaRussa had been Baines first manager in pro ball, so he had been around the system. There was a core of promising left-handed starting pitching that had people excited for the future, but by the time the White Sox made it to the ALCS in 1983, I believe most of that core was already employed at different levels of the A's minor league system. I noticed recently that Rick Wortham, who won 14 games for the 1979 White Sox and won a lot of praise for his potential, was pitching in Class A Modesto in 1983. The new White Sox ownership made a lot of changes, and it was a much different team under LaRussa in 1983.

Baseball Digest did predict in 1980 that two White Sox players would be among the biggest stars of the 1980s. I was surprised at the time that neither of them were pitchers. One was Harold Baines, but the other escapes me. It could have been Chet Lemon, who didn't spend much of the 1980s with the White Sox.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 08-14-2019, 02:18 PM
LITTLE NELL LITTLE NELL is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sebring Florida
Posts: 11,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDog View Post
It wasn't so much LaRussa's strategy that was superior to Kessinger, as reflected in the win-loss record. If you were to analyze Kessinger's moves, you might prefer them over the moves LaRussa made over the last 54 games. LaRussa, though, seemed to bring an energy to the team, and was probably someone players believed in. Many of the players had played for LaRussa in the minors. LaRussa had been Baines first manager in pro ball, so he had been around the system. There was a core of promising left-handed starting pitching that had people excited for the future, but by the time the White Sox made it to the ALCS in 1983, I believe most of that core was already employed at different levels of the A's minor league system. I noticed recently that Rick Wortham, who won 14 games for the 1979 White Sox and won a lot of praise for his potential, was pitching in Class A Modesto in 1983. The new White Sox ownership made a lot of changes, and it was a much different team under LaRussa in 1983.

Baseball Digest did predict in 1980 that two White Sox players would be among the biggest stars of the 1980s. I was surprised at the time that neither of them were pitchers. One was Harold Baines, but the other escapes me. It could have been Chet Lemon, who didn't spend much of the 1980s with the White Sox.
Had to be Lemon, Sox traded him after the 81 season for Steve Kemp and he lasted one season with the Sox signing with the Yankees as a free agent.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 08-17-2019, 10:39 PM
rdivaldi rdivaldi is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Chicago - Mayfair
Posts: 4,876
Default

It is pretty amazing how many posters can point to Rick Hahn and complain about 2013- 2019 but fail to recognize the joke of a team, manager and farm system he inherited.

Top 10 prospects 2013:

Courtney Hawkins
Trayce Thompson
Carlos Sanchez
Erik Johnson
Keenyn Walker
Scott Snodgress
Andre Rienzo
Keon Barnum
Jared Mitchell
Chris Beck

Does anyone seriously think that a GM inheriting a declining group of veterans was going to keep the major league team contending with that pile of garbage supporting it?

Seriously?
__________________
<a href=http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=3256 target=_blank>http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/v...achmentid=3256</a>

March 16, 2005 - Another happy Sox fan joins the party!
July 6, 2012 - 7 years later he's still part of it...
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 08-17-2019, 11:01 PM
voodoochile's Avatar
voodoochile voodoochile is offline
Soda Jerk/U.P.W./Lester Pooh Bear
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 58,497
Blog Entries: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdivaldi View Post
It is pretty amazing how many posters can point to Rick Hahn and complain about 2013- 2019 but fail to recognize the joke of a team, manager and farm system he inherited.

Top 10 prospects 2013:

Courtney Hawkins
Trayce Thompson
Carlos Sanchez
Erik Johnson
Keenyn Walker
Scott Snodgress
Andre Rienzo
Keon Barnum
Jared Mitchell
Chris Beck

Does anyone seriously think that a GM inheriting a declining group of veterans was going to keep the major league team contending with that pile of garbage supporting it?

Seriously?
Speaking of Courtney Hawkins. I attended the San Jose Giants game tonight. They are the A+ affiliate of the SF Team of the same name. Hawkins started in CF tonight. He didn't show much though he did dive in to first base in the ninth and appeared to be safe but the ump called him out. Giants were down 7-2 and if he'd been called safe they would have gotten the tying run to the plate but never quite got there. Pity is we watched that team win on a grand slam walkoff last year and were hoping for more fireworks tonight.
__________________

Riding shotgun on the Sox bandwagon since before there was an Internet...
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 10-10-2019, 10:04 PM
cub killer cub killer is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chicago area
Posts: 1,683
Disagree

The millennium started 1-1-00. That's what everyone agreed to, only a small minority complains about that.

If it bothers you so much, just rename 1BC to year 0, problem solved. It wasn't known as 1BC when it happened, so it's gravy.

It's annoying when the "acshually" crowd chimes in on this issue every time. All the major celebrations happened the night of 12-31-99, and it was great, that's the way it should have been.

Happy new decade in 2 months, and happy new century to whoever exists 12-31-2099. Hopefully there won't be an "acshually" crowd by then.
__________________
MRKARNO
04-04-2005, 04:03 PM
I was a doubter, but maybe, just maybe we can win with pitching, defense and fundamentals.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 10-11-2019, 12:55 AM
TDog TDog is online now
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 18,579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cub killer View Post
The millennium started 1-1-00. That's what everyone agreed to, only a small minority complains about that.

If it bothers you so much, just rename 1BC to year 0, problem solved. It wasn't known as 1BC when it happened, so it's gravy.

It's annoying when the "acshually" crowd chimes in on this issue every time. All the major celebrations happened the night of 12-31-99, and it was great, that's the way it should have been.

Happy new decade in 2 months, and happy new century to whoever exists 12-31-2099. Hopefully there won't be an "acshually" crowd by then.
It's all pretty much arbitrary. Academically, the 20th century is recognized as 1901 to 2000, but the 1900s ran from 1900 to 1999. The 1990s started in 1990, but there was no relevant reference to the ninth decade of the 20th century. The 2020s starts in less than three months, but nobody really cares when the third decade of the 21st century starts. Just as the movie "2001: A Space Odyssey" was intended to be set set at the dawn of the third millennium, 2020 would complete the second decade of the millennium, but people don't refer to the decades as such. If it's 2020, it will be the '20s, whether it roars or not.

Making it even more arbitrary, the Anno Domini era, the years we go by, were converted from the old Roman Calendar after the fall of Rome. Dionysius the Humble, it is believed, didn't precisely line up the AD calendar to the birth of Christ, but was plus-or-minus four years of his target. (In 1968, I got into an argument with my Sunday School teacher about this, and believe I inspired him to start sleeping late on Sundays.) The organization issue goes beyond the fact that there was no year 0. When the year starts also is a bit arbitrary. It doesn't start at the winter solstice, but about a week later when it became clear to the European ancients that the days are getting longer again and the day wasn't going to disappear. Because they didn't have television, they had the time to build great stone circles to tell them there would be another growing season. Bishop Ussher might have started the year on Oct. 14 if he had his way. Thomas Boswell, on the other hand, has written that time begins on opening day. This could be 2015, but we agree that it's 2019, and we agree that Jan. 1 will begin the 2020s.

The '20s is easier to grasp than the third decade thing, so just about everyone will go with that. The exception might be the historian writing a history of White Sox and starting the first decade in 1901 with the birth of the American League.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 10-11-2019, 08:38 AM
Grzegorz Grzegorz is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Western Suburbs
Posts: 5,046
Default

"The letters CE or BCE in conjunction with a year mean after or before year 1.
  • CE is an abbreviation for Common Era.
  • BCE is short for Before Common Era.
The Common Era begins with year 1 in the Gregorian calendar."

https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar...they-mean.html

"On January 1, 2000, humankind celebrated the beginning of the new millennium—which was one year too early."

https://www.timeanddate.com/counters/mil2000.html

Jeez, this is what its come to...
__________________
“There were a few hard rules, but everybody was unique, and he understood that. George’s great strength was he didn’t overcoach. There’s no place for panic on the mound.” - Jim Palmer on George Bamberger “Arms and the man,” Sports Illustrated, April 19, 2004
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 10-11-2019, 08:41 AM
voodoochile's Avatar
voodoochile voodoochile is offline
Soda Jerk/U.P.W./Lester Pooh Bear
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 58,497
Blog Entries: 9
Default

Honestly it's not that important.

There was no year 0 so technically ever decade, century, millennium starts with the 1 year, but people are attached to years that end in 0 so that's when we celebrate.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 10-11-2019, 09:27 AM
Hitmen77 Hitmen77 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 13,415
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cub killer View Post
The millennium started 1-1-00. That's what everyone agreed to, only a small minority complains about that.

If it bothers you so much, just rename 1BC to year 0, problem solved. It wasn't known as 1BC when it happened, so it's gravy.

It's annoying when the "acshually" crowd chimes in on this issue every time. All the major celebrations happened the night of 12-31-99, and it was great, that's the way it should have been.

Happy new decade in 2 months, and happy new century to whoever exists 12-31-2099. Hopefully there won't be an "acshually" crowd by then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TDog View Post
It's all pretty much arbitrary. Academically, the 20th century is recognized as 1901 to 2000, but the 1900s ran from 1900 to 1999. The 1990s started in 1990, but there was no relevant reference to the ninth decade of the 20th century. The 2020s starts in less than three months, but nobody really cares when the third decade of the 21st century starts. Just as the movie "2001: A Space Odyssey" was intended to be set set at the dawn of the third millennium, 2020 would complete the second decade of the millennium, but people don't refer to the decades as such. If it's 2020, it will be the '20s, whether it roars or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by voodoochile View Post
Honestly it's not that important.

There was no year 0 so technically ever decade, century, millennium starts with the 1 year, but people are attached to years that end in 0 so that's when we celebrate.

Yeah, isn't a decade merely any 10-year period of time? It doesn't matter when the AD/CE era started, the "1970s" started on January 1, 1970 and ended on Dec. 31, 1979.

Likewise, a century is any 100-year period of time - which includes 1-1-1900 to 12-31-1999. However, people get nit-picky when we talk about "the 21st Century" because of questions about when the twenty full 100-year periods before the 21st Century actually begin and end. But, nobody refers to our current decade as the 202nd Decade of the Common Era - it is the 2010s....and this decade will come to an end on Dec. 31 of this year.

Agreed that it's not that important. But at least it's a change to pace from the same old doom and gloom about the FO, our free agency chances, Nick Madrigal's fatal flaws, blah, blah, blah, that has dominated this site in recent months and has been rehashed to death.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 10-11-2019, 10:05 AM
DumpJerry's Avatar
DumpJerry DumpJerry is offline
Tom Feargal Hagen
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The hearts and minds of Sox fans on 10-26-05
Posts: 28,268
Default

How many days until Pitchers and Catchers report?
__________________


2020....2020.....2020....2020....2020.....
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 10-11-2019, 04:45 PM
Frater Perdurabo Frater Perdurabo is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 20,727
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DumpJerry View Post
How many days until Pitchers and Catchers report?
It feels like a century.
__________________
The universe is the practical joke of the General at the expense of the Particular, quoth Frater Perdurabo, and laughed. The disciples nearest him wept, seeing the Universal Sorrow. Others laughed, seeing the Universal Joke. Others wept. Others laughed. Others wept because they couldn't see the Joke, and others laughed lest they should be thought not to see the Joke. But though FRATER laughed openly, he wept secretly; and really he neither laughed nor wept. Nor did he mean what he said.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 10-11-2019, 05:47 PM
TommyJohn TommyJohn is online now
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,918
Blog Entries: 384
Default

I remember seeing that Jesus was born in 4 B.C. I asked my 5th grade teacher at my school, which was Lutheran, how Jesus could be born four years before himself. I wish I could say that the sheer force of my personality drove him to quit, but it didn’t. He gave me a brief Cliff notes explanation of the calendar.

If we are talking about the White Sox, then technically their next decade starts in 2021, as their first year as a major league team was 1901. So their decades run 1901-1910, 1921-30, etc. If we are going 10-19, then their first decade is short by a year.

And Actually, the new millennium started 01/01/01. Everyone celebrated a year early. No biggie. Guess everyone was impatient.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 10-11-2019, 05:58 PM
FielderJones's Avatar
FielderJones FielderJones is offline
WSI Village Atheist
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Clarendon Hills
Posts: 6,115
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by voodoochile View Post
There was no year 0 so technically ever decade, century, millennium starts with the 1 year, but people are attached to years that end in 0 so that's when we celebrate.

Let's just go with the Holocene Calendar and get rid of negative years.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:45 PM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.