Meaningless, Meaningful Baseball

[witesoxfan]

http://deadspin.com/meaningless-meaningful...-bas-1331509794

 

Posting in here because it is mostly about the White Sox. It really is a pretty accurate portrayal of all and everything there is to the White Sox organization, and there's a lot worth thinking about from it too.

[Buehrle>Wood]

"That there were perhaps 2,000 spectators in the park in time for the scheduled first pitch, "

 

 

Not even remotely true. Much much more than that. What a liar.

[Steve9347]

That article is horrendously written and apparently not proofed.

[LittleHurt05]

Most of his points about the Sox were dead-on accurate I must say.

 

 

[bmags]

Yeah, totally agree. But the idea that chicago is more self conscious of their standing than say, St. Louis, is insane.

[My_Sox_Summer]

I thought it was a good read. Had some questionable areas but overall pretty much how I feel.

[witesoxfan]

Most of his points about the Sox were dead-on accurate I must say.

 

This was why I posted it. A lot of it really did seem to hit a lot of the points we talk about here on the ball.

 

The 2,000 people thing, that seems to be exaggeration more than anything else but I can't imagine it was a big crowd for that game.

[Jake]

I read it and it was okay. Like others have said, there is quite a bit of objectionable material.

 

The rips on Chicago are (at least) unnecessary, saying "Sox Park" was kind of weird, and I thought it was very interesting to say that we are a history-less franchise. There are franchises with more, to be sure, but we have been around forever and the White Sox franchise has done lots of things to leave a mark on baseball - dominating in the early 20th century, then the Black Sox, Bill Veeck, the marquee players to come through in the past 30 years (Big Frank most notably), and then...the thing NEVER MENTIONED in the article...we won the World Series 8 years ago!

 

That isn't ancient history and to paint us a franchise that is the Cubs' pathetic little brother is silly because this franchise has accomplished something in the very recent past and we did it with a style that he thinks is useless for a winner.

 

His primary concern, the state of the baseball fan and the in-game experience, is completely left behind because there is so much other bulls*** included. It comes off as an incoherent ramble instead of a harbinger of doom or whatever it was he was looking for.

[winninguglyin83]

incredibly self-indulgent -- and unnecessarily long.

 

As if Chicago is the only city in the country with an expressway running through the middle of town, close to the ballpark.

 

As if the Sox are the only team that employs a former player (Girardi, Gardenhire, Matheny, Weiss) as the manager.

 

The live audience is irrelevant? That's not a problem limited to baseball. Athletic directors at SEC schools have one of the most beloved football products on the market -- and they're worried about that.

 

I could go on.

 

The story was better than 59-91, but not much.

[ewokpelts]

Article written by a stupid.

 

 

Also, I love how the writer implies that a well over a century old rail line and a super highway is an example of how white people like to be walled off from black people.

[ewokpelts]

Also, PLENTY of teams have statues and memorials for players lesser than Harold or Pierce.

[witesoxfan]

Glad everyone's a critic.

 

Perhaps I should have pointed out this part and how accurate and spot on I felt it was

 

This comes up because the sad, frustrating, and endearing thing about the White Sox is that they generally do things the right way, and yet things never quite come out right for them. They're loyal but not sentimental, prudent but willing to take a calculated risk, and really they spend more than they should, when you consider that the Cubs draw from the better off parts of town and the wealthy suburbs, leaving the Sox a market that looks a lot more like some dying locus of Rust Belt ruin porn than a fantastically rich center of global commodity trading and such. They make good moves on the free-agent market, like signing Adam Dunn; they draft polished players, like Gordon Beckham; and they import talented internationals, like Alexei Ramirez—and all being sound bets, they all end up f***ing up. This is a team that's had a few chances and just flat missed, and not really because of anything anyone running the club did wrong. Sometimes players don't do what you think they'll do.

 

Yes, there are some details in that paragraph that are surely incorrect, but it's pretty spot on and fits the Sox.

Edited September 18, 2013 by witesoxfan

[ewokpelts]

It's a deadspin article. It's all about the clicks and "controversy".

 

That said, Sox do a lot right. They also have a lot of TSB (typical sox bulls***) moments. But the writer dosent really know what he wants to point out more, aside from how sox fans apparently hate black people.

