Lip Man 1 Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 51 minutes ago, TaylorStSox said: When I grew up, the Sox sucked. When my dad grew up, the Sox sucked. When his dad grew up. Fhe Sox sucked. We've always been one of the worst, if not the worst, organizations in sports. From 1951 through 1967 the Sox had 17 straight winning seasons. Six or seven of those, can't remember, included years where they won 90+ games. They outdrew the Cubs in 16 of those 17 years. During that time the Cubs were an afterthought. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 https://chicago.suntimes.com/white-sox/2024/04/25/white-sox-pedro-grifol-knows-the-managers-seat-is-a-hot-one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 Pedro being Pedro: Lee catching on The combination of 37-year-old Martin Maldonado’s .048 batting average with 25-year-old Korey Lee’s .279 average and .791 OPS as well as Lee’s superior defense resulted in Lee catching three of four games of the series, including Thursday’s day game after a night game. “I want to get him in there a little bit more consistently,” Grifol said. “At the same time I want to make sure he’s developing at the right pace and not trying to do too much too soon.” Lee struck out with Robbie Grossman on third in the second inning, but finished with two hits. He made a sliding catch near the dugout in the bottom of the inning. Grifol said Lee workload would be “inconsistent.” “Sometimes he’ll play three out of four, sometimes he’ll play two out of four. Sometimes he might play one out of four. It all depends how he’s coming along on his development and the things that he’s got to work on.” 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaylorStSox Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 20 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said: From 1951 through 1967 the Sox had 17 straight winning seasons. Six or seven of those, can't remember, included years where they won 90+ games. They outdrew the Cubs in 16 of those 17 years. During that time the Cubs were an afterthought. They never won a thing during that stretch and the franchise has always been known as a loser franchise. Chicago White Sox - "at least we aren't the Clippers" The Cubs success has nothing to do with winning and everything to do with Lakeview becoming the premier neighborhood for postgrad Midwestern transplants. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaylorStSox Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 Skip work, get day drunk and go laugh at the "lovable losers." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waltwilliams Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 1 minute ago, TaylorStSox said: They never won a thing during that stretch and the franchise has always been known as a loser franchise. Chicago White Sox - "at least we aren't the Clippers" The Cubs success has nothing to do with winning and everything to do with Lakeview becoming the premier neighborhood for postgrad Midwestern transplants. They went to the World Series in 1959. It was much harder to get to the postseason in the 50s and 60s. There were no playoffs back then, just the regular season decided the AL and NL champs. Most of those 50s/60s teams would have made the playoffs under the current system. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaylorStSox Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 3 minutes ago, waltwilliams said: They went to the World Series in 1959. It was much harder to get to the postseason in the 50s and 60s. There were no playoffs back then, just the regular season decided the AL and NL champs. Most of those 50s/60s teams would have made the playoffs under the current system. They went to the World Series once, when there were only 16 teams in the league. I'm not trying to s%*# on the Sox, only the idea that Chicago is somehow above this. This city is home to the Bears, Cubs and Sox. All 3 franchisers are loser franchisers and known as loser franchises. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waltwilliams Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 4 minutes ago, TaylorStSox said: They went to the World Series once, when there were only 16 teams in the league. I'm not trying to s%*# on the Sox, only the idea that Chicago is somehow above this. This city is home to the Bears, Cubs and Sox. All 3 franchisers are loser franchisers and known as loser franchises. I don't disagree on the overall losing culture of Chicago teams, but those 50s/60s Sox teams were actually really good. They just had the misfortune (like everyone else in the league) of playing at the same time as the NY Yankees of the 50s and 60s, when they were at their most dominant. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 It worked great the last time we hired a guy who hadn't managed in a decade. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 30 minutes ago, waltwilliams said: They went to the World Series in 1959. It was much harder to get to the postseason in the 50s and 60s. There were no playoffs back then, just the regular season decided the AL and NL champs. Most of those 50s/60s teams would have made the playoffs under the current system. Exactly correct. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tray Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 (edited) 5 hours ago, TaylorStSox said: They never won a thing during that stretch and the franchise has always been known as a loser franchise. Chicago White Sox - "at least we aren't the Clippers" The Cubs success has nothing to do with winning and everything to do with Lakeview becoming the premier neighborhood for postgrad Midwestern transplants. As many older fans who post here recall, the Cubs gained popularity during a stretch where their games were broadcast on WGN and when Harry switched from the Sox to the Cubs. We had a tough time watching Sox games on scrambled broadcasts and in many cases, over pirated de-scramblers. As far as the yuppie demographics in Lakeview, good for them, but that is not our fan base.. WSox fans are good people of every kind from every corner of an enormous City and Metropolitan area. This post was revealing though. I am now beginning to understand the Cubfan mindset. It sounds like some of them think that trying to replicate what you describe for the WSox might be a good idea. They know Lakeview, but have no idea about our fan base and frankly, I could care less. Edited April 26 by tray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 6 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said: Pedro being Pedro: Lee catching on The combination of 37-year-old Martin Maldonado’s .048 batting average with 25-year-old Korey Lee’s .279 average and .791 OPS as well as Lee’s superior defense resulted in Lee catching three of four games of the series, including Thursday’s day game after a night game. “I want to get him in there a little bit more consistently,” Grifol said. “At the same time I want to make sure he’s developing at the right pace and not trying to do too much too soon.” Lee struck out with Robbie Grossman on third in the second inning, but finished with two hits. He made a sliding catch near the dugout in the bottom of the inning. Grifol said Lee workload would be “inconsistent.” “Sometimes he’ll play three out of four, sometimes he’ll play two out of four. Sometimes he might play one out of four. It all depends how he’s coming along on his development and the things that he’s got to work on.” Pedro is so. fucking. stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Mite Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 (edited) 11 hours ago, TaylorStSox said: They went to the World Series once, when there were only 16 teams in the league. I'm not trying to s%*# on the Sox, only the idea that Chicago is somehow above this. This city is home to the Bears, Cubs and Sox. All 3 franchisers are loser franchisers and known as loser franchises. The Bears haven’t done well in the Super Bowl era but they are 2nd in the NFL in Championships won with 9, the Packers are first with 13. The Bears are also 2nd in games won with 793 victories with the Packers winning 799. Edited April 26 by The Mighty Mite 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaylorStSox Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 (edited) 5 hours ago, The Mighty Mite said: The Bears haven’t done well in the Super Bowl era but they are 2nd in the NFL in Championships won with 9, the Packers are first with 13. The Bears are also 2nd in games won with 793 victories with the Packers winning 799. The Super Bowl era started 57 years ago. The Bears are a historically bad franchise. If you want to count the era where the Bears were beating up on the Dayton Triangles, Rochester Jeffersons and Rock Island Independents, go for it. I doubt anyone else is going to find it relevant. Edited April 26 by TaylorStSox 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baseball_gal_aly Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 (edited) 5 hours ago, TaylorStSox said: The Super Bowl era started 57 years ago. The Bears are a historically bad franchise. If you want to count the era where the Bears were beating up on the Dayton Triangles, Rochester Jeffersons and Rock Island Independents, go for it. I doubt anyone else is going to find it relevant. There are two eras of the NFL Anything before 1966 and everything afterwards. Nobody cares about the before times. Edited April 26 by baseball_gal_aly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts