The fragility of some fans on this board recently...

[Greg Hibbard]

1 hour ago, Dick Allen said:

They have been beating Minnesota? I went by their entire schedule.  That is not picking and choosing. It's been soft.  Sorry that is a fact, and they still have one of the worst run differentials in MLB. 

The White Sox are great. They get ripped off, they only get to play Detroit and Kc 38 times. They would have made the wildcard in 1990 if they had one, and would have made the second wildcard in 2006. if it existed. A fan could not ask for more.

 

Dude, you questioned why the White Sox hadn’t won any wild cards in the time frame I’ve been citing for the last few pages, and now you’re making fun of me for responding to why they were good enough to have won wild cards if they were applicable. Great look. 

[Dick Allen]

Just now, Greg Hibbard said:

Dude, you questioned why the White Sox hadn’t won any wild cards in the time frame I’ve been citing for the last few pages, and now you’re making fun of me for responding to why they were good enough to have won wild cards if they were applicable. Great look. 

Because you can't win a wild card when there is no wild card. Since you said they were horrible forever, look at a year by year and tell me how many wildcards they would have made between 1951-1967? You wrote that period sucked. Great look. 

You must be related to Rick Hahn. Since he took over as GM, they are 145 games under .500. The closest they finished to winning was 16 1/2 games. This is year 7.  Where does that rank? It's pretty pathetic. 

[WBWSF]

10 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

Because you can't win a wild card when there is no wild card. Since you said they were horrible forever, look at a year by year and tell me how many wildcards they would have made between 1951-1967? You wrote that period sucked. Great look. 

You must be related to Rick Hahn. Since he took over as GM, they are 145 games under .500. The closest they finished to winning was 16 1/2 games. This is year 7.  Where does that rank? It's pretty pathetic. 

Its not only pathetic but it seems like this situation is accepted by JR. I guess if he's making nothing but money, the losing doesn't bother him.

[Bob Sacamano]

Whatever happened to SS2k5?

[Dick Allen]

2 minutes ago, soxfan2014 said:

Whatever happened to SS2k5?

He pretty much logged off after an epic back and back with rabbit.

[Kyyle23]

Just now, Dick Allen said:

He pretty much logged off after an epic back and back with rabbit.

That had absolutely zero to do with it.   He actually had a pretty significant job opportunity that he jumped at

[Greg Hibbard]

27 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

Because you can't win a wild card when there is no wild card. Since you said they were horrible forever, look at a year by year and tell me how many wildcards they would have made between 1951-1967? You wrote that period sucked. Great look. 

You must be related to Rick Hahn. Since he took over as GM, they are 145 games under .500. The closest they finished to winning was 16 1/2 games. This is year 7.  Where does that rank? It's pretty pathetic. 

This is my point. When you challenged "why haven't they won more wild cards during that era?"  I provided a reasonable explanation as to WHY (because they didn't exist or they would have in some cases). That is a reasonable RESPONSE to YOUR question? I'm not the one who thinks winning the wild card even MATTERS. The answer to YOUR questions is that for the first FIVE seasons of those 23 years they COULDN'T. For the rest of that era there was no second wildcard so they COULDN'T win that either. If it existed, they WOULD have. Jeez.

As for 1951-1967, what I specifically meant to say was that they largely sucked for 60 years between 19 and 83. I stand by that statement. Go ahead and grab the preceding 6 seasons before 1951 (1945-50) or the six seasons after (1968-1973) and tell me which era you want as your 23 years to go up against the one I've been championing.

In the first six years of that '51-'67 era, they finished 4th and then 3rd five times in a row. Out of 8 teams. When you get to beat up on the 50s Washington Senators a million times a season, of course you're going to have a huge W-L differential. '60-'62? 3rd, 4th, 5th - in expansion years where there were absolute doormats getting rolled over. The last two years of that era? 4th twice. Context matters.

Edited July 30, 2019 by Greg Hibbard

[Dick Allen]

10 minutes ago, Greg Hibbard said:

This is my point. When you challenged "why haven't they won more wild cards during that era?"  I provided a reasonable explanation as to WHY (because they didn't exist or they would have in some cases). That is a reasonable RESPONSE to YOUR question? I'm not the one who thinks winning the wild card even MATTERS. The answer to YOUR questions is that for the first FIVE seasons of those 23 years they COULDN'T. For the rest of that era there was no second wildcard so they COULDN'T win that either. If it existed, they WOULD have. Jeez.

As for 1951-1967, what I specifically meant to say was that they largely sucked for 60 years between 19 and 83. I stand by that statement. Go ahead and grab the preceding 6 seasons before 1951 (1945-50) or the six seasons after (1968-1973) and tell me which era you want as your 23 years to go up against the one I've been championing.

In the first six years of that '51-'67 era, they finished 4th and then 3rd five times in a row. Out of 8 teams. When you get to beat up on the 50s Washington Senators a million times a season, of course you're going to have a huge W-L differential. '60-'62? 3rd, 4th, 5th - in expansion years where there were absolute doormats getting rolled over. The last two years of that era? 4th twice. Context matters.

Again, I just thought it odd they have never won a WC. They have had to win the division to get to the playoffs despite being in a division that usually has 2 or 3 teams that are horrible, They had 17 winning seasons in a row, with a better winning pct. than your the White Sox are so great era, and you focus on the period before it and after it yet rip on people that are focusing on the period after they were decent or before they are hopefully decent.  The fact is, overall, in the 39 seasons JR has owned the team, it's been very mediocre overall. Right around .500, very few playoff appearances, and 1 title .

[caulfield12]

15 minutes ago, Greg Hibbard said:

This is my point. When you challenged "why haven't they won more wild cards during that era?"  I provided a reasonable explanation as to WHY (because they didn't exist or they would have in some cases). That is a reasonable RESPONSE to YOUR question? I'm not the one who thinks winning the wild card even MATTERS. The answer to YOUR questions is that for the first FIVE seasons of those 23 years they COULDN'T. For the rest of that era there was no second wildcard so they COULDN'T win that either. If it existed, they WOULD have. Jeez.

As for 1951-1967, what I specifically meant to say was that they largely sucked for 60 years between 19 and 83. I stand by that statement. Go ahead and grab the preceding 6 seasons before 1951 (1945-50) or the six seasons after (1968-1973) and tell me which era you want as your 23 years to go up against the one I've been championing.

In the first six years of that '51-'67 era, they finished 4th and then 3rd five times in a row. Out of 8 teams. When you get to beat up on the 50s Washington Senators a million times a season, of course you're going to have a huge W-L differential. '60-'62? 3rd, 4th, 5th - in expansion years where there were absolute doormats getting rolled over. The last two years of that era? 4th twice. Context matters.

4th and 3rd out of 8-10 teams (including one of the true dynasties of American sports in the Yankees) doesn’t sound that bad right now.

[Lip Man 1]

15 minutes ago, Greg Hibbard said:

This is my point. When you challenged "why haven't they won more wild cards during that era?"  I provided a reasonable explanation as to WHY (because they didn't exist or they would have in some cases). That is a reasonable RESPONSE to YOUR question? I'm not the one who thinks winning the wild card even MATTERS. The answer to YOUR questions is that for the first FIVE seasons of those 23 years they COULDN'T. For the rest of that era there was no second wildcard so they COULDN'T win that either. If it existed, they WOULD have. Jeez.

As for 1951-1967, what I specifically meant to say was that they largely sucked for 60 years between 19 and 83. I stand by that statement. Go ahead and grab the preceding 6 seasons before 1951 (1945-50) or the six seasons after (1968-1973) and tell me which era you want as your 23 years to go up against the one I've been championing.

In the first six years of that '51-'67 era, they finished 4th and then 3rd five times in a row. Out of 8 teams. When you get to beat up on the 50s Washington Senators a million times a season, of course you're going to have a huge W-L differential. '60-'62? 3rd, 4th, 5th - in expansion years where there were absolute doormats getting rolled over. The last two years of that era? 4th twice. Context matters.

In my opinion the "Golden Age" of the White Sox franchise was the time period from 1951-1967. Over and above the obvious, the fact that they had 17 straight winning seasons (4th longest in MLB history I believe if I remember right), they had seven years winning 90+ games (and for much of that stretch they only played 154 games), they also had numerous star players (look at the number of All-Stars in that period back when making the game meant something), they were usually in a race against the Yankee Dynasty teams (players from Moose Skowron to Tony Kubek all said the one team the Yankees had to be concerned about year after year were the White Sox), they outdrew the Cubs in 16 of those 17 seasons sometimes by a wide margin and unlike today, the Sox got the lion's share of media coverage.

That's a time period that's hard to beat.  It wasn't those clubs fault that MLB didn't have expanded / watered down playoffs during that time period and that they had to face perhaps the greatest dynsaty in baseball history a la the Yankees during that stretch..

[Greg Hibbard]

9 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

4th and 3rd out of 8-10 teams (including one of the true dynasties of American sports in the Yankees) doesn’t sound that bad right now.

Just before the all star break we were like 6th or 7th out of 15 AL teams.

[Hatchetman]

from 53-67 we had a combined .567 winning %. that's 92 wins/year over 162 games.

[chitownsportsfan]

8 minutes ago, Hatchetman said:

from 53-67 we had a combined .567 winning %. that's 92 wins/year over 162 games.

So for most of us the teams our fathers grew up on.   That sort of success breeds new fans and it's long overdue on the South Side.

Edited July 30, 2019 by chitownsportsfan

[Jerksticks]

I felt like every year between 2000-2012 we had a really good, exciting team on paper with a legit chance to make a run.

 

Fuck Thomas’s triceps injury and fuck TCQ for ruining his career & fuck JFP’s back and just fuck Dunt.   

[chitownsportsfan]

3 minutes ago, Jerksticks said:

I felt like every year between 2000-2012 we had a really good, exciting team on paper with a legit chance to make a run.

 

Fuck Thomas’s triceps injury and fuck TCQ for ruining his career & fuck JFP’s back and just fuck Dunt.   

we've had some real knuckleheads lately.   Fucking rageaholics and spazzes and just plain nutty.   TCQ, Sale, Eaton and LaRoche.

[Greg Hibbard]

40 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said:

In my opinion the "Golden Age" of the White Sox franchise was the time period from 1951-1967. Over and above the obvious, the fact that they had 17 straight winning seasons (4th longest in MLB history I believe if I remember right), they had seven years winning 90+ games (and for much of that stretch they only played 154 games), they also had numerous star players (look at the number of All-Stars in that period back when making the game meant something), they were usually in a race against the Yankee Dynasty teams (players from Moose Skowron to Tony Kubek all said the one team the Yankees had to be concerned about year after year were the White Sox), they outdrew the Cubs in 16 of those 17 seasons sometimes by a wide margin and unlike today, the Sox got the lion's share of media coverage.

That's a time period that's hard to beat.  It wasn't those clubs fault that MLB didn't have expanded / watered down playoffs during that time period and that they had to face perhaps the greatest dynsaty in baseball history a la the Yankees during that stretch..

I wasn't alive in that era, so I don't have the insight, but I appreciate the perspective.

[GermanSoxFan]

6 minutes ago, chitownsportsfan said:

we've had some real knuckleheads lately.   Fucking rageaholics and spazzes and just plain nutty.   TCQ, Sale, Eaton and LaRoche.

Total shocker that the 2016 clubhouse was such a mess.

[chitownsportsfan]

Just now, GermanSoxFan said:

Total shocker that the 2016 clubhouse was such a mess.

Yea strong personalities and a weak one in the manager's office.  It's regrettable that JR and his team sullied a lot of fans' memories of RV by installing him as the manager when he clearly wasn't up for it.

[southsideirish71]

17 minutes ago, chitownsportsfan said:

Yea strong personalities and a weak one in the manager's office.  It's regrettable that JR and his team sullied a lot of fans' memories of RV by installing him as the manager when he clearly wasn't up for it.

Robin Ventura was one of my favorite players and still is.  What he did as a player should be completely divorced from what he did as a manager.  I disliked Robin as a manager.  I was glad when he didn't come back.  Sometimes our favorite hero's are not good managers. Its a different skillset.  

[Dan of Steel]

5 hours ago, Dick Allen said:

Uh, the season started at the end of March, not June 10th. They have already played KC 16 times. They are done with Baltimore, done with Seattle, done with Toronto. Their overall schedule has been soft. Pick and choose all you want, that was a tough stretch, but the fact remains, you would rather have them face KC and Detroit the rest of the way  than Cleveland and Minnesota if you are looking for wins.

And who said the Sox were headed to the cellar? Have you looked at Detroit and KC? 

 

There was an entire thread dedicated to that stretch and most anticipated that the Sox would be lucky to finish better than 7-15 during that stretch. 

That's far from "picking and choose". 22 games is about a quarter of the season up until the break, with the team near .500. That was the point. 

[Thad Bosley]

10 hours ago, Kyyle23 said:

Thad is still here, fan o faust 

[Chicago White Sox]

Just now, Fan O'Faust said:

Change it back, these name changes are confusing as fuck!

[Thad Bosley]

10 hours ago, Hatchetman said:

Oh, good I was worried he died or something. Dick and SS2k5 used to badger him endlessly.

Present and accounted for, Hatchetman!   

[Thad Bosley]

1 minute ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Change it back, these name changes are confusing as fuck!

Yeah, I know.  I didn’t intend to change it, it just happened when the site was upgraded.  

[Chicago White Sox]

3 minutes ago, Fan O'Faust said:

Yeah, I know.  I didn’t intend to change it, it just happened when the site was upgraded.  

But I believe you can change it yourself on the account settings page!  Just do it!