[bmags]

Article written by a stupid.

 

 

Also, I love how the writer implies that a well over a century old rail line and a super highway is an example of how white people like to be walled off from black people.

 

I'm sorry to mods for direction this could take. But, there is much of Chicago political history and "urban renewal" that supports the authors take over yours. Chicagos neighborhoods aren't the way they are because of preference.

[bmags]

Glad everyone's a critic.

 

Perhaps I should have pointed out this part and how accurate and spot on I felt it was

 

 

 

Yes, there are some details in that paragraph that are surely incorrect, but it's pretty spot on and fits the Sox.

 

I'm surprised negative reaction article article is getting. i thought it was pretty spot on. I came from a household that had AL loyalty and came from baltimore. So growing up we didn't have built-in history from parents that were there. I soaked in history of Bears, Bulls, Hawks pretty easily. Sox though, to me it's like they began in 1992 when I first consciously started watchin.g

[Jake]

Glad everyone's a critic.

 

Perhaps I should have pointed out this part and how accurate and spot on I felt it was

 

 

 

Yes, there are some details in that paragraph that are surely incorrect, but it's pretty spot on and fits the Sox.

 

That was definitely not a paragraph I had a problem with -- though I feel the fact that he left out our recent WS win (which many casual baseball fans may have forgotten) made that paragraph seem unnecessarily bleak. We aren't a franchise that hasn't had any success. We're just one that is in a bad spot right now, not a 100 year bad spot like some other clubs

 

 

I'm sorry to mods for direction this could take. But, there is much of Chicago political history and "urban renewal" that supports the authors take over yours. Chicagos neighborhoods aren't the way they are because of preference.

 

Yes, there is a long history of public policy that has made Chicago the most segregated city in the USA and it has been that way for a long time, even when there were other cities using legal segregation tactics.

 

[witesoxfan]

I do agree that I wish he'd mentioned the World Series, but that's one thing Sox fans hang on to as well, similar to the Bears and '85. I honestly don't see a lot of Bulls fans reminiscing about the 90s, but the second someone even begins to describe LeBron as the best in the game, a Bulls fan will always preface it with "RIGHT NOW."

 

Still, how many people hold Joe Crede and Aaron Rowand in high regard simply due to that World Series? They weren't bad players, but, if not for a World Series, they shouldn't be players that are celebrated forever. I think he really hurt his article by not mentioning that.

 

(oh, and of course Deadspin wants hits - what website doesn't? - but they are merely about producing good articles, and that has fallen off to some extent in recent years, even if it is still one of my favorite sites)

[Jake]

Honestly, the thing that Deadspin is doing to piss me off is the constant stuff about concussions. They are just beating Goodell over the head with this stuff, criticizing every new policy, etc.

 

I am okay with talking about the concussion problem. Unfortunately, the more we learn about concussions the more the issue (CTE, not concussions in general) appears to be unavoidable. Rules about hits may not reduce concussions at all and Deadspin is happy to point this out. Helmets do almost nothing to reduce concussions. Deadspin is happy to point that out. The current state of research indicates that most of the damaging blows do not cause actual concussions. Much like we think of with a boxer, the accumulation of sub-concussive blows over time is what causes this problem.

 

So, Deadspin says they are anti-concussions (basically), but they are not anti-NFL (not to be confused with anti-Goodell). NFL fans make up a big part of their users. The more we learn about CTE, unfortunately, the more it appears the only way to reduce this risk significantly enough is to stop playing football. I can entertain THIS conversation, but Deadspin won't. They're just flinging s***.

[bmags]

I do agree that I wish he'd mentioned the World Series, but that's one thing Sox fans hang on to as well, similar to the Bears and '85. I honestly don't see a lot of Bulls fans reminiscing about the 90s, but the second someone even begins to describe LeBron as the best in the game, a Bulls fan will always preface it with "RIGHT NOW."

 

Still, how many people hold Joe Crede and Aaron Rowand in high regard simply due to that World Series? They weren't bad players, but, if not for a World Series, they shouldn't be players that are celebrated forever. I think he really hurt his article by not mentioning that.

 

(oh, and of course Deadspin wants hits - what website doesn't? - but they are merely about producing good articles, and that has fallen off to some extent in recent years, even if it is still one of my favorite sites)

 

I'm not sure I agree that Bulls fans don't hold onto the 90s, but it certainly is different. I don't know, I think because a world series win seemed so impossible in Chicago that it holds a different type of reverence.

[witesoxfan]

Honestly, the thing that Deadspin is doing to piss me off is the constant stuff about concussions. They are just beating Goodell over the head with this stuff, criticizing every new policy, etc.

 

I am okay with talking about the concussion problem. Unfortunately, the more we learn about concussions the more the issue (CTE, not concussions in general) appears to be unavoidable. Rules about hits may not reduce concussions at all and Deadspin is happy to point this out. Helmets do almost nothing to reduce concussions. Deadspin is happy to point that out. The current state of research indicates that most of the damaging blows do not cause actual concussions. Much like we think of with a boxer, the accumulation of sub-concussive blows over time is what causes this problem.

 

So, Deadspin says they are anti-concussions (basically), but they are not anti-NFL (not to be confused with anti-Goodell). NFL fans make up a big part of their users. The more we learn about CTE, unfortunately, the more it appears the only way to reduce this risk significantly enough is to stop playing football. I can entertain THIS conversation, but Deadspin won't. They're just flinging s***.

 

Generally, they're critical of Goodell and the higher ups within the NFL, and some of it is justified. Offhand, I think of the way they try and cut down on these silly celebration penalties is one they reamed them pretty good for, but regarding concussions, I get the feel that they view Goodell as a hypocrite in that he wants to limit them but increase regular season games to 18.

 

Their obsession with ESPN is over the top too. Yes, ESPN sucks. Leave it at that.

 

I still enjoy the website quite a bit though, and the Jambaroos, FunBags, and FeedBags are sweet. I love Burneko.

 

I'm not sure I agree that Bulls fans don't hold onto the 90s, but it certainly is different. I don't know, I think because a world series win seemed so impossible in Chicago that it holds a different type of reverence.

 

I'm guessing I miss some of this because I'm not from Chicago, but there is just a different feel between the Bears, Bulls, and Sox championships. You can't even compare the Blackhawks because that one simply has not worn off yet.

 

The Cubs suck, so I don't even care about them

[iamshack]

Hah, that was hilarious. I actually thought the writing was pretty good, despite a few ticky-tack things.

 

As for holding on to Championships, what the hell else are we supposed to do? We are sports fans.

[Jake]

Don't get me wrong, I do like Deadspin. Just thought I'd throw that in there. I spend lots of time on Deadspin/Gawker/Lifehacker/Gizmodo

[southsider2k5]

I do agree that I wish he'd mentioned the World Series, but that's one thing Sox fans hang on to as well, similar to the Bears and '85. I honestly don't see a lot of Bulls fans reminiscing about the 90s, but the second someone even begins to describe LeBron as the best in the game, a Bulls fan will always preface it with "RIGHT NOW."

 

Still, how many people hold Joe Crede and Aaron Rowand in high regard simply due to that World Series? They weren't bad players, but, if not for a World Series, they shouldn't be players that are celebrated forever. I think he really hurt his article by not mentioning that.

 

(oh, and of course Deadspin wants hits - what website doesn't? - but they are merely about producing good articles, and that has fallen off to some extent in recent years, even if it is still one of my favorite sites)

 

Every city does this for their folk heroes. It isn't just a Chicago thing. A few places have bigger names to look back on because of their history, but most have as many irrelevant players in their history as we do.

[LittleHurt05]

Every city does this for their folk heroes. It isn't just a Chicago thing. A few places have bigger names to look back on because of their history, but most have as many irrelevant players in their history as we do.

 

Look at Boston. They have tons of championships, yet there are tons of s***ty role players that they cherish like gods.

[Rowand44]

Still, how many people hold Joe Crede and Aaron Rowand in high regard simply due to that World Series? They weren't bad players, but, if not for a World Series, they shouldn't be players that are celebrated forever. I think he really hurt his article by not mentioning that.

Rowand and Crede were kind of White Sox legends before the World Series though as well. People fell in love with Joe because he was "clutch" and Aaron because he ran into a lot of things. Obviously the World Series helped a lot with their legends(especially Crede) but they were both beloved members of the Sox before it